Comment by zemeunvalsts.lv

It would be very naive to think that in a crisis situation, whether it be war, floods, drought or a hurricane, someone would not think of making a profit, and someone else would not help the profit-seeker by purchasing what is offered.

The problem would not be in the fact that “someone wants to make a profit”, but in a situation where information is plentiful, chaotic, unclear, and still based on slogans. As a peculiar and very simple example – in Latvia, people are rightly concerned about the amount of food ending up in the waste, which is too significant for a small country, yet those same people nod in agreement when environmental activists “attack a painting” with soup.

Instead of restricting something for the umpteenth time, it is worth focusing on a more serious (perhaps – the most serious) problem – consumption. Undoubtedly, it will not be the easiest path, but... What have the loudest shouters, activists and “green climate thought leaders” given up in the last five years? What specific and practical advice have they given to the Latvian citizen? What do Latvian news and advertising headlines and slogans express?

At present (at least publicly), concern for climate issues is most visibly expressed in arguments over bans, in very carefully incompetent analysis of what opponents have said, or in shouting on social networks. Unfortunately, one has become accustomed to this. A short, understandable explanation, recommendations and a clear plan for the future would be much more useful compared to political arguments or analysing the sentences spoken by an opponent at the level of a Latvian language lesson. Moreover, by getting carried away with the well-founded or exaggerated hunting of climate disinformation peddlers, the fact is forgotten that a certain proportion of nonsense and untruths is also present in “friends of the climate” speech and content. As can be seen in Latvia, particularly in 2023, climate issues have turned into a battlefield for political figures, where there is little room for reasonable and practical action, replaced by everyday criticism of political opponents. How this helps the wider public live in a more environmentally and climate-friendly way is not clear...

A new report claims that Google (although it promised not to) is still profiting from content that promotes disinformation about climate change. Despite activities directed against it, the tech giant continues to place advertisements on materials that contain disinformation about climate issues.

The rules of the tech giant's video-sharing platform YouTube state that advertisements are not allowed on videos that “contradict authoritative scientific consensus on the existence and causes of climate change”.

Researchers identified 200 climate disinformation videos with advertisements, including 100 with climate change denial content. As of 17 April 2023, they had been viewed a combined total of almost 74 million times. The videos included advertisements for well-known brands such as Costco, Politico, Tommy Hilfiger, Nike and Hyundai.

A joint study by the organisations “Climate Action Against Disinformation” (Climate Action Against Disinformation, CAAD) and the “Center for Countering Digital Hate” (Center for Countering Digital Hate, CCDH) claims that the narrow definition of climate disinformation chosen by YouTube could, contrary to its intention, allow climate change denial or disinformation about it to spread.

What do climate disinformation videos express?

To prepare the report, researchers searched YouTube for certain terms, such as “climate scam” and “climate hoax”, comparing the results with Google and CAAD definitions of climate disinformation.

The range of content found varied from climate science denial to other forms of disinformation. For example, one video claimed that “all climate models developed by (the IPCC) are flawed”.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. Its reports are developed by hundreds of scientists worldwide and approved by government delegations, thereby “fulfilling” YouTube's requirement for “authoritative scientific consensus”.

Another video claimed that “overall, there is no link between CO₂ and temperature.”

Scientists have proven a clear link between carbon dioxide (CO₂) and global warming. The planet’s average temperature has risen by 1.1 °C since the pre-industrial era. Between 1750 and 2020, the concentration of CO₂ in the atmosphere increased by 48%. CO₂, methane, nitrous oxide and other gases, much like glass in a greenhouse, trap heat, meaning less heat escapes back into space.

Another video stated that “climate hysteria is just another brand, a Trojan horse for an anti-white and anti-Western communist tyranny”.

A recent report shows that such wording is used to delay action on climate change by not addressing the scientific evidence.

Researchers claim that Google continues to advertise climate denial articles, even though in October 2021 Google introduced a global policy to eliminate climate disinformation across all paid products, namely, the tech giant announced it would prohibit “advertising and funding content that contradicts established scientific consensus on the existence and causes of climate change”.

As the (CAAD and CCDH) study shows, the enforcement of this ban is not always effective. CCDH researchers claim that Google has repeatedly broken its promise not to profit from advertisements on climate change denial content.

What is considered climate disinformation?

Climate disinformation is generally considered to be misleading content that questions the existence and impact of climate change. It may deny human influence on global warming, as well as deny the need for action to mitigate climate change. Misleading content often distorts scientific data, including by omitting or cherry-picking information to undermine trust in climate science and solutions.

Such videos sometimes falsely claim that something contributes to achieving climate goals when, in reality, it contributes to global warming.

CAAD claims that the climate disinformation definition of YouTube is too narrow. “We need a stricter, more coordinated and proactive strategy to address the scale of the threat posed by platforms,” CAAD notes, calling on both governments and tech platforms to develop legislation and strict policies to recognise and potentially prevent disinformation on climate issues.