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
When US budget carrier Southwest Airlines last week announced a new partnership with China Airlines, Southwest’s social media were filled with comments from travelers excited by the new opportunity to visit China. Of course, China Airlines is not based in China, but in Taiwan, and the new partnership connects Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport with 30 cities across the US. At a time when China is increasing efforts on all fronts to falsely label Taiwan as “China” in all arenas, Taiwan does itself no favors by having its flagship carrier named China Airlines. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs is eager to jump at
The muting of the line “I’m from Taiwan” (我台灣來欸), sung in Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), during a performance at the closing ceremony of the World Masters Games in New Taipei City on May 31 has sparked a public outcry. The lyric from the well-known song All Eyes on Me (世界都看見) — originally written and performed by Taiwanese hip-hop group Nine One One (玖壹壹) — was muted twice, while the subtitles on the screen showed an alternate line, “we come here together” (阮作伙來欸), which was not sung. The song, performed at the ceremony by a cheerleading group, was the theme
Secretary of State Marco Rubio raised eyebrows recently when he declared the era of American unipolarity over. He described America’s unrivaled dominance of the international system as an anomaly that was created by the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War. Now, he observed, the United States was returning to a more multipolar world where there are great powers in different parts of the planet. He pointed to China and Russia, as well as “rogue states like Iran and North Korea” as examples of countries the United States must contend with. This all begs the question:
In China, competition is fierce, and in many cases suppliers do not get paid on time. Rather than improving, the situation appears to be deteriorating. BYD Co, the world’s largest electric vehicle manufacturer by production volume, has gained notoriety for its harsh treatment of suppliers, raising concerns about the long-term sustainability. The case also highlights the decline of China’s business environment, and the growing risk of a cascading wave of corporate failures. BYD generally does not follow China’s Negotiable Instruments Law when settling payments with suppliers. Instead the company has created its own proprietary supply chain finance system called the “D-chain,” through which
RSS