Combating Climate Disinformation: Three Hopeful Signs as We Head into COP30 – The Equation – Union of Concerned Scientists

Report on Global Efforts to Counter Climate Disinformation and Advance Sustainable Development Goals

Disinformation campaigns, particularly those linked to the fossil fuel industry, present a significant obstacle to achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), most notably SDG 13 (Climate Action). These campaigns undermine evidence-based policymaking and public support for necessary climate transitions. However, a growing global consensus and coordinated actions are emerging to address this challenge, reinforcing SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). This report outlines key developments in this area.

Global Recognition of Climate and Information Integrity as Interlinked Risks

Leading international organizations now formally recognize the dual threats of climate change and disinformation, acknowledging their combined impact on global stability and sustainable development.

World Economic Forum (WEF) Global Risks Report

The WEF’s Global Risks Perception Surveys for 2024 and 2025 identify misinformation and disinformation as the most significant short-term global risks. In the long term, extreme weather events and critical changes to Earth systems are ranked as the greatest concerns. The analysis highlights the interconnected nature of these threats:

1. Environmental risks, including those directly related to SDG 13 (Climate Action) and SDG 15 (Life on Land).
2. Technology-driven risks, such as disinformation and unregulated AI, which impede progress on SDG 16 by eroding trust in institutions.
3. Societal polarization and inequality (SDG 10), which are exacerbated by both environmental degradation and the spread of disinformation.

United Nations (UN) Global Risk Report

The inaugural UN Global Risk Report, published in June 2025, corroborates the WEF’s findings. Stakeholders from government, the private sector, and civil society identified climate impacts and technology-driven risks, including disinformation, as the most severe threats. Furthermore, a report from the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in the context of climate change highlighted that climate misinformation has become a profit-generating activity, with revenue-sharing models between purveyors of disinformation and major technology platforms. This dynamic directly undermines efforts to build the strong, transparent institutions required by SDG 16.

Legislative Frameworks for Transparency and Accountability

In response to the threats posed by unregulated digital platforms, nations and regional blocs are implementing new legislative frameworks to enforce transparency, safety, and accountability, thereby strengthening institutional capacity (SDG 16) to protect public discourse and advance climate goals.

The European Union’s Digital Services Act (DSA)

The EU is implementing the Digital Services Act (DSA) to mitigate systemic risks, including disinformation. While not yet specific to climate, the act provides a foundation for accountability.

• The DSA mandates transparency in online advertising and grants access to data for researchers.
• It includes a crisis response mechanism for threats to public health and security. Coalitions like Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) are advocating for climate disinformation to be classified as such a threat, citing the severe health impacts of fossil fuels which compromise SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).
• Regulatory actions have already been taken against major technology companies like Meta and Apple under the DSA.

National and Sub-national Initiatives

Several countries have enacted legislation to enhance online safety and user privacy, which can indirectly help combat climate disinformation.

• Online Safety Acts: Australia and the United Kingdom have implemented Online Safety Acts.
• Child Protection Laws: Brazil passed ECA Digital to protect children online.
• US State Laws: California, Utah, and New York have passed laws to protect user privacy and limit exposure to harmful content.

Governmental Inquiries

Official inquiries are being conducted to investigate the impact of climate disinformation. Australia’s Senate Select Committee on Information Integrity on Climate Change and Energy and a bicameral US inquiry into the fossil fuel industry’s disinformation campaigns are key examples of institutional efforts (SDG 16) to expose and address the issue.

Strengthening Multilateral Partnerships for Climate Action (SDG 17)

A coordinated, multilateral effort is building momentum to integrate information integrity into the core of global climate policy, reflecting a commitment to SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).

The Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change

Launched at the 2024 G20 summit, this initiative by the UN, UNESCO, and the Brazilian government aims to bolster support for urgent climate action.

• The initiative’s theory of change focuses on creating a resilient information ecosystem through education, independent research, and human-rights-based policies.
• In alignment with SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), its first call for partnerships prioritized projects from the Global South to address capacity imbalances.

Integration into International Climate Negotiations

For the first time, information integrity has become a formal agenda item in key international climate forums, demonstrating a global partnership approach to tackling this barrier to SDG 13.

1. Bonn Climate Change Conference (June 2025): The issue was included in the action agenda for the upcoming COP30 negotiations.
2. UN General Assembly Climate Summit (September 2025): Information integrity was a key topic of discussion.
3. COP30 (Belém, Brazil): Information integrity is a cross-cutting objective on the official Action Agenda, responding to calls to combat disinformation and greenwashing.

The outsize influence of fossil fuel and technology industry interests has historically delayed climate action. By making information integrity a central pillar of climate negotiations, the international community is taking a critical step toward dismantling a key barrier to achieving the Paris Agreement targets and the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

Analysis of the Article in Relation to Sustainable Development Goals

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The entire article is centered on the urgency of climate action and the fight against “human-caused climate change.” It discusses the need to counter the fossil fuel industry’s agenda and the disinformation campaigns that delay climate action. The article highlights international efforts, such as the G20 summit and COP30, which are directly aimed at addressing the climate crisis.
2. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article heavily focuses on the issue of “misinformation and disinformation” as a major global risk. It discusses the need for accountability and transparency from “Big Tech” and “Big Oil.” The creation and implementation of legislation like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) and other national Online Safety Acts are presented as efforts to build accountable institutions and ensure public access to reliable information.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • A direct link to health is made when the article states that the burning of fossil fuels poses “cradle-to-grave risks to human health.” It quantifies this impact by citing “an estimated 8.34 million excess deaths worldwide every year from fine particulate and ozone pollution alone,” connecting climate issues directly to public health outcomes.
4. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
   • The article provides numerous examples of multi-stakeholder partnerships. It describes the collaborative efforts of the United Nations, UNESCO, and the Brazilian government to launch the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change.” It also mentions the “Climate Action Against Disinformation” coalition, which includes civil society organizations like UCS, working with international bodies to influence policy at events like COP30.
5. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article touches upon inequality by highlighting the disparity between the Global North and Global South. It notes that “much of the capacity for work bolstering information integrity is based in the Global North.” It then describes a specific action to address this inequity: the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change” encouraged and “prioritized projects from the Global South” in its first call for partnerships.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 13.3 (under SDG 13): Improve education, awareness-raising and human and institutional capacity on climate change mitigation, adaptation, impact reduction and early warning.
   • The article’s central theme is the battle against climate disinformation to improve public awareness. Initiatives like the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change” aim to “support a pluralistic and independent media environment, public awareness and resilience to disinformation,” which directly aligns with this target.
2. Target 16.10 (under SDG 16): Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.
   • The article discusses legislative actions like the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims to “mitigate against risks such as disinformation” and has “pro-transparency regulations for online advertising.” These efforts are designed to ensure the public has access to accurate information by holding tech platforms accountable.
3. Target 3.9 (under SDG 3): By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination.
   • This target is directly addressed when the article quantifies the health impact of fossil fuels, stating they cause “an estimated 8.34 million excess deaths worldwide every year from fine particulate and ozone pollution alone.” The fight against the fossil fuel industry is framed as a public health imperative to reduce these deaths.
4. Target 17.17 (under SDG 17): Encourage and promote effective public, public-private and civil society partnerships, building on the experience and resourcing strategies of partnerships.
   • The article showcases this target through the collaboration between the UN, national governments (Brazil), and civil society coalitions (“Climate Action Against Disinformation”) to launch and advise the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change.” This multilateral effort is a prime example of a public-civil society partnership.
5. Target 10.b (under SDG 10): Encourage official development assistance and financial flows… to States where the need is greatest…
   • The article implies this target by describing how the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change” addressed the inequity of capacity between the Global North and South. In its first call for partnerships, it “encouraged and prioritized projects from the Global South,” directing resources to where they are most needed to build resilience against disinformation.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicator for Target 3.9: The article provides a specific, quantifiable indicator: the “estimated 8.34 million excess deaths worldwide every year from fine particulate and ozone pollution.” Progress towards Target 3.9 could be measured by a reduction in this number.
2. Indicator for Target 16.10: An implied indicator is the number and scope of legislative acts designed to regulate online platforms and combat disinformation. The article mentions the EU’s Digital Services Act, Online Safety Acts in the UK and Australia, and state-level laws in California, Utah, and New York. The number of fines issued under these acts (e.g., against Meta and Apple) also serves as a measure of enforcement and accountability.
3. Indicator for Target 17.17: The formation of multi-stakeholder partnerships is a direct indicator. The article points to the creation of the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change” and the “Climate Action Against Disinformation” coalition. The inclusion of “information integrity” on the official agenda for international climate negotiations like COP30 is another key indicator of the success of these partnerships.
4. Indicator for Target 10.b: A clear indicator is mentioned in the article: the proportion of projects funded in the Global South by the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change.” The article notes that “nearly two-thirds” of the 319 eligible proposals came from the Global South, and tracking the percentage of these that receive funding would measure progress toward addressing this specific inequity.
5. Indicator for Target 13.3: While not a quantitative metric, the article implies that progress can be measured by the successful implementation of initiatives aimed at improving public awareness. The activities of the “Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change,” such as its focus on “education and literacy to independent research to policy change,” serve as process indicators for building capacity against climate disinformation.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: blog.ucs.org