Whose facts matter in the climate change story?

Video player requires marketing cookies.
To view this content please click here to allow marketing cookies.

×

Watch the recorded session here.

‘Facts’ are now more disputed than ever. Whose facts are legitimate, and to whom has become a matter of faith. In practical terms: what constitutes "proof" for the publics of climate change communication?​

Speakers

• Sven Egenter – Founder and editor in chief of Clean Energy Wire | CLEW. The non-profit energy and climate journalism hub covers the relevant stories of Europe's move to climate neutrality, offers trainings for journalists and runs a network of nearly 500 engaged journalists from 82 countries. 
• Syed Nazakat – Award-winning journalist, media entrepreneur, founder and CEO of DataLEADS, a tech & digital media company that promotes open data and democratisation of information at scale. 
• Mitali Mukherjee – Political economy journalist with more than two decades of experience in TV, print and digital journalism. She was a Chevening fellow for the South Asia Journalism Fellowship 2020, a Raisina Asian Forum for Global Governance Young Fellow 2019 and a 2017 fellow of the Australia India Youth Dialogue. 
• Alastair Bealby – has been at the European Commission since 2017, and is currently the speechwriter and press officer in the Climate Action department. He previously advised a variety of clients in the UK, Germany and Belgium on corporate communications, before moving to the Commission and supporting efforts to tackle disinformation.

Video player requires marketing cookies.
To view this content please click here to allow marketing cookies.

×

Summary of Session 3: Whose facts matter in the climate change story?

After the lunch break, the third session focused on examining the credibility of facts within the climate change discourse. Today, 'facts' are increasingly contested. We deal with a climate crisis and also with an information crisis. The legitimacy of facts and the authority behind them have become subjective, often dependent on personal beliefs. Misleading news undermine support for political action: Practically speaking, the question arises: what qualifies as "proof" in the eyes of the diverse audiences engaged in climate change communication?

Key points

• Fighting political disinformation: Positioned at the forefront of the fight against political disinformation in the field of climate change, Alastair Bealby raises awareness to build support for policies like the Green Deal and explaining these policies to the public in his professional life. Climate disinformation, such as false claims about electric vehicles being unsafe or not environmentally friendly, poses a serious risk to policy implementation, he states. In this case, the EU commission reacted with positive narratives, "5 things you should know about electric cars," to counter these claims. Bealby supposes that Russian influence is a key driver of such disinformation. While the EU Commission is working to combat it, quick responses are needed, and there is still room for improvement.
• Understanding audiences: Sven Egenter from the independent organisation "Klimafakten" emphasized that we are already living in the age of climate consequences, where the need to adapt is becoming more prominent and that poses new challenges. Climate action has become deeply personal, with consumers playing a critical role. Klimafakten focuses on understanding the audience, including their fears, to better communicate. Egenter advocates for cross-border collaborative journalism, moving away from competition in order to get the best story. Polarisation is a challenge for progress and new technologies, and journalism should consider the impact of its stories. The goal of dialogue, including on climate issues, is to find shared solutions.
• Networks against disinformation: Syed Nazakat outlined an approach to building collaboration to combat misinformation. His project, Dataleads, focuses on bringing fact-checkers and scientists together, though, in the past, a major challenge has been the limited reach of collaboration efforts. To address this, Nazakat brought to life the largest pan-India editorial collaboration, involving over 300 journalists and 50 newsrooms, reaching up to 50 million people daily and protecting them from disinformation. In total, the network distributed and amplified 6,600 fact-checks. The process is designed to make it easy for journalists to join. A previous network approach brought together medical professionals, scientists, and journalists to tackle health and climate disinformation. Nazakat advocates for building a global alliance and engaging young people from various fields.
• Research on disinformation: Mitali Mukherjee presented research from the Reuters Institute on disinformation, based on surveys of 8,000 respondents across three continents. The findings show an increase in climate change news consumption in countries like Germany, Brazil, Japan, India, and the UK. However, younger audiences are increasingly drifting away from news itself. Good journalism is often behind paywalls. Trust remains high for scientists and international institutions. In countries like India, Brazil, and Pakistan, there is significant concern about climate disinformation, with political parties, politicians, and governments identified as key sources. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that those who consumed more information were generally better equipped to identify misinformation, the same applies to climate. Research shows that people aim for journalism that educates and challenges them, seeking more knowledge and empowerment.

The discussion highlighted that some corporations are hesitant to take stronger action against climate change, despite the need for businesses to play a role. There is a growing call for strong voices to combat greenwashing. Climate disinformation was described as a systemic issue, particularly in countries like France, where certain interest groups spread false information. One proposed solution is to develop regulatory frameworks to address disinformation. However, there is concern that such regulations could be misused by governments to suppress press freedom and critical voices.

Event main page