In October 2025, Dutch voters went to the polls to vote in their parliamentary elections. Although the Netherlands is a low-lying country vulnerable to rising sea levels, climate change faded almost completely into the background of political campaigns . Debates that could have centered on adaptation, energy transition, or agricultural emissions largely focused instead on immigration, housing shortages, and the economy. Even among Dutch voters, climate change ranked lower in priority than in previous years - in the 2023 election 30% of the voters wanted the government to prioritize climate action, while in 2025 this dropped to 17% . This striking silence raises a critical question: how does a climate-vulnerable country nearly overlook the topic during a national election? While the answer is complex, a growing number of scholars and policymakers point to one significant, structural barrier: climate misinformation. Whether it appears as outright denial or subtle distortion, misinformation shapes both public perception and political will. It does not merely distort facts; it erodes trust, suppresses urgency, and sows doubt right where collective action is needed most . This article explores how global climate misinformation, both historically and today, has slowed down climate mitigation. It emphasizes the need to address climate misinformation as a crucial step towards accelerating climate action. At its core, misinformation refers to false or misleading information that is shared. With misinformation, the false or misleading information does not have to be intentional. Disinformation refers specifically to false content deliberately created to deceive and manipulate. In most environmental studies, climate misinformation is used to encompass both intentional and unintentional false information. Misinformation can range from outright denial of climate science (“climate change is a hoax”) to more subtle distortions, such as exaggerated claims about the economic costs of green policies, or suggestions that renewable energy is unreliable. Often, these misleading narratives do not dispute the existence of climate change but instead cast doubt on the viability of solutions or the urgency of action . Historically, misinformation around climate emerged in the late 20th century, as scientific consensus on human-caused global warming strengthened. With mounting evidence, strategies shifted from simple denial to more sophisticated campaigns designed to create uncertainty and delay policy responses . Climate misinformation did not arise spontaneously; much of it was deliberately manufactured. As early as the 1970s, internal scientists at major oil companies such as Exxon, Shell, and Chevron conducted research that accurately predicted rising global temperatures, melting ice caps, and the long-term consequences of greenhouse gas emissions. These companies knew that continued fossil fuel combustion would significantly reshape the global climate. Rather than warning the public, they invested in strategies to protect their commercial interests . Exxon is the most documented example. Company scientists briefed senior management as early as 1977 about the likely warming effects of continued CO₂ emissions, and internal documents later revealed both the depth of the company’s early climate science work and the parallel investments in public communications that downplayed the risk . Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, fossil fuel companies shifted from scientific understanding to strategic denial. They funded public relations campaigns, lobbying networks, and “independent” think tanks that eroded public trust in climate science . Rather than disputing every scientific detail, their goal was to manufacture uncertainty—to turn settled science into a “debate” in the eyes of the public and policymakers . Industry coalitions amplified and coordinated these efforts. The Global Climate Coalition (GCC) was a business lobby set up in 1989 that counted oil majors and trade groups among its members. It spent millions opposing binding international action; before Kyoto the GCC’s annual revenue peaked around $1.5 million and it reportedly spent roughly $13 million on advertising campaigns attacking the treaty. The coalition dissolved in 2001. Its tactics of manufacturing uncertainty and framing climate policy as economically ruinous set a template for later campaigns . As part of this broader misinformation strategy, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway argue in their book Merchants of Doubt that fossil-fuel interests adopted a tactic familiar from the tobacco industry: they deliberately “keep the controversy alive,” funding doubt even after the science was settled . The tobacco industry famously wrote that “doubt is our product,” a strategy of manufacturing uncertainty to delay regulation; industry-defence consultants and PR firms adapted similar approaches to climate science, instructing clients to emphasize uncertainties, attack scientists’ credibility, and frame climate action as too costly . The scale of these efforts was enormous. OpenSecrets reports roughly $200–$210 million in annual funding for lobbying from the oil & gas industry, with many companies and trade groups paying large sums to influence Congress and regulatory bodies . In the digital age, climate misinformation has evolved and amplified, fueled by a mix of political actors, algorithmic platforms, and generative technologies. According to a 2025 report by the International Panel on the Information Environment (IPIE), both fossil fuel companies and right-wing politicians are now key purveyors of disinformation, especially narratives that undermine climate solutions, rather than just disputing the science . For example, the report highlights how Donald Trump has called climate change a “biggest con job,” rhetoric which gets amplified via bot networks and troll farms . Financially, fossil-fuel interests continue to bank on online platforms. In the run-up to COP28, coalitions like CAAD (Climate Action Against Disinformation) measured that Shell, ExxonMobil, BP and TotalEnergies spent between US$4.13 million and US$5.21 million on Meta (Facebook/Instagram) ads promoting misleading narratives . These ads disproportionately frame fossil fuel companies as socially conscious or necessary for “energy security,” blurring the lines between green credentials and business as usual. At the same time, AI and bots are reshaping the scale and sophistication of disinformation. The IPIE report warns that online bots and troll networks dramatically amplify climate lies, targeting political leaders and regulators to sow doubt and delay action . Meanwhile, academic research reveals that large language models (LLMs) can both worsen and mitigate the problem: a 2025 study demonstrated that when LLMs are fine-tuned on expert-annotated datasets, they can classify climate misinformation with accuracy comparable to expert communicators — but without such guidance, they underperform and can amplify falsehoods . Finally, institutional platforms are part of the problem: tech companies enable disinformation through ad algorithms. The Global Witness 2024 report found that far-right actors using climate denialism spent tens of thousands on Meta ads. As a result, bot-driven accounts on social media are drowning out critical voices . The misinformation highlighted by the IPIE isn’t a harmless distraction — its societal cost is profound. According to their June 2025 assessment, the global spread of climate falsehoods erodes trust in institutions, undermines political will, and delays action by key regulators. By targeting political leaders, civil servants, and regulatory agencies, campaigns of disinformation obstruct climate policy and stall mitigation . Meanwhile, the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2024 named misinformation and disinformation the top short-term global risk. Over half (53 %) of surveyed experts flagged “AI-generated disinformation” as a potential crisis in just the next two years. According to the WEF, such engineered falsehoods risk fueling polarization, civil unrest, and even government repression . On the economic front, the cost of inaction is staggering. The Climate Policy Initiative estimates that delaying climate action could inflict losses of US$ 1,266 trillion over time . When misinformation weakens public support for urgent action, these economic and social costs multiply. The results? Increased damage from extreme weather, health impacts, and loss of biodiversity. There is growing international momentum to tackle climate misinformation. The IPIE’s 2025 synthesis report calls for not only regulatory reforms but a fundamental “reckoning with systems that spread and sustain falsehoods.” Its authors argue that digital platforms, fossil fuel firms, and political actors must be held accountable, and that transparency, education, and trust-building are critical to breaking cycles of distortion . Civil society is already stepping up. Organizations like Global Witness argue that information integrity — ensuring reliable, transparent, and trustworthy climate communication — should be central to climate diplomacy . At COP-level negotiations, including the most recent COP30, calls are growing for binding rules on disinformation, greenwashing, and fossil-fuel lobbying . Some countries are responding legislatively. In 2025, UN Special Rapporteur Elisa Morgera urged governments to criminalize greenwashing and fossil fuel disinformation, and to ban industry lobbying in political institutions . In a landmark legal move, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a 135-page lawsuit in 2023 accusing ExxonMobil, Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, and the American Petroleum Institute of a “decades-long campaign of deception” about climate change. The complaint alleges that these companies “have fed us lies and mistruths … to further their record-breaking profits at the expense of our environment,” and seeks a fund to pay for climate-related damage . On the technology front, researchers are experimenting with large language models (LLMs) trained on expert-verified climate content: these models could flag or prevent the spread of false narratives, though much depends on access and platform adoption . Still, challenges remain: lack of platform transparency, uneven global research (especially in the Global South), and deeply entrenched economic interests make any reform uphill. Reliable information is crucial for politicians and citizens to make well informed decisions. For years, organizations with interests opposing climate action have dominated climate narratives. In recent years much of their approaches have been brought to light, and we are better able to understand what the impact of their work is. The estimated cost of climate inaction is US$ 1,266 trillion. Even those who are unable to see the intrinsic value of a healthy global environment should be able to understand that that is a lot of money. The UN and governments are working on legislation to criminalize climate misinformation, which hopefully soon discourages the spread of climate misinformation and contributes to more active climate protection. In the meantime it is up to climate activists, scientists, journalists, and many others to challenge climate misinformation. Shall we?