Climate Disinformation and Democracy: How the Battle for Truth Threatens Our Collective Future

The erosion of a shared reality has become one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Disinformation has evolved beyond isolated falsehoods into a systematic attack on the institutions that uphold our common understanding of the world. When political figures promote “alternative facts,” they undermine what philosopher Hannah Arendt called the “common world”—the shared realm of facts necessary for democracy to function.

As Arendt warned, the greatest danger of persistent lying isn’t that people believe falsehoods, but rather that it destroys the sense by which we navigate reality. This erosion of truth doesn’t convert lies to truth, but creates a profound disorientation where truth itself loses authority.

This crisis of shared reality underpins both our climate emergency and democratic backsliding. Democracy depends on agreement about basic facts and trust in institutions that establish those facts, from independent media to scientific agencies. Similarly, meaningful climate action requires public understanding of scientific consensus and trust in authoritative institutions.

Climate science presents unique challenges for public understanding. Its abstract, complex nature makes it difficult for many to grasp. As writer Amitav Ghosh notes, climate change exceeds the narrative capacity of our dominant cultural forms, appearing as an anomaly or disruption that defies simple explanation.

Timothy Morton describes climate change as a “hyperobject”—something so vast and dispersed it resists direct representation. The invisible nature of greenhouse gases and the global, gradual nature of their impacts make climate change particularly difficult to comprehend.

Disinformation actors exploit these difficulties by presenting emotionally compelling but misleading narratives. In Brazil, former president Jair Bolsonaro falsely claimed NGOs were burning the Amazon to damage his government. In the United States, climate policies are framed as elite overreach, while in France, ecological initiatives are portrayed as mechanisms of control and punishment.

These narratives thrive not because they’re accurate, but because they offer clarity, identity, and emotional resonance. As Bruno Latour observed, the skepticism about truth once confined to academic circles has spiraled into mainstream discourse, with conspiracy theories claiming “everything is rigged” gaining traction in public debate.

The Geopolitics of Climate Disinformation

Climate disinformation has evolved into a weapon deployed strategically by various actors to delay the transition to clean energy. This isn’t merely a byproduct of political division, but a coordinated campaign driven by fossil fuel interests, ideological organizations, and sometimes foreign adversaries seeking to maintain carbon-intensive economic and political systems.

On the international stage, disinformation campaigns exploit existing tensions, particularly the North-South divide. They frame climate action as unfairly burdening developing nations while falsely portraying renewable energy initiatives as impediments to economic growth rather than pathways to sustainable development and energy independence.

This represents a shift from traditional geopolitics centered on controlling fossil fuel resources to a new “geopolitics of truth” where shaping narratives and controlling information is as vital as military or economic power. Climate disinformation deliberately fractures consensus, erodes public will, and preserves the status quo.

The Limits of Technical Solutions

Addressing this crisis requires understanding that the core problem isn’t a shortage of facts, but a shortage of trust. Fact-checking often fails to convince those most invested in false beliefs. Once misinformation becomes entwined with someone’s identity or worldview, evidence alone rarely changes minds.

Disinformation functions on emotional and narrative levels, making purely technical solutions inadequate. False narratives spread not just through algorithmic amplification but because they resonate with people’s fears and aspirations. No content moderation tool or media literacy program can restore the sense that citizens share a common destiny.

Excessive content moderation lacking broader legitimacy can backfire, fueling perceptions of censorship and further eroding trust. The insights of Arendt, Foucault, and Latour suggest we must repair the social foundations that enable the establishment and acceptance of truth—a political and cultural undertaking rather than merely a technical one.

Rebuilding Democratic Information Systems

Addressing this dual crisis requires reconceptualizing information and discourse as public goods, essential to society like clean air or safe roads. This means investing in public digital infrastructure—online equivalents to parks, libraries, and public broadcasters.

Currently, our digital “town squares” are profit-driven platforms where algorithms prioritize engagement over constructive conversation. Scholars like Ethan Zuckerman advocate for digital public infrastructure—online spaces governed by community standards and public interest rather than advertising revenue.

Examples like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive demonstrate how mission-driven platforms can provide knowledge without profit motives. Imagine social networks funded publicly or cooperatively managed, with transparent algorithms and democratic governance.

Technology alone cannot solve the problem. We also need renewed narratives that make ecological and democratic truths emotionally resonant. Climate realities must be framed through stories of resilience, justice, and collective action that connect to people’s values and daily lives.

Deliberative democratic experiments offer another pathway forward. Citizens’ assemblies like France’s Convention on Climate have demonstrated that ordinary people, given credible information and space for genuine discussion, can bridge polarization and find common ground on complex issues.

Finally, democratic oversight of communication systems is essential. The era of self-regulation by social media companies must end. Platforms should disclose how their algorithms operate and how content moderation decisions are made. Independent regulators or citizen panels should review these systems for potential harms like disinformation and hate speech.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act represents a step in this direction, requiring major tech companies to address “systemic risks” like disinformation. Antitrust measures could reduce the dominance of a few major networks and support diverse news media, including local and nonprofit sources.

The challenges of climate change and democratic decay present an opportunity to build what might be called “democratic realism”—a political culture where facing reality becomes a source of solidarity and purposeful action. This means grounding democracy in ecological and social truth, rebuilding institutions that enable public recognition of these truths, and renewing democratic practices that translate truth into legitimate collective decisions.