We need to tackle the growing threat of mis- and disinformation about climate change and health
BMJ 2024; 387 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2187 (Published 09 October 2024) Cite this as: BMJ 2024;387:q2187- Simon J Piatek, digital lead, Vaccine Confidence Project1,
- Andy Haines, professor of environmental change and public health2,
- Heidi J Larson, professor of anthropology, risk and decision science, clinical professor34
- 1London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
- 2Centre on Climate Change and Planetary Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
- 3Department of Infectious Disease Dynamics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
- 4Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
As health narratives in the climate change discourse become more visible, the intersection of health and climate change will soon become a critical area vulnerable to misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Disinformation in this space will attempt to undermine evidence about the health effects of climate change and, most importantly, efforts to tackle these challenges.
Misinformation (inaccurate information spread without malicious intent) and disinformation (deliberately deceptive information) in health are not new, as starkly illustrated by the covid pandemic. The rapid spread of false information during the pandemic undermined public trust in science and public health interventions. In the UK, people’s intent to “definitely” take the covid vaccine dropped by 6.2 percentage points, and in the US by 6.4 percentage points, after participants were exposed to misinformation—showing how misinformation can lead to vaccine hesitancy and impede efforts to control disease spread.1
False information also pervades the climate change debate, influencing public perception and policy. The World Health Organization has identified climate change as the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century, but the public’s understanding of this threat is often clouded by conflicting narratives.2
A significant portion of climate related health misinformation focuses on the severity and causes of climate change. Common myths include the belief that climate change is a natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity, or that the risks are exaggerated.34 Disinformation activities, often supported by fossil fuel interests, propagate these myths, impeding efforts to mobilise public support for necessary policy changes.45
Downplaying urgency
Climate change poses numerous health risks, including higher incidence of heat related illnesses, respiratory disorders from deteriorating air quality, vectorborne diseases, and mental health problems arising from climate induced displacement and stress.2 Vulnerable populations, particularly in low income regions, are disproportionately affected. However, misinformation can lead to inadequate preparation and response, as seen in the underestimation of risks associated with extreme weather events.67
Similarly, dis- and misinformation about the efficacy and safety of vaccines have hindered the fight against diseases such as dengue, which are projected to spread owing to changing climate conditions.89
Several specific misinformation narratives have gained traction in the context of climate change—for example, the suggestion that climate change is a hoax.10 This narrative claims that climate change is a fabricated issue designed to push political agendas. It often dismisses scientific consensus and portrays climate action as unnecessary and economically damaging.411
Another example is the claim that the current changes in climate are simply part of natural environmental cycles and not a result of human activity. This downplays the urgent need for mitigation efforts.12
Some false narratives suggest that climate interventions, such as renewable energy projects or carbon reduction policies, are harmful or part of a broader conspiracy. Others provide inflated net costs for climate change mitigation by omitting the costs of failing to tackle dangerous climate change under business-as-usual projections—or by focusing on the costs, but not the benefits, of cutting emissions. These arguments can discourage public support for essential climate action.1213
Social media platforms have become major conduits for health related climate disinformation. Their algorithms often prioritise sensational content, which can lead to the viral spread of falsehoods. The covid pandemic showed how quickly misinformation can escalate into a global health crisis. Similar dynamics are at play with climate change, where misinformation can lead to public apathy or resistance towards climate action. The amplification of such misinformation by influential figures and networks further entrenches these beliefs, making it difficult to shift public opinion.
Illusion of consensus
The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) has added a new dimension to the spread of false information. AI technologies can create highly realistic and persuasive fake content, including text, images, and videos. “Deepfakes,” for example, are AI generated videos that can convincingly depict real people saying or doing things they never actually said or did. Menz and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of safeguards in large language models such as GPT-4, PaLM 2, and Claude 2 in preventing the generation of health disinformation.14 Their results showed that while some language models refused to generate disinformation, others still produced false health narratives, especially when “jailbreaking” techniques were used (using specific prompts to produce unintended outputs). It’s evident that AI technologies can be used to spread false information about climate change and its health effects, further muddying the waters of public discourse.
AI driven bots can also amplify misinformation on social media by rapidly sharing and promoting false narratives, creating the illusion of widespread consensus or controversy where there is none. These bots can target specific demographics with tailored misinformation, exploiting existing biases and fears to sow doubt and division.
The medical community has a pivotal role in tackling the issue of misinformation on health and climate change. Dobson and colleagues recommended education and improved messaging as a possible solution, as well as regulation of social media platforms.15 Lewandowsky recommends strategies that help to tackle misinformation before it’s encountered, along with long established debunking techniques.4 Building on their work, we recommend the following strategies to consider.
Tackling misinformation
First, we need to strengthen public health communication. Clear, accurate, and consistent messaging from trusted health professionals can counteract misinformation. Engaging with communities through various media, including social media, can help disseminate reliable information.
Second, we must collaborate with tech companies. Social media platforms must be held accountable for the spread of misinformation. Partnerships between public health agencies and tech companies can help develop algorithms that prioritise accurate information and flag false content—although such efforts aren’t always effective, especially if implemented half heartedly.1617
Third, we need to leverage AI for good purposes: it can also be a tool in the fight against misinformation. Machine learning algorithms can help to identify and flag false content, while AI driven analytics can track the spread of misinformation and inform targeted countermeasures. Recent evidence suggests that the use of large language models to create personalised, evidence based dialogues reduced people’s belief in a specific conspiracy theory by 20%. This reduction was sustained over a two month follow-up and seemed to apply to such beliefs more generally.1819
Fourth, public health curriculums should include education on climate change and its effects on health. Empowering people with critical thinking skills to discern credible information is crucial at all levels of education.
Fifth, medical professionals should advocate for policies that tackle both climate change and misinformation. This includes supporting regulations that limit the spread of false information and promoting transparency in climate related health research.
Finally, we must focus on community engagement. Building trust within communities is essential. Localised health campaigns that consider cultural contexts can be effective in conveying the realities of climate change and its health impact.
The intersection of climate change and health is likely to become a critical battleground for misinformation and disinformation. Medical professionals, as trusted voices, have a responsibility to lead the fight against these falsehoods. By adopting a multifaceted approach—including robust communication, collaboration with tech companies, education, policy advocacy, and community engagement—the impact of misinformation can be mitigated to ensure that the public is well informed about the health risks posed by climate change.
Footnotes
Competing interests: AH is a principal investigator Pathfinder Initiative 2020-25, co-investigator Sustainable Healthy Food Systems research programme 2017-23, co-investigator Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health (CUSSH) 2017-23—all funded by the Wellcome Trust, with additional funding from the Oak Foundation for the Pathfinder initiative; reports royalties from Cambridge University Press; has received travel support from WHO and Human Frontiers Science Program; 2022-24 member, Cool Roofs trial steering committee Nouna Research Centre, Burkina Faso/University of Heidelberg; 2023-24 co-chair International Advisory Committee, NIHR Clean-Air (Africa) Global Health Research Unit; 2023 member Independent Advisory Group, Collaboration for the Establishment of an African Population Cohort Consortium (CE-APCC); co-chair InterAcademy Partnership, Climate Change and Health Working Group 2019-22; US National Academy of Medicine Climate Grand Challenge Steering Committee 2023-25. Chair, SOSCHI Expert Advisory Group, Office of National Statistics; co-director WHO Collaborating Centre on Climate Change, Health and Sustainable Development.
HL declares that the Vaccine Confidence Project has funding from the Gates Foundation, Merck, GSK, and the Hong Kong Government. I have consulted with the Gates Medical Research Institute and ApiJect on issues of Vaccine Confidence.
SP declares that as part of the Vaccine Confidence Project he was a principal investigator of a project funded by the UK government and was involved in projects funded by Unicef, Meta, WHO, and the Hong Kong government.
Provenance and peer review: Commissioned, not externally peer reviewed.