The Deliberate Pollution of Our Information
Just as the fossil fuel companies pollute our air and water, they also pollute our information. They fund PR firms and lobbyists to sway public opinion and influence public policy, favoring their profits at the expense of our environment.
Just as polluted air makes it harder to breathe, polluted information makes it harder to think. When the public has misinformation (or disinformation) that they use as a foundation for their thinking, they will come to the wrong conclusion.
Who is funding information pollution
The financing behind climate information pollution is not a random or organic phenomenon; it is a meticulously executed campaign led by a powerful network of financial interests. Major fossil fuel corporations, including ExxonMobil, Shell, and Chevron, along with the vast, interconnected web of libertarian and right-wing organizations known as the "Kochtopus," are at the heart of this strategy.[1, 2] The book Climate Obstruction reveals that these efforts have been systematically countering environmental protection and regulation since the 1960s, a deliberate, long-term endeavor to protect their business interests.[3, 4]
The scale of this funding is truly staggering. A 2010 Greenpeace report identified the Koch network as the leading funder of climate disinformation, even surpassing ExxonMobil.[1] ExxonMobil has a long history, having spent a total of approximately $23 million on organizations designed to undermine climate science. On a broader scale, the fossil fuel industry collectively spent around $125 million to influence the US government in 2022 alone.[2] Much of this money is funneled through "dark money" contributions, a tactic that reporter Amy Westervelt and others have exposed.[5] This makes the original source of the donations difficult to trace. This deliberate opacity is a critical part of the strategy, as it allows funders to sway public opinion and policy without public scrutiny or accountability. The investment is not merely transactional; it is a long-term plan to reshape the entire political and cultural environment, so that their ideological position appears to be a legitimate, widely held viewpoint, rather than one that has been meticulously manufactured.
Why are they funding information pollution
The most obvious motivation is to protect corporate profits and obstruct policies that would force accountability for damage or a transition away from fossil fuels.[2, 6] However, the motivations are far more complex. The authors of Climate Obstruction reveal that this funding is a concerted effort to preserve the current status quo, which Martin Hultman and others call "industrial modernity".[7] Information pollution works by framing climate action as an existential threat to this system, rather than a necessary and beneficial transition.[4, 8] Amy Westervelt's work has shown how the industry promotes a narrative of "energy security," connecting its product to keeping people "safe and prosperous" in order to justify its continued existence.[6]
A central, and highly effective, narrative is the false dichotomy between a healthy economy and a healthy environment.[6] This messaging frames environmentalists as "elitists or radicals" [6] and makes the public believe that climate solutions will "punish citizens" with "lifestyle changes, rising prices, [and] livelihoods".[9] The psychological research of Kirsti M. Jylhä shows that disinformation is not the sole cause of climate denial; it works by exploiting pre-existing psychological needs, such as fear of change, a desire to protect the status quo, and a preference for hierarchical relationships.[4, 10] By making climate action feel like an attack on a person's identity or way of life, it creates a deeper, more emotional resistance that is far more challenging to counter with simple facts. This is the foundation of climate "obstruction" as a comprehensive framework, encompassing denial, delay, and inaction.[3, 4] The ultimate goal is to win over hearts and minds, not simply to confuse them.
Who is carrying out the information pollution
This is not a single entity but a multi-faceted system of interconnected actors, which has been described as a "denial machine".[11, 12]
- Lobbyists and Trade Groups: The fossil fuels lobby, including powerful organizations like the American Petroleum Institute (API), spends immense sums to obstruct and delay government action.[2] The presence of 636 fossil fuel lobbyists at a single UN climate conference (COP27) demonstrates the depth of their reach into international policy.[2]
- Conservative Think Tanks (CTTs): As central players, CTTs such as the Heartland Institute and the Cato Institute "manufacture uncertainty" by actively attacking climate science.[11, 12] A crucial finding is that more than 90% of papers that are skeptical of climate change originate from these groups, and many are not peer-reviewed, allowing them to recycle scientifically unfounded claims that are amplified by conservative media outlets.[12]
- Public Relations (PR) Firms: These are the professional communicators hired to craft, distill, and distribute the narratives of their fossil fuel clients.[13] A 2024 report by Clean Creatives found that over 500 advertising agencies had more than 1,000 contracts with fossil fuel companies.[14] They use sophisticated techniques to promote a positive corporate image, even as their clients work to stall climate action.[13]
- Political Parties: A trend noted by Kristoffer Ekberg and his coauthors is that right-wing and far-right political parties in Europe and the US have adopted climate change denial and a return to 20th-century energy policy as a core part of their political platforms.[8, 15] They often merge climate denial with anti-establishment rhetoric and xenophobia, effectively using climate issues as a wedge to mobilize a specific political base.[7, 8, 15]
Spreading misinformation and disinformation
The tactics used by these groups have evolved from outright denial to more subtle and insidious forms of delay.[6, 16] This evolution is key to understanding modern information pollution, as the "playbook" has become more sophisticated. The table below provides a taxonomy of these modern tactics, many of which Amy Westervelt has documented.
| Tactic |
Description |
Example/Source |
| Greenwashing |
Presenting a company or product as more environmentally friendly than they are to maintain a "social license to operate".[13, 17] This can be done by promoting small, showy initiatives to distract from massive pollution.[6] |
ExxonMobil's "advanced recycling" claims that yield few results [18], or the widespread use of terms like "low-carbon" and "net-zero" to describe fossil fuels.[6] More money spent advertising algae fuels than spent producing them. |
| Promoting Pseudo-Solutions |
Directing public and political attention and funding toward technologies that benefit the fossil fuel industry but do not meaningfully reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[6] |
Promoting carbon capture, liquefied natural gas, and hydrogen as primary climate solutions, despite critics arguing they are more focused on preserving profits than real change.[6] This is often supported by industry-funded university research that "re-centered natural gas in the conversation about renewables".[19] |
| Manufacturing Uncertainty |
Creating the false impression of a legitimate scientific debate where none exists.[11, 12] The goal is to make people believe that "a significant number of scientists disagree on the cause of climate change".[9] |
Exxon's 1998 "Global Climate Science Communications Action Plan" aimed to make average citizens and policymakers "understand (recognise) uncertainties in climate science".[1, 2] The tactics are a direct parallel to the tobacco industry's playbook.[1] |
| Targeting Specific Demographics |
Tailoring misinformation campaigns to appeal to the values, psychological needs, and political concerns of a particular audience.[10, 13] |
PR firms creating social media videos in the style of Buzzfeed's "Tasty" series to target Gen Z.[13] Or messaging that ties fossil fuels to "energy security" and the "national economy" to appeal to voters in swing states.[5, 6, 9] |
This strategic shift is a testament to the sophistication and adaptability of the information pollution campaign. The new tactics are arguably more dangerous than outright denial because they present themselves as part of the solution, creating a "false balance effect" in the media [10] and making it harder for the public to discern true solutions from corporate-friendly distractions. The objective is to redirect public attention and energy away from the fundamental need to transition off fossil fuels and toward a prolonged debate about "solutions" that conveniently protect industry profits.
Impact on public opinion and public policy
Despite overwhelming scientific consensus, a significant portion of the public remains either skeptical or misinformed, which is the intended outcome. For instance, in the US, 35% of the population believes "a significant number of scientists disagree on the cause of climate change," and 46% believe it is not mainly human-caused.[9] In Australia, 43% of people believe that oil and gas are essential components of the national economy and that it would be impossible to do without them.[9]
This misinformation fuels a "crisis of trust" in science, media, and government institutions [20, 21], which creates division and makes consensus on climate action nearly impossible.[16] This weakened public sentiment then provides a political justification for lobbyists and political actors to obstruct and delay critical legislation.[2, 22] Examples include lobbying against the Kyoto agreement [1] and attempts to rescind the EPA's endangerment finding.[22] The ending of the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program by a previous administration is a prime example of a direct political outcome of this influence, as it makes it harder to hold polluters accountable and craft policy solutions.[23]
This deliberate, cause-and-effect chain is clear. The polluted information creates a false perception of scientific uncertainty and societal disagreement, which in turn weakens public demand for change. This provides political cover for inaction and obstruction, which then allows for the continued increase of greenhouse gas emissions, driving us toward a climate catastrophe. The polluted information is not a side effect of corporate behavior; it is the primary tool used to create a political and social environment where climate inaction is not only tolerated but actively supported. It is the invisible, psychological lever that allows physical pollution to continue unchecked.
What can be done to fight information pollution
Just as the problem is multifaceted, so must the solutions be. A multi-pronged approach is required, combining individual resilience, institutional accountability, and a collective effort to build a new narrative.
The first line of defense is strengthening individual resilience through media literacy. Organizations like UNESCO and the Environmental Defense Fund are promoting "ecomedia literacy," a framework that teaches people to critically evaluate media's role in shaping environmental beliefs and to spot greenwashing and disinformation.[24, 25] We must learn to communicate more effectively by using techniques like the "truth sandwich," which combats lies without amplifying them.[26] The UN also suggests using "trusted messengers" like scientists, doctors, and people directly affected by climate change.[17]
We must also hold institutions accountable. The UN Secretary-General has called for governments to "ban fossil fuel lobbying and disinformation," comparing it to the fight against the tobacco industry.[14, 27] Legal efforts are also targeting PR firms and companies, aiming to hold them liable for the damages caused by their disinformation campaigns.[13, 14, 28] We must also fight for the preservation and re-implementation of programs like the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, as without the data, we cannot hold polluters responsible.[23]
Finally, we must proactively build a new narrative about a sustainable future. The psychological research by Kirsti M. Jylhä shows that simply presenting facts is often insufficient to change minds, as denial is rooted in deeper psychological and ideological factors.[10, 29] The UN recommends empowering people, linking climate action to justice, and focusing on the opportunities and benefits of a clean energy transition, such as green jobs, cleaner air, and improved health.[17, 30] This moves the conversation from a defensive posture to a positive one, making the vision of a sustainable future appealing. The most effective strategy involves combining fact-checking with proactive, values-based communication that empowers people and connects climate solutions to their personal well-being, economic security, and sense of justice.
References:
1. Greenpeace. *Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine*. 2010.
2. Global Strategic Communications Council. *The fossil fuel industry’s lobbying and political spending in the US*. 2023.
3. Ekberg, K., B. Forchtner, M. Hultman, & K. Jylhä. *Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction are Heating the Planet*. Routledge. 2022.
4. Jylhä, K. M. *Denial versus reality of climate change (2nd edition)*. 2024.
5. Westervelt, A. *Unmasking Dark Money: How Fossil Fuel Interests Can Undermine Clean Energy Progress*. The Kleinman Center for Energy Policy, University of Pennsylvania. 2023.
6. Westervelt, A. *A Reporter's Guide to Investigating Fossil Fuels*. Global Investigative Journalism Network. 2025.
7. Hultman, M., & J. Anshelm. *A green fatwā? Climate change as a threat to the masculinity of industrial modernity*. *NORMA: International Journal for Masculinity Studies*. 2014.
8. Ekberg, K., B. Forchtner, M. Hultman, & K. Jylhä. *The Far Right and Climate Obstruction*. In *The Far Right and the Environment: Politics, Discourse and Communication*. Routledge. 2022.
9. Climate Action Against Disinformation. *The Impacts of Climate Disinformation on Public Perception*. 2022.
10. Jylhä, K. M., & S. Ojala. *Science denial: A narrative review and recommendations for future research and practice*. *European Psychologist*. 2023.
11. McCright, A. M., & R. E. Dunlap. *The Conservative Movement and Climate Change: A Study of Climate Change Denial Books*. *The Sociological Quarterly*. 2011.
12. Oreskes, N., & E. M. Conway. *Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming*. Bloomsbury Press. 2010.
13. House Natural Resources Committee. *PR Firms Preventing Action on Climate Change*. 2022.
14. Clean Creatives. *F-List 2024: A Report on PR and Ad Agencies Working for Fossil Fuels*. 2024.
15. Hultman, M. *Why don't we take climate change seriously?*. Chalmers University of Technology. 2016.
16. Lamb, W. F., et al. *A Taxonomy of Climate Change Denial and Delay Narratives*. *Nature Climate Change*. 2020.
17. United Nations. *Communicating Climate Change: The UN Toolkit*. 2024.
18. Westervelt, A. *Exxon doubles down on ‘advanced recycling’ claims that yield few results*. *The Guardian*. 2022.
19. Westervelt, A. *Fossil fuel companies donated $700m to US universities over 10 years*. *The Guardian*. 2023.
20. Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy. *Addressing Rampant Climate Disinformation*. 2024.
21. European Commission. *Climate Disinformation*. 2024.
22. Whitehouse, S. *Rhode Island Senator Seeks to Uncover Lobbying Efforts to Overturn EPA Rule*. The Guardian. 2025.
23. The Associated Press. *Trump administration ends pollution tracking program*. 2020.
24. Environmental Defense Fund. *How We Can Fight Climate Change Misinformation*. 2025.
25. UNESCO. *Navigating Climate Information with Media and Information Literacy*. 2024.
26. Environmental Defense Fund. *The Truth Sandwich*. 2025.
27. Guterres, A. *UN Secretary-General António Guterres warns of the 'breakdown of democracy' due to 'climate disinformation'*. UN News. 2024.
28. Make Polluters Pay Campaign. *New Research Links Oil Giants' Emissions to Heatwaves, Paving the Way for Legal Liability*. 2025.
29. Jylhä, K. M., et al. *Psychological Barriers to Climate Action*. In *Climate Obstruction: How Denial, Delay and Inaction are Heating the Planet*. Routledge. 2022.
30. United Nations. *Sustainable Development Goal 13: Climate Action*. 2025.
.png)
.png)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)