Climate Denial Resurges as UN Climate Talks Struggle to Build Consensus

When nearly 200 nations signed the 2015 Paris Agreement, acknowledging the threat of rising global temperatures and vowing action, many hoped that the era of climate denial was finally over. A decade later, climate denial has returned with unprecedented force, posing a serious challenge to global climate action.

As delegates concluded the annual United Nations climate talks in Belém, Brazil last Saturday, climate campaigners expressed growing alarm that forces opposing them are gaining significant ground in the public information space. The final statement of the conference notably avoided using the phrase “fossil fuels” altogether.

“We thought that good ideas would get people to act,” lamented J. Timmons Roberts, a researcher at Brown University and executive director of its Climate Social Science Network. “In fact, there’s been a quite systematic campaign that’s been sophisticated and extremely well funded. They have succeeded at undermining climate action globally.”

The oil, gas, and coal industries continue to downplay the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels is dangerously heating the planet. This strategy has been echoed by oil-rich countries including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and—during the Trump administration—the United States. The summit took place against a backdrop of increased drilling and mining activity worldwide. Even Brazil, the host country, recently granted its state oil company a license to explore new oil sources near the mouth of the Amazon River.

Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva opened the talks by denouncing those who “reject scientific evidence and attack institutions,” saying they “manipulate algorithms, sow hatred and spread fear” to block climate action. For the first time, the UN summit formally addressed climate disinformation, introducing a “Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change” calling on governments to combat climate misinformation, promote transparency, and protect journalists, scientists, and environmental activists.

However, the initiative lacks implementation details, and by Friday, only 21 of the nearly 200 Paris Agreement signatories had endorsed the disinformation declaration.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who attended the Belém talks, observed that while the Paris Agreement initially created optimism, it masked persistent opposition to ending fossil fuels. “Now, I think, there is a better understanding of the true nature of the fossil fuel disinformation and corruption campaign,” he stated.

The conference struggled to reach meaningful consensus, producing only a voluntary agreement to begin discussions on a “road map” to an eventual phaseout of fossil fuels. Critics blamed the increased presence of fossil fuel interests at the summit for the modest results. The Kick Big Polluters Out coalition identified approximately 1,600 fossil fuel representatives participating in the Belém talks.

“Once again, fossil fuel lobbyists outnumbered many delegations from the countries most affected by the climate crisis,” said Brice Böhmer of Transparency International.

Climate denial proponents view these developments as a victory. Steven J. Milloy, founder of JunkScience.com, which disputes climate science consensus, said: “There’s a lot of reality that has hit. People are realizing now that we need fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are here to stay.”

Research indicates climate misinformation is growing rapidly, amplified by social media platforms that have retreated from fact-checking efforts. A recent study found climate skeptics present themselves as “projecting rationality, authority, and masculine self-control” while portraying climate advocates as “emotional,” “feminized,” and “irrational.”

Political campaigns employ similar tactics. Republicans frequently claim the Biden administration is trying to “emasculate” American drivers by promoting electric vehicles, while Trump’s EPA administrator has labeled climate change a “religion” rather than a scientific reality.

Social media platforms, podcasts, and other media regularly amplify climate misinformation. Meta recently ended a fact-checking program in the United States that had routinely identified climate science deniers. Although YouTube prohibits promoters of climate disinformation from monetizing their accounts, studies suggest these rules are not rigorously enforced.

“A lot of people are making a lot of money off this clickbait stuff,” said Rachel Cleetus of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “This is not just some neutral space where information is flowing.”

Senator Whitehouse’s assessment is blunt: “At one level we’ve been losing the climate disinformation war all along. We are where we are because we were completely ineffectual in fending off a decades-long disinformation bombardment.”

As global temperatures continue to rise, the battle over climate information appears to be intensifying, creating additional hurdles for meaningful policy action at a time when scientific consensus indicates urgent measures are needed.