Voir tous les articles

Disinformation, Climate and Democracy in the age of the Anthropocene

French version at this link

We live in an era where basic facts about our world—ranging from election results to rising temperatures—are bitterly contested. Disinformation is no longer just a matter of isolated falsehoods; it has evolved into a systematic attack on the very institutions and norms that uphold our shared reality. When political leaders and media figures relentlessly promote “alternative facts,” they erode the foundations of what Hannah Arendt called the common world—the shared realm of facts necessary for a democracy to function, a realm that transcends generations and should remain fundamentally unaffected by ideological disagreements. As Arendt warned, “It has frequently been noticed that the surest long-term result of brainwashing is a peculiar kind of cynicism — an absolute refusal to believe in the truth of anything, no matter how well this truth may be established. In other words, the result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lies will now be accepted as truth, and the truth be defamed as lies, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world — and the category of truth vs. falsehood is among the mental means to this end — is being destroyed.” In other words, continual lying doesn’t persuade people that the lies are true; instead, it disorients them so profoundly that truth itself loses its authority.

This erosion of a common truth base underpins both our climate crisis and our democratic crisis. Democracy depends on a shared agreement about basic facts and trust in institutions that establish those facts (e.g., independent media, scientific agencies, electoral systems). Climate action, likewise, relies on the public’s understanding of scientific reality and significant trust in those in positions of authority. Yet, climate change denial campaigns and political propaganda have contributed to a growing situation where nothing can be taken as solid. In this state, collective decision-making falters across all levels of politics. How can we democratically choose the right course on climate change if we cannot even agree that it is real? How can we solve any crisis together if we do not inhabit the same reality?

Climate Disinformation and Democratic Decay

Climate change illuminates the problem in stark terms. The deliberate spread of climate disinformation has sabotaged the public’s sense of reality on this issue, undermining the ability of democracies to respond. This is not a coincidence; many of the forces behind climate denial are also undermining democracy. The fossil fuel industry has spent years funding various think tanks and media outlets to create confusion around climate science. Their efforts have effectively undermined the information systems that are crucial for democracies to function, pushing open societies closer to the “post-truth” politics that enable authoritarianism to flourish. 

Why is climate change a breeding ground for disinformation? One reason is that climate science is inherently abstract, complex, and often counterintuitive. As Amitav Ghosh argues in “The Great Derangement,” climate change surpasses the narrative capacity of our dominant cultural forms. It appears as an anomaly, a disruption, an unspeakable presence. Timothy Morton calls it a “hyperobject”: so vast and dispersed that it avoids direct representation. Greenhouse gases are invisible, and the most severe effects of today’s emissions will take years to become evident. Climate change impacts the entire globe, making it hard to narrate or personify. Humans have evolved to respond to immediate, tangible threats rather than gradual, statistical ones. 

Disinformers exploit this by presenting simple, emotionally compelling stories instead of the complex reality. In Brazil, Bolsonaro claimed NGOs were burning the Amazon to hurt his government. The story was false, but it was vivid, nationalist, and viral. In the United States, climate policy is often framed by right-wing media as elite overreach against the people. In France, anti-ecological discourse usually revolves around themes of control, taxation, and punishment. Each of these narratives offers a sense of identity, grievance, and clarity. These false narratives thrive not because they are more accurate but because they are more vivid and emotionally appealing. Convincing narratives that offer oversimplified explanations often overshadow facts, encouraging the procrastination of necessary climate actions. Modern propaganda surpasses chaotic reality by providing a sense of clarity and certainty. For example, the most persuasive climate denial memes resonate with people’s desires, target suitable adversaries, and generate a semblance of order in disarray—even if that “order” is entirely a fabricated conspiracy. A nuanced scientific truth struggles to compete with a simple lie that aligns with individuals’ existing beliefs.

The hard life of truth in the digital age: an epistemic chaos

To understand this crisis, we need to examine how society constructs “truth” and how these mechanisms are deteriorating. Political theorist Hannah Arendt observed that blurring the lines between truth and falsehood can jeopardize freedom. When lies become commonplace, factual reality ceases to exist, eliminating the shared foundation essential for meaningful debate. Philosopher Michel Foucault added that truth extends beyond mere logic or evidence in isolation; it is shaped by social and institutional practices. He suggested that each society possesses its own “regime of truth”—a collection of discourses and practices enabling individuals to interpret facts within wider contexts. Thus, facts do not inherently signify truth, even with a common recognition of their validity. We discern truth through reliable institutions: universities that assess knowledge, journalism that verifies facts, and courts that evaluate evidence. These institutions act as the arbiters of reality.

What occurs when referees lose credibility or are ignored? 

This describes our current reality in the digital age. Social media platforms enable any narrative to circulate freely, diminishing the power of traditional gatekeepers such as editors, scientists, and public broadcasters. Opportunistic individuals take advantage of this environment to generate skepticism and spread misinformation. They have mastered the art of imitating “expertise” or undermining it, exemplified by the rise of pseudo-experts and think tanks aimed at discrediting climate science, or by inundating online spaces with bots to fabricate a false consensus. The outcome is a state of epistemic chaos, where objective truth contends with a multitude of enticing fictions. Bruno Latour, a prominent scholar in science and society, recognized this issue from a unique perspective. Throughout his career, Latour demonstrated that scientific facts emerge from social contexts, such as laboratories, debates, and peer review, which can be analyzed critically. However, in the 2000s, amid rising climate denial and the rise of “post-truth” politics, Latour issued a warning: the rampant skepticism regarding truth had spiraled out of control. He observed with irony that academic critiques of objectivity mirrored the sentiments of conspiracy theorists who claimed, “everything is rigged!” Latour advocated for a “new realism” – a renewed focus on real and pressing issues (like climate change), rather than rejecting facts altogether. Essentially, he acknowledged the need to rebuild our framework for perceiving reality rather than dismantling it.

In today’s digital age, the ideas of Arendt, Latour, and Foucault intersect: the concept of truth relies on stable social systems, which are currently facing significant challenges from various sectors, including mainstream media and scientific authority. Climate change denial and falsehoods surrounding elections reflect a deeper issue: the erosion of the institutions and standards established after the war that previously shaped our collective understanding of truth. As Arendt would put it, we are experiencing a “flight from reality,” a phenomenon being exploited by those who benefit from societal confusion and divisiveness.

The geopolitics of disinformation

The fight against climate change is increasingly fought not only in scientific labs or policy discussions but also in the shadowy world of information warfare. Climate disinformation, far from being just a side effect of political division, has become a weapon used by various actors to advance strategic goals and delay the unavoidable global shift to clean energy. This harmful campaign is driven by both government and non-government groups, including well-funded fossil fuel lobbies, international rivals, and ideologically motivated organizations. Their common goal is to create doubt, cause division, and ultimately block significant climate action, maintaining powerful economic and political systems rooted in carbon-heavy industries.

At the international level, this disinformation offensive targets crucial weak points within the global climate architecture. One primary vulnerability is the existing North-South divide. Disinformation campaigns cunningly amplify historical grievances, portraying climate action as a burden disproportionately imposed on developing nations, and accusing developed countries of hypocrisy. Simultaneously, these narratives falsely frame climate initiatives as tools designed to impede economic growth and deny energy access to the Global South, despite overwhelming evidence that renewable energy offers a path to sustainable development and energy independence. This strategy effectively undermines the solidarity and trust essential for a united global response. Furthermore, the very multilateral system designed to address shared planetary challenges is deliberately targeted, with its inherent complexities and slow pace exploited to exaggerate its inefficiency and foster cynicism, discouraging collective action.

We are witnessing a fundamental shift from the “old” geopolitics, long defined by control over fossil fuel resources, to a new “geopolitics of truth.” In this emerging landscape, the capacity to shape narratives and control information is as vital as military might or economic leverage. Climate disinformation is not accidental; it is a calculated and deliberate strategy to fracture consensus, erode public will, and maintain the status quo. Recognizing this shift is paramount. Confronting this challenge requires not only robust climate policies but also a concerted international effort to fortify informational resilience, expose the architects of deceit, and champion a shared understanding of climate science and the imperative for urgent, equitable action.

Why Technocratic Fixes Fall Short

The core problem is not a shortage of facts, but a shortage of trust. Fact-checking, as many experts now argue, often fails to convince those most enmeshed in false belief. Once a lie has become entwined with someone’s identity or worldview, a dozen citations of evidence may bounce right off. Amid a narrative war, a fact-check bears little to no weight against deeply ingrained discourses and worldviews. The issue isn’t just misinformation – it’s the breakdown of the authority needed to counter misinformation.

Disinformation functions on both emotional and narrative levels, rendering purely technical solutions ineffective. A fabricated story spreads not only through algorithmic amplification but also because it resonates with people’s fears and passions. No bot detector or media literacy program can restore the feeling that citizens share a unified story or destiny. The crisis is as much philosophical and institutional as it is technological, revealing how individuals understand and whom they trust. Simply patching the leaks in the dam by debunking each lie won’t suffice if the very concrete that holds the dam – a shared consensus on how we establish truth – has eroded.

This indicates that our responses need to be more thorough. A purely technocratic strategy—just fine-tuning code or monitoring content—is inadequate. In fact, excessively stringent moderation lacking wider legitimacy can be counterproductive, fueling perceptions of “censorship” that diminish trust even further. The insights from Arendt, Foucault, and Latour suggest that it is essential to mend the social foundations that facilitate the establishment and acceptance of truth. This endeavor is political and cultural in nature, rather than purely technical.

Toward Democratic Renewal: Narratives and Institutions against the Algorithm

If the intertwined crises of climate and democracy result from a breakdown of shared truth, then our solutions must focus on rejuvenating our ability to collaboratively create shared truths through democratic means. 

First, we must recognize information and discourse as a public good, essential to society like clean air or safe roads. This necessitates investment in public digital infrastructure—similar to parks, libraries, and public broadcasters, but tailored for the online environment. Currently, the internet’s “town squares” are owned by profit-driven megaplatforms, where algorithms prioritize outrage over constructive conversation. It feels as though our public discourse is happening in a casino food court rather than a civic forum. Scholars and technologists are conceptualizing alternatives. For instance, Ethan Zuckerman advocates for the creation of “digital public infrastructure” (DPIs)—online spaces similar to parks and libraries, where community standards and public interest drive discussions, rather than advertising revenue. We have examples such as Wikipedia, a nonprofit encyclopedia, and the Internet Archive, a digital library, both showcasing how open, mission-oriented platforms can provide knowledge without seeking profit. Envision applying this concept to social media—publicly funded or cooperatively managed platforms with transparent algorithms and democratic governance. Just as we maintain public schools to educate future citizens, we could establish public social networks to connect and inform people, free from the detrimental incentives of the attention economy.

However, relying solely on technology will not resolve the issue. We also require a renewal of our narrative—a focused initiative to share a new story about reality that resonates with individuals. Facts alone do not circulate; it is stories that do. This is where civic storytelling becomes essential. Democratic societies must not allow demagogues and conspiracy theorists to dominate the emotional narrative but should cultivate stories that render ecological and democratic truths deeply relevant. For instance, the reality of climate change could be framed through local narratives of resilience, justice, and collective heroism. It is necessary to involve filmmakers, artists, educators, and community leaders in developing narratives that align with people’s values and everyday lives, connecting the climate crisis to issues like health, employment, and equity in ways that motivate action instead of hopelessness. These narratives can combat the despair and disconnection that thrive on misinformation. They can demonstrate that facing reality—no matter how intimidating—is ultimately less frightening than denial and incredibly empowering.

Engaging in both deliberative and radical democratic experiments is a critical element of the overall solution. Globally, initiatives like citizens’ assemblies and other deliberative forums demonstrate that gathering ordinary individuals—equipped with credible information and sincere discussions—can bridge polarization and identify shared interests. A notable example is France’s Citizens’ Convention on Climate, where 150 randomly chosen participants explored climate policies and suggested various solutions. This convention notably resulted in 149 ambitious recommendations for climate action, showcasing a rare consensus across political lines. Moreover, even in smaller venues, local deliberative platforms—ranging from participatory budgeting sessions to online town halls—have effectively fostered mutual understanding. When citizens realize that their voices contribute to policymaking and have the opportunity to engage with their peers in structured dialogues, it diminishes the alienation that thrives on misinformation. Deliberation can convert passive and cynical observers into proactive, informed participants.

Ultimately, we must implement democratic oversight of our communication systems. The previous decade’s free-for-all, in which social media companies primarily regulated themselves, is no longer acceptable. Just as democracies establish regulations for broadcast media, like truth-in-advertising laws and content standards, we need similar guidelines for the digital public sphere. This does not imply that governments dictate what is true; instead, it requires transparency, accountability, and public participation. Platforms should be required to disclose how their algorithms operate and how content moderation takes place. Independent regulators or citizen panels should have the authority to review these systems for potential harms, such as the spread of disinformation or hate speech. Some regions are moving in this direction. For example, the European Union’s new Digital Services Act requires major tech companies to identify and address “systemic risks,” such as disinformation, and it demands data access for researchers investigating online harms. These represent initial efforts to reintroduce the public interest into our information ecosystem. We should also explore antitrust measures to diminish the influence of a few major networks and encourage a diverse range of news media, including local and nonprofit sources, to prevent the informational commons from being dominated by a few profit-driven entities. In essence, democratic oversight means that the communication rules are shaped through democratic processes, rather than being left solely to CEOs in Silicon Valley or secretive political operatives. It’s about ensuring that the foundational infrastructure of our public discourse supports democracy rather than undermines it.

Rebuild: A Theory of Democratic and Climate Realism 

The challenges of climate change and democratic decay may seem overwhelming, but they also present a profound opportunity – a chance to reconstruct what might be called a “democratic realism.” Democratic realism would be a new political culture in which facing reality is not seen as doom and gloom, but as a source of solidarity and purposeful action. It means re-grounding our democracy in ecological truth and social truth, rebuilding the institutions that allow those truths to be publicly recognized, and renewing the democratic practices that convert truth into legitimate collective choices. 

To achieve this, we must tackle disinformation from multiple angles. Trust should not be rebuilt through blind faith in experts, but by improving the transparency, accountability, and inclusivity of our expert institutions to cultivate earned trust. We need to create a media and online space that prioritizes depth, accuracy, and public service over superficial interactions. Citizens should be equipped with knowledge and provided with avenues for action, allowing the pursuit of truth to naturally lead to engagement in solutions. Furthermore, we need to revive a shared sense of destiny—a story that highlights our collective journey through a rapidly evolving world, where coming together around reality is crucial for ensuring a sustainable future.

This necessitates creativity, political determination, and moral courage. It entails financing public assets and reimagining institutions and future opportunities. Promoting democratic realism introduces an ambitious agenda; nonetheless, history demonstrates that democracies often rejuvenate themselves when confronted with significant challenges by expanding and reaffirming their fundamental principles. During periods of turmoil, new institutions and narratives emerge (such as the post-WWII period, which led to the creation of international institutions focused on peace, or the civil rights movement that revitalized the concept of equal citizenship). Today, as we encounter a dual global crisis and an epistemological challenge, we must react similarly. We do not need to advocate for the Earth; instead, we must develop democratic frameworks that translate the Earth’s signals into political significance. That is the extensive task ahead.