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.

What is climate misinformation?

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.

Historical Climate Misinformation: Oil, Money, and Delay

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.

Modern Climate Misinformation: Politicians, AI & New Tools of Deception

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.

What Does This Cost Society?

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.

What Is Being Done to Counter Misinformation?

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.

Conclusion

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?

This article is part of The Outside World, ftrprf’s very own research center.

For organizations, it’s pivotal to thoroughly understand what is happening in society. We help companies generate comprehensive insights into societal change and its potential effects on their strategy and operations, both negative and positive. With actionable societal insights, courageous plans, and a can-do mentality, we connect the outside world to your company's strategy. For these outside-world insights, we use a rigorous methodology that includes data processing, quantitative and qualitative analysis, and a thorough review process to ensure the accuracy and consistency of our findings.

For more information, please contact theoutsideworld@ftrprf.com.

Next articleThe Outside World Weekly

The Outside World’s Weekly is a dynamic, continuously updated e-book that brings you a curated selection of news articles each week. Handpicked by our analysts, these stories highlight the deeper trends shaping society. More than just summaries, each update provides insight into not only what’s happening in the world but also the broader impact of these events. Read the journal here . In a world of rapid change, businesses must stay attuned to societal perspectives. The Outside World initiative acts as ftrprf’s strategic societal antenna and research center, capturing the undercurrents in society and translating them into actionable insights and strategic plans for future impact. Through continuous research and thorough analysis, we provide thought-provoking publications and deep dives into pressing societal issues. Published weekly on our website in the form of insightful articles and the weekly journal, our insights reflect the current movements shaping the future. Whether you have a specific research question for us or simply want to stay informed through our publications, The Outside World equips you with the knowledge needed to anticipate change, create impact, and harness new opportunities. Integrated into ftrprf’s services, it serves as a key resource for organizations looking to align with societal shifts and build future-proof strategies. If you have a research question or want to learn more, feel free to contact us at theoutsideworld@ftrprf.com .

2025-07-24

The Outside World Weekly

Next articleWhen Women Lead: Why Representation Creates Possibilities – but Not Always Transformation

Acknowledgement: I write as a man engaging with feminism from an ally perspective. The analysis below draws on feminist scholars, activists, and political figures. My aim is not to define women’s experiences, but to listen and contribute to conversations about how political power intersects with gender justice. There is a growing global recognition that having more women participate in politics is not just a matter of symbolic fairness, but a pathway toward real social change. Research across dozens of countries shows that when women hold office, governments tend to invest more in healthcare, education, child welfare, and violence prevention – areas that disproportionately affect women and children. According to UN Women, as of 2025, roughly one fourth of the world’s national parliamentarians are women. Only a minority of countries have ever been led by a woman. Just a couple weeks ago, Japan elected its first ever female leader. Japan, a male-dominated country with strong conservative gender roles, chose Sanae Takaichi as their new prime minister. However, representation alone doesn't necessarily guarantee feminist change. Margaret Thatcher famously rejected feminism, and Sanae Takaichi has taken a similar stance, openly opposing key gender equality reforms. Yet, both still mark a significant step forward for women in politics, just not in the way we might assume. Their rise shows how women can break into traditionally male structures without necessarily changing them. So the question isn’t: d oes electing women produce feminist change? It’s rather: under what conditions does women’s representation become liberatory for women — and when does it fail to do so? This article explores that tension — how representation can be liberatory, how it sometimes is not, and what that means for the movement toward greater gender equity. Sanae Takaichi’s election is historically significant, but her policies signal continuity rather than transformation. Takaichi has opposed gender quotas and same-sex marriage, supported traditional family structures, and appointed only two women to her cabinet. Reporting across Japanese and European media stressed that she represents continuity, not transformation. Here, Margaret Thatcher is a historical parallel. As Britain’s first female prime minister, she broke a glass ceiling that had held for centuries. She also rejected feminist language and appointed almost no women to senior positions. Rather than challenging gendered institutions, she often reinforced them. Thatcher’s presidency was the start of something new: a woman could lead a major Western democracy. However, she governed within a framework that remained patriarchal and individualist. Italy’s Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni offers a contemporary version of a leader of a powerful country. Meloni is a high-profile woman whose conservative agenda defends traditional family models rather than reconfiguring gender roles. Since taking office in 2022, she has positioned herself as a symbol of female achievement while at the same time distancing herself from feminism, arguing that women’s empowerment comes from motherhood and religious values, not structural reforms. These examples help us see a pattern. A woman’s presence at the top does not automatically shift the institutions she inherits. A leader can break the glass ceiling yet leave it unchanged. That does not make their leadership irrelevant, symbolic breakthroughs matter, but symbolism alone cannot undo patriarchal systems. None of these women leaders suggest they should not lead a country. The conditions around leadership, such as institutional support and political ideology, determine whether representation translates into meaningful change. At the same time, placing an expectation on female leaders to “fix” gender equality simply because they are women reproduces an unfair dynamic. Male leaders are not held personally responsible for dismantling patriarchy, yet female leaders who do not adopt feminist agendas are often treated as disappointments. The problem is not that Thatcher, Takaichi, or Meloni are women. The problem is that political systems remain structured in such a way that individual representation does not produce collective liberation. Women’s representation in formal politics is still low, but it is rising. The UN reports that greater participation broadens public agendas, strengthens social infrastructure, and can improve democratic legitimacy. Research supports this. A 2023 study on gender and political decision-making found that women legislators advocate more strongly for public health, childcare access, and anti-violence policy. Governments with higher proportions of women are more likely to pass laws against gender-based violence and expand social-protection systems. This stands in contrast to figures such as Thatcher, Takaichi, and Meloni, whose leadership did not translate into substantive feminist gains. One explanation lies in the political environments that surrounded them. Leaders like Michelle Bachelet in Chile, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia, pursued transformative gender agendas because they governed within contexts more open to redistributive social policy. They were supported by progressive coalitions with public approval, and institutional frameworks that could translate feminist ambitions into more equal laws. Bachelet’s expansion of childcare rights, and Sirleaf’s post-conflict legal reforms addressing sexual violence were possible because they aligned with broader political projects that recognised gender equality as essential rather than optional. Representation matters not only because women bring new policy priorities, but because it expands who counts in public life. The symbolic change is structural: when girls see women in power, they can imagine themselves in those roles. Political scientist Anne Phillips calls this the politics of presence – the idea that physical presence is a form of political pressure. Even with recent progress, the distance to gender parity remains long. As of 2025, women hold roughly 27 percent of parliamentary seats worldwide. Only 29 countries currently have a woman serving as head of state or government. According to UN projections, the world is still more than a century away from parity in the highest offices. The Netherlands – often seen as progressive – shows how representation and inclusion diverge. Dutch political scientist Zahra Runderkamp argues that although more women are entering politics, many struggle to stay. They face greater harassment, receive smaller portfolios, and exit politics earlier. Interviews with female MPs reveal a recurring experience: politics is built around the rhythms and expectations of men. Even when women arrive in the political arena, they are often pushed to the margins of power. Runderkamp notes that Dutch parties increasingly select diverse candidate lists, but often fall back on white male leadership when it comes to top positions. Media patterns reinforce this imbalance. Male politicians are discussed in terms of their ideas. Women are more often framed by personality, tone, family, or “likability.” These dynamics flatten the meaning of progress, making it appear that the problem has been solved when its foundations are unchanged. These findings echo a broader global reality: representation matters, but institutions decide what representation can do. Media dynamics reinforce this. Men are evaluated on their ideas; women on their tone, personality, family status, or “likability.” These dynamics flatten the meaning of progress.They make it appear that representation has solved inequality when its foundations remain unchanged. Even with more balanced candidate lists – for example with initiatives like Stem op een Vrouw (Vote for a Women) , has led to a record number of women parliamentairers of 43% – parties often revert to selecting white male leaders for top roles. This context matters when evaluating the outcome of women’s leadership. If structures remain hostile, women leaders cannot simply be tasked with transforming them. The responsibility lies with institutions, parties, and citizens – not only with women who break through the door. There are women whose leadership has transformed political systems though not solely because they are women. Their success depended on coalition support, and institutions willing to adapt, apart from their own willpower to change their countries oppressive patriarchal systems. Jacinda Ardern in New Zealand built a government rooted in social infrastructure: paid domestic-violence leave, crisis-response frameworks, and a “well-being budget” that measured national progress not only by GDP, but by health, equity, and social resilience. Her reforms were possible because she led within a political culture already open to social experimentation. Michelle Bachelet in Chile, who expanded childcare access, strengthened anti-violence programmes, and institutionalised gender mainstreaming. Similarly, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in Liberia governed during post-conflict reconstruction, prioritising legal reforms addressing sexual and gender-based violence. In Iceland, former prime minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir made gender equality a central pillar of governance, strengthening national strategies to combat gender-based violence and supporting welfare structures that continue to rank Iceland as the world’s most gender-equal country. Her backing of parental-leave policies and public campaigns – including participation in the nationwide women’s strike – helped normalise the expectation that equality is a collective responsibility, not an individual achievement. Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen offers a different but still telling example. While her broader politics are sometimes contested, her government recognised and apologised for the historical forced contraception of Greenlandic women. Finland under Sanna Marin advanced a more comprehensive approach: her administration implemented a coordinated Action Plan for Gender Equality, aimed at embedding equity across employment, social services, and state institutions. With nearly half of ministers in her coalition being women Marin normalised female leadership across the cabinet, demonstrating how representation within institutions can shift political priorities toward care infrastructures and workplace equality. These outcomes demonstrate that feminist policy emerges when women’s representation aligns with supportive institutions and political coalitions. Women are not inherently better to lead than men — but when the environment enables it, representation can transform systems. Feminist progress has always been led by women. Supporting that progress as a man means recognising the limits of one’s perspective and practicing a form of participation grounded in listening. It means citing women’s research and activism, advocating for institutional reforms and calling out sexism in media, parties, friends, and workplaces. Being an ally does not mean speaking about or for women. It means sharing power so more women can lead on their own terms. Take the time, listen to the experience of women. The story of women in politics is neither a straight line nor a finished project. The election of Takaichi, like Thatcher before her, makes clear that a woman at the top can reinforce existing hierarchies. But the record of Bachelet, Ardern, Sirleaf and many others shows that women’s leadership can also open new political horizons. Representation is essential, but on its own, it is not liberation. Liberation happens when representation is linked to feminist agendas, and institutions willing to change. Electing women is only the beginning of this process. The task now is to build systems in which women can not only enter power, but reshape it. Shall we? This article is part of The Outside World, ftrprf’s very own research center. For organizations, it’s pivotal to thoroughly understand what is happening in society. We help companies generate comprehensive insights into societal change and its potential effects on their strategy and operations, both negative and positive. With actionable societal insights, courageous plans, and a can-do mentality, we connect the outside world to your company's strategy. For these outside-world insights, we use a rigorous methodology that includes data processing, quantitative and qualitative analysis, and a thorough review process to ensure the accuracy and consistency of our findings. For more information, please contact theoutsideworld@ftrprf.com.

2025-11-17

When Women Lead: Why Representation Creates Possibilities – but Not Always Transformation

The Politics of Climate Inaction, The lucrative market of climate misinformation