The devastation caused by the flash floods in Valencia, Spain, last year was so surreal that some images sparked a global debate over their authenticity. In an era when artificial intelligence (AI) technology can produce hyper-realistic fakes, photographs showing cars piled haphazardly atop one another in narrow, mud-filled streets seemed almost too shocking to be true.
Tragically, the images were all too real.
For years, climate activists believed that once the direct impact of climate change became undeniable — not just in the global south, but everywhere — popular pressure for political and corporate action would surge. And indeed, polls show overwhelming public support for bold climate measures.
However, now that the long-anticipated moment has arrived, an equally urgent challenge has emerged: The information ecosystem we rely on to understand the world has become dangerously polluted.
The pollution metaphor is apt because it captures the chaotic and toxic nature of today’s information landscape, which is controlled by a handful of powerful companies that commodify attention and inundate our feeds with “AI slop” — low-quality, machine-generated content designed to mislead, distract and distort.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the climate change debate. While climate misinformation has long been a concern, often mutating into full-blown conspiracy theories, the situation has deteriorated to such an extent that the term “misinformation” no longer reflects the scale, complexity or urgency of the threat, much less points to potential solutions.
It is often said that the technologies needed to combat climate change already exist and that what is missing is the political will to deploy them.
However, while technology might be sold as the key to solving the crisis, it is also being used to slow the momentum needed to address it. Tech oligarchs with deep government ties and vested financial interests control the platforms that shape public opinion, enabling them to influence not just environmental policy, but the conversation about it.
As AI accelerates the global information crisis, climate issues are increasingly swept up in culture wars. This is further fueled by data brokers that treat users’ views about climate change as proxies for political identity, thereby reinforcing echo chambers and deepening polarization in the service of selling targeted ads.
During last year’s Atlantic hurricane season, user-generated content on Instagram and TikTok shifted from documenting the destruction to amplifying conspiracy theories about weather manipulation and secret geoengineering projects, stoking fear and destabilizing an already fragile information environment. A similar dynamic played out during the recent power outages in Spain and Portugal, where misleading narratives blaming renewable-energy sources spread rapidly before any official investigation could determine the cause. Such rumors often lead to threats and harassment of scientists and activists, creating a chilling effect on research and advocacy.
To be sure, rhetoric opposing climate action comes mostly from a loud minority, but it is being amplified by a media environment that thrives on outrage. Worse, the convergence of interests among far-right ideologues, Big Tech and Big Oil — all of which profit from climate chaos, information pollution and political instability — is contributing to the rise of “dirty tech,” and accelerating the erosion of democracy and the rule of law.
In the US, the tech sector’s growing proximity to far-right politics has highlighted the role of platforms that shape public discourse and, by extension, the future of climate action. Civil-society groups that focus on digital rights and democratic advocacy have been grappling with these issues for years. Yet, the problem has fragmented, making it far more difficult to contain.
With power concentrated in the hands of those profiting from information pollution, it can feel as though we are at a dead end, but as disorienting as today’s social-media ecosystem might be, the sources — much like those of environmental pollution — can be identified, enabling accountability. Europe’s new digital rule book, which includes recent legislation on digital services, competition, data protection and AI, as well as the recent proposal of a “European Democracy Shield” to counter foreign information interreference, are vital first steps toward addressing the systemic effects of misinformation and the impact of Big Tech’s business models on public debate.
Still, the effectiveness of these regulations remains to be seen and as enforcement stops at Europe’s borders, further action is needed. Demonetizing climate disinformation and applying the “polluter pays” principle to the digital realm could help hold tech companies and advertisers accountable for the harm they inflict on the climate information ecosystem.
Protecting freedom of expression means defending the right to speak freely and the right to receive accurate, undistorted information. If we fail to confront information pollution head-on, we risk not just stalling climate progress, but reversing it altogether.
That said, good information does not rise to the top on its own. Those working to combat climate change and resist speculative technofixes like geoengineering can no longer rely solely on reaching wider audiences or refining their message.
Instead, climate activists must join forces with digital democracy advocates to challenge the algorithm-driven business models fueling the twin crises of climate breakdown and information pollution. The full consequences of these converging crises are only beginning to emerge, but in the absence of concerted action, the writing is on the wall.
Lili Fuhr is director of the Fossil Economy Program at the Center for International Environmental Law. Stephanie Hankey, cofounder and codirector of Tactical Tech, is a visiting professor at the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS