Earlier this month a major report on digital climate disinformation called for institutions like the UN and Big Tech to do more to rein in the spread of harmful climate disinformation due to the harm it causes and obstacle it poses to climate action. Now, a new study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences finds that while accurate climate coverage makes people more amenable to climate policy, disinformation in the form of false opinion content erases that gain, demonstrating how disinformation is used to undercut public demand for climate action.
Although some Very Serious People may remain unconvinced about the need to address the hundreds of millions of dollars Big Oil billionaires spend every year on a network of front groups to fight climate policy using disinformation, even deniers are reluctantly catching on to the undeniability of the logic for deplatforming disinformers.
WattsUpWithThat guest blogger Eric Worrall reacted to a recent Guardian story by Kate Lyons, reporting on a Vanuatu-led call for the UN to recognize climate harm and the International Court of Justice to write an advisory on climate change with the headline claim: the court ruling which could outlaw climate skepticism.
The Guardian story makes zero mention of outlawing climate denial, so why is Worrall "concerned by the push for the United Nations to recognise climate harm under the no harm rule? The wording of the law."
Since it calls for countries "to use all the means at its disposal to avoid activities… causing significant damage to the environment of another State," then it only stands to reason, Worrall wonders, that if adopted, "could this 'use all means' principle extend to silencing skeptics?"
Well we hadn't thought of that yet, but great idea! He stops to "make it clear at this point, [he's] not a lawyer. So [his] interpretation could be wrong." But for once, we're inclined to agree with him, and think he's pretty much gotten it right.
"There are limits" to the First Amendment's protection of free speech in the U.S., he writes, in that you can't call for violence against others, can be held accountable "for the harm their public speech causes, such as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre where there is no fire."
Therefore, Worrall's "concern is, if climate change is recognised under the no harm principle, then telling people there is no problem, when the ICJ has recognised there is a problem, could be interpreted as spreading falsehoods to deliberately put people in harm[']s way. Just as yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre puts people in harm[']s way if there is no fire, so telling people there is no fire when the court has recognised the fire is real, could equally be interpreted as placing people in harm[']s way."
Well when you put it like that Eric, it sure does make a lot of sense!
He wrote that "those who would crush dissent" (by stopping social media algorithms from unduly amplifying climate disinformation) "are continuously looking for a loophole, a way to silence opponents" and that "legal recognition of climate harm is a potential route to regulation and suppression of climate speech," which means "an abuse of the ICJ No Harm Rule could be just what they are looking for."
Well we weren't looking for the loophole or anything, but since you were so kind as to bring it to everyone's attention, maybe now we will.
And if all goes according to the plan he so neatly laid out, maybe one day we can thank Mr. Worrall for the idea in person, at The Hague!