Climate-environmental debate guides extreme events, but is crossed by misinformation and attacks on environmentalists

By: FGV Comunicação Rio

At its height during 2023, the public debate on climate was markedly affected by the extreme events experienced in the country throughout the year. In the midst of the experience of living with conditions aggravated by climate change, the monitoring of the Media and Democracy project points to the complex combination between expressions of astonishment and concern, on the one hand, and conspiratorial content, on the other, denying the role of human activities in this process. In the case of hot flashes, the path of humor also stands out.

In this sense the document presented here was prepared from the compilation of weekly materials, selected to support the proposition of lines of action and to compose a guiding material for the Council of the Media and Democracy project.

The overview of the debate on climate change between January and September 2023 is presented in the first section of this policy paper, entitled "Lines of analysis: the bimonthly overview". The section is also complemented by consonant results, found within the scope of the broader debate on the subject, coming from the environment, the Amazon and indigenous peoples.

As an example, the compact versions of analyses available in full in the weekly reports, available for consultation, are also presented.

The highlights subsidize the second section of the document. In "Lines of action: thematic directions", we indicate possibilities for work and deepening in the elaboration of referrals to society. In the third part, called "Retrospective", an overview of the project's performance is presented, highlighting the main works developed between August and October

 

1. Lines of analysis: the bimonthly panorama

The fourth bimester of activities of the Media and Democracy project resulted in the production of 10 weekly reports on social media monitoring and 12 fact-checking checks, covering a diversified agenda of topics related to public debate on the internet. In line with the thematic line indicated by the project board, special attention was paid to results related to climate change and the environment. In this policy paper, we highlight the results of specific monitoring on deforestation, climate change,  and the Amazon Summit. The documents are available in full.

The close relationship between the dilemmas of contemporary democracies and the environmental agenda means that the agenda has already been the subject of several monitoring published by Media and Democracy. In January, we monitored in real time the public debate on the humanitarian crisis involving the Yanomami indigenous peoples. The topic was taken up again in April, in three surveys that covered the public discussion about indigenous peoples in detail: among supporters and opponents of the Jair Bolsonaro government throughout the years 2020, 2021 and 2022, and among the general public, in  the first months of the Lula government. Debates about public policies in  the area were also analyzed at the end of May.

In 2023, the debate on climate change showed marked intensity, with a high number of publications on heat waves and disasters, such as the floods on the coast of São Paulo, in February, and in Rio Grande do Sul, in September. In this context, expressions of surprise at the aggressiveness of the episodes are combined with diversified reactions, ranging from the explicit recognition of the relationship between the phenomena and climate change to the denial of the role of human activities in this issue.

In addition to the manifestations about the impact of extreme weather events on Brazilian daily life, findings from the period in question and from previous reports of the project show that the theme is particularly marked by dynamics typical of contemporary informational disorder. Disputes over the characterization of causes and phenomena associated with the climate-environmental crisis are permeated by discourses strongly marked by disinformative and conspiracists components, sometimes with a strong association with pseudoscientific arguments of international origin. Manifestations of hostility and negativity to actors and organizations that address the negative impact of human activities on the global climate are also frequent.

The analytical conclusions can be interpreted and appropriated in the light of the Brazilian and international sectoral panorama. The problematic aspects of the contemporary climate debate, especially in its interface through social media and conversational mobile applications, are part of the contemporary agenda of research, civil advocacy and public policy formulation. Not by chance, the theme is on the agenda of global events in  the area and of the  Brazilian National Congress, in addition to having motivated lines of investigation in society.

In this scope, specific policies on climate disinformation are already defined by the terms of use of the most used social media platforms in Brazil, despite negative diagnoses regarding the effective implementation of these procedures. Still in the background, the relationship between the sustainable development of new technologies and the mitigation of climate change also gains space in discussions more strongly related to the private sector.

Despite the initiatives and efforts developed, the facet of environmental disinformation as an instrument for spreading climate denialism has been repeatedly observed. It appears as a prominent part of the dispute over the attribution of meaning to extreme weather events, often in association with the scenario of political polarization at the national and global levels. 

In direct dialogue with this scenario and within the scope of this cycle of production of weekly monitoring, the results bring the identification of publications by Brazilian parliamentarians who contest the existence of climate change on their official profiles on the former Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Telegram. Statements about environmental data and perceptions regarding deforestation, indigenous peoples and the Amazon are also appropriate as instruments of political-partisan dispute.

Finally, it draws attention to how the questioning of the legitimacy of acting on climate-environmental agendas is a mobilizing point for attacks on people, organizations, and causes. Indigenous leaders and environmentalists stand out among the targets of disinformative and hostile content.

Between disorder and urgency, the articulation between the data collected, the discussions promoted in the council and the institutional context on the subject reinforce the existence of urgent challenges to promote greater integrity of the climate debate.

1.1 Climate change debate

Evolution of the climate change debate

Period: from January 1 to September 19, 2023

 

 

Source: X | Elaborated by: FGV ECMI

• The discussion on climate change was diverse throughout the year, but episodes related to extreme events and institutional politics motivated the biggest peaks of the debate: the heat wave at the end of the Brazilian winter, Lula's participation in the UN, on September 19, and the storms and floods on the coast of São Paulo, in February;
• The data suggest that concrete effects on people's daily lives motivate a more robust discussion about the consequences of climate change. The most prominent messages directly associate extreme events with the negative impacts of human activities on the environment, an explanatory line generally adopted by profiles engaged in the environmental agenda;
• Demands, criticisms and praise for the Lula government regarding the conduct of the climate agenda stand out, in addition to institutional statements on the occasion of international events. Criticism of the lack of infrastructure and resources to prevent or mitigate the consequences of tragedies is in evidence.

Parliamentary debate on climate change on Facebook and Instagram

Period: from January 1 to September 19, 2023

 

Source: Facebook and Instagram | Elaborated by: FGV ECMI

 

• Opposition to the government had predominance in the parliamentary debate on both Facebook and Instagram. As presented in previous reports, the most prominent argument corresponds to attempts to associate Lula with a negative environmental and climate agenda based on data that point to the increase in deforestation of biomes such as the Amazon and the Cerrado;
• There is also an attempt to associate the current president with the so-called globalism, under the idea that Brazil would be "selling" itself to rich countries based on "false narratives" about climate change. Reinforcing the trend identified in the analyses above, posts that accuse Lula of having been inhumane in the midst of the floods in the South were highlighted in the debate.
• The posts with the greatest repercussion from parliamentarians aligned with the government sought to emphasize, on the contrary, how the president would be concerned about disasters associated with climate change. In this sense, there was emphasis on Lula's trip to the coast of São Paulo, in the floods of February;

• It is observed, in general, that the parliamentary debate on climate change occurs much more at a level of political-partisan dispute than at a propositional and programmatic level regarding the topic in question. This dispute involves, above all, the attribution of responsibilities and meanings for the posture of the actors involved in each case.

Disinformation axes on climate change on Telegram

Period: from January 1 to September 19, 2023

Source: Telegram | Elaborated by: FGV ECMI

• In greater evidence in the set of messages collected, the main disinformation axes about climate on Telegram are guided by the denialist opposition to the "narratives about climate change", called an ideological and globalist agenda of debate, with direct attacks on the legitimacy of environmentalists;
• In this sense conspiracy theories are used to explain climate disasters as products of the self-interested actions of an abstract set of promoters of such a "global agenda", who act to manipulate the world climatically and to create situations that can justify interventions based on climate "farces";
• The existing interests in this subject involve, for example, the attempt to create government control at a global level or the obtaining of economic benefits from the carbon credit market;
• Different actors, institutions, and types of content make up the disinformation ecosystem on climate on the platform. Sometimes originating from other platforms, testimonies from conservative leaders at an international level, translated, are mixed with textual and audiovisual reports in Portuguese, being distributed in various channels/groups.

1.2 Politicization of the environmental debate

In addition to the more general debate on climate change, some analyses indicate that the environmental discussion is recurrently politicized on the networks. Thus, this politicization is triggered by different political groups to attack opponents and to disseminate perspectives favorable to their own agenda.

Main links to the debate on deforestation on Facebook

Period: January 1 to July 13, 2023

 

Source: Facebook | Elaborated by: FGV ECMI

• Right-wing hyper-partisan news outlets, environmental portals, and traditional media sites hosted the most widely circulated links on Facebook on the topic, indicating a high dispute of narratives on the subject;
• While Jornal da Cidade Online gained notoriety by classifying the management of Environment Minister Marina Silva and President Lula as incompetent and criminal, in reference to record deforestation in February; environmentalist portals, such as O Eco and Cenarium Amazônia Magazine, highlighted environmental consequences from the Bolsonaro government;
• In traditional media outlets and on agribusiness-focused portals, the news about bank restrictions on ruralists who raise cattle in illegally deforested areas in the Amazon was highlighted. The episode was associated with the veto approved by the European Parliament on the import of products from illegally deforested areas at the end of 2020.

Key terms about the environmental debate on X (formerly Twitter)

Period: from August 1st to 9th, at 10 am

 

Source: X | Elaborated by: FGV ECMI

 

• The centrality of the Amazon Summit in the environmental debate in X is explicit when we observe the most frequent terms of this discussion. The debate was guided, above all, by government actors, such as Lula, Janja and Geraldo Alckmin, who emphasize the importance of the event for Brazil and the world. In the opposition and in a lateral way, the Summit was approached with emphasis on the possible coming of Nicolás Maduro to Brazil, with insinuations that Lula would be getting closer to communist regimes; 
• Among the topics treated in a less central way, there is also a predominance of progressive profiles, which addressed, in a positive way, Lula's visit to the Tapajós River, demarcating opposition to illegal mining and pointing out the alleged relationship of former President Bolsonaro with environmental crimes. The opposition, on the other hand, has anchored itself in profiles of parliamentarians and influencers to question the legitimacy of indigenous leaders, such as the so-called Bira Sompré, and to affirm that Lula wants to hand over the Amazon to foreign countries, such as the United States and Norway.

2. Lines of action: thematic directions

The evidence mapped and analyzed in the weekly monitoring is categorical in pointing to the existence of a voluminous public debate on climate change and the environment throughout 2023. The peaks in circulation and the content of the featured publications show how the agenda is wide on the agenda during episodes of extreme events and in direct connection with the existing political-party frameworks.

Despite the manifest impact of publications that react to the country's climate disasters, sometimes with explicit recognition of the existence of climate change aggravated by human action, content of international and national origin denies this reality. Conspiratorial accusations about "globalist hoaxes" gain traction in far-right groups and channels on Telegram, often supported by pseudoscientific arguments. Congressmen and right-wing hyper-partisan outlets also stand out.

With this issue in mind, establishing axes of action that can be productive in the medium and long term contributes to confronting the low integrity and informational order that mark this scenario. In this sense, the bimonthly conclusions were incorporated into lines of action and points of possible deepening in the debate guided by the Media and Democracy Project and may be appropriated by representatives of the relevant sectors.

2.1 Public policies

2.1.1 Promote the communication of complete information about extreme events and climate change, taking advantage of the dimension of alert and public interest on the agenda;

2.1.2 Promote policies that generate positive interventions in the public debate to combat harmful themes and discursive patterns, but easily identified in the climate debate.

2.2 Digital platform companies

2.2.1 Assess the extent of crisis protocols, currently applied to electoral and health contexts, to respond to extreme weather events;

2.2.2 Provide structured data regarding the fight against the circulation of disinformative content on climate change in its services, as well as regarding the measures adopted to contain informational risks to the environmental area, especially with regard to the Amazon.

2.3 Production of scientific evidence

2.3.1 To act positively for a better political and social understanding of environmental data and climatic phenomena, often crossed by arguments that are difficult to understand, which explore sinuous elements of pseudoscience and political dispute;

2.3.2 Articulate science outreach and media literacy initiatives to counter the role that content distributed as "scientific" plays in the climate-related disinformation ecosystem;

2.3.2 Evaluate new methodological possibilities for comparing political-environmental disinformation and political-electoral disinformation, in the context of barriers to access to data for academic and journalistic research.

2.4 Parties, mandates and candidacies

2.4.1 Political parties, legislative benches and members of the political class can act to qualify the debate promoted on this agenda at the level of digital platforms, combating the spread of disinformation among peers.