Chatbots, Climate Information, and the Subtleties of Greenwashing
The rise of artificial intelligence has ushered in a new era of information access, with chatbots like ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, and Meta AI becoming increasingly popular tools for answering user queries. However, the accuracy and neutrality of the information provided by these AI assistants, particularly on complex topics like climate change, have become a growing concern. A recent investigation into how these major chatbots respond to climate-related questions has revealed a concerning trend: while none engaged in outright climate denial, some exhibited a tendency to amplify greenwashing tactics employed by fossil fuel companies. This subtle form of misinformation, often presented under the guise of neutrality and authority, poses a significant challenge to public understanding of climate change and its solutions.
The investigation found that chatbots frequently quoted directly from oil and gas companies’ websites and press releases, presenting corporate messaging as factual information without critical context. For instance, Meta AI highlighted TotalEnergies’ “commitment to sustainability” as “evident,” while characterizing BP as “working towards helping the world reach net zero.” These pronouncements, devoid of scrutiny regarding the companies’ actual practices and environmental impact, lend undue credibility to corporate narratives. In contrast, X’s Grok, in its “fun mode,” demonstrated a more critical approach, describing Shell’s participation in climate conferences as akin to “inviting Dracula to a blood drive.” This disparity highlights the inconsistency in how these AI systems approach sensitive topics and the potential for bias in their responses.
As these AI-powered tools become increasingly integrated into our online experiences, shaping the information we consume, ensuring their accuracy and impartiality is paramount. The potential for these systems to inadvertently spread misinformation, particularly through the amplification of corporate greenwashing, underscores the need for greater transparency and accountability in their development and deployment. Investigations into how these systems respond to complex and potentially controversial topics are crucial for holding the companies that create them accountable and ensuring that they serve as reliable sources of information.
The Economics of Disinformation: Profiting from Outrage in the Digital Age
The business models of major tech platforms, driven by engagement metrics like clicks, likes, and comments, have inadvertently created a fertile ground for the spread of climate disinformation. These platforms profit from maximizing user engagement, which translates into more advertisements and higher revenue. This dynamic has incentivized content creators to prioritize emotionally charged content, including disinformation and conspiracy theories, which are known to generate high engagement rates. The result is a digital ecosystem where outrage and controversy are rewarded, often at the expense of factual accuracy and nuanced discussion.
This system has fostered a complex relationship between tech platforms and climate disinformation spreaders. The Epoch Times, an outlet known for its promotion of climate denial and far-right views, serves as a case study in how this system can be exploited for profit. Despite being identified as a purveyor of misinformation, The Epoch Times continues to benefit from digital advertising revenue, demonstrating the disconnect between platform policies and actual enforcement. Estimates suggest that Google ads running on Epoch Times webpages generate substantial profits for both the outlet and Google, illustrating the financial incentive for platforms to tolerate, or even implicitly encourage, the spread of emotive, often misleading, content.
The confluence of factors—the engagement-based business model, the backlash against climate regulations, and the scaling back of fact-checking initiatives—creates a perfect storm for the proliferation of climate disinformation. This environment makes it increasingly difficult for accurate climate information to compete with sensationalized narratives, potentially hindering progress on climate action. Addressing this systemic problem requires a multi-pronged approach: reforming platform algorithms, strengthening fact-checking mechanisms, and promoting media literacy are all crucial steps in combating the spread of disinformation and fostering a more informed public discourse on climate change.
Targeting Climate Defenders: Silencing Voices, Delaying Action
As the urgency of climate action intensifies, those advocating for environmental protection and climate solutions are facing increasing hostility and targeted harassment, often fueled by disinformation campaigns. A recent poll revealed that a significant portion of climate scientists who have published extensively on the topic experience online abuse, including violent threats. These attacks, frequently gendered and with serious mental health consequences, aim to silence scientists and discourage them from engaging in public discourse.
The targeting of climate defenders is a deliberate strategy to undermine climate action by discrediting and intimidating those who advocate for it. This tactic extends beyond individual scientists to include organizations and activists working on climate issues. The investigation preceding COP29 exposed another layer of this strategy: the manipulation of social media narratives to drown out criticism and control the public perception of the climate conference held in Azerbaijan, a petrostate with a questionable human rights record. The discovery of the COP29 president’s attempts to broker fossil fuel deals further underscored the efforts to suppress critical voices and prioritize the interests of the fossil fuel industry.
The cumulative effect of these tactics is to create a hostile environment for climate advocates, hindering public discourse and delaying much-needed climate action. Protecting climate defenders and ensuring their voices are heard is essential for fostering a robust and informed debate about climate solutions. This requires platforms to take proactive steps to combat online harassment, support researchers and activists, and promote a climate conducive to open dialogue and evidence-based decision-making. The future of climate action depends on the ability of climate defenders to speak freely and advocate effectively without fear of intimidation or reprisal.
