Climate Disinformation Escalates, Threatening Planetary Health

In an era of digital manipulation and AI enhancement, climate disinformation has emerged as a critical global threat, with particular implications for Malaysia’s environmental policy landscape.

At the recent World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, misinformation was identified among the most severe short-term global risks in the WEF Global Risks Report 2026. The report warns that sophisticated AI systems now accelerate misleading narratives more persuasively than ever, undermining trust in institutions, science, and expertise.

A workshop conducted by the Sunway Centre for Planetary Health for regional editors and senior correspondents offered a particularly stark characterization of disinformation: “wrong, on purpose, for lots of money.” This description encapsulates the intentional nature of climate misinformation that threatens Malaysia’s environmental decision-making processes.

For Malaysia, climate disinformation isn’t merely a theoretical concern. As a systemic challenge affecting public health, land use, energy security, food systems, and economic prosperity, climate change requires evidence-based long-term planning. When climate information is distorted, it weakens policies, slows action, and erodes public trust precisely when coordinated responses are most urgently needed.

Recent research reveals that much of Malaysia’s misleading climate content isn’t accidental but systematically embedded in political, media, and development structures where certainty and positive headlines are rewarded over accuracy and accountability. This arrangement benefits powerful interests, making climate disinformation a tool for political and economic gain.

Several patterns of climate disinformation are evident in Malaysia. Deforestation denial involves using manipulated statistics to suggest forest cover stability or sustainable logging practices despite contradictory scientific evidence. In some instances, plantations are counted as forests, obscuring critical distinctions relevant to biodiversity loss and carbon emissions.

Green-washing represents another common tactic, wherein environmentally harmful projects are rebranded as climate-positive or “sustainable development.” These narratives highlight certification schemes or future offset promises while minimizing current environmental damage and social impacts.

Perhaps most persuasive is the framing of environmental harm as a necessary sacrifice for economic development, poverty reduction, or national competitiveness – an argument particularly promoted by the fossil fuel industry. While addressing genuine aspirations, this narrative silences critical questions about who benefits immediately versus who bears long-term costs.

Climate disinformation also intersects with identity politics when indigenous peoples’ rights are conflated with broader bumiputra categories, potentially weakening protections for communities in Malaysia’s most ecologically vulnerable regions.

Artificial intelligence now amplifies these issues exponentially. AI tools prioritize engagement over accuracy, mimicking scientific language and producing voluminous content quickly. As people increasingly rely on AI for information processing, critical judgment itself is being outsourced.

Addressing climate disinformation requires systemic approaches beyond fact-checking. Journalism must be recognized as critical climate infrastructure, with well-trained professionals needed to test claims, explain trade-offs, and contextualize data – especially crucial in an AI-saturated environment.

Transparency is fundamental: environmental data must remain open, land-use categories clearly defined, and scientific assessments independent. Trust depends on evidence that can withstand scrutiny, not just declarations from authorities.

Climate decision-making processes must become more participatory and precise. Clear definitions, meaningful consultations, and respect for rights aren’t obstacles to development but foundations of legitimacy.

Public awareness and critical thinking require long-term investment. In an AI-shaped world, the ability to question, verify, and think critically isn’t optional but a civic necessity – what experts call “double literacy,” combining understanding of natural intelligence with comprehension of how AI reshapes it.

Climate change will challenge Malaysia not only through physical impacts like floods and heatwaves but through societal capacity to establish shared truths. In confronting climate disinformation, what’s at stake goes beyond online discourse to our collective ability to make decisions before environmental costs become irreversible.