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
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS