WHO urged to recognize climate disinformation as a threat to public health

A call to WHO member states

Health and civil society organizations have called on the 194 WHO member states to recognize climate disinformation as a threat to public health and to make information integrity a central part of climate and health policy, as well as of preparedness and response systems. Euronews reports this. The initiative follows a declaration on combating fake news and conspiracy theories, backed by the EU and adopted at the COP30 summit in Belém last year.

The medical community's first report

The appeal is based on the report 'Protecting Health in an Era of Climate Disinformation', prepared by the WHO Civil Society Working Group on Climate and Health. It is described as the first time the medical community has analyzed in detail how climate disinformation harms people's health worldwide — from undermining trust in emergency warnings to delaying action on air pollution and fossil fuel phase-out. The authors argue that a 'healthier information environment' is not a communications luxury but 'a necessary condition for climate justice, public health, and the right to a healthy future'.

Case studies: Maui and London's ULEZ

The report gives examples of how disinformation interacts with existing inequalities. After the 2023 Maui wildfires, false claims spread online that residents applying for disaster assistance risked losing their land or homes through possible seizure by the US Federal Emergency Management Agency. Fact-checks debunked these claims, but the rumors could have deterred survivors from seeking help precisely when they needed housing, money, medical care, and recovery services. 'In a disaster, false information does not merely confuse —' the report states. 'It can directly obstruct access to vital, stabilizing assistance'.

A European example and fossil fuel interests

The second case concerns European low-emission zones. The debate over London's Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which charges vehicles that fail to meet environmental standards, included legitimate questions about affordability for low-income families, workers, and small businesses. However, as the report notes, these concerns were 'inflated and distorted' by unreliable information, politicized attacks on air quality data, fake social media posts, and in some cases vandalism against ULEZ infrastructure. 'The backlash against ULEZ shows how disinformation can turn a public health measure into a culture war issue,' the authors conclude. Other case studies reveal the interests that 'allow disinformation to thrive', including greenwashing by fossil fuel companies and conflicts of interest.

Expert positions and recommendations

Dr. Jeni Miller, executive director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance and co-chair of the working group, believes governments should embed counter-disinformation tools into preparedness and communication plans for heat, wildfires, floods, storms, droughts, and infectious disease outbreaks. According to her, climate disinformation is 'not only a problem of rumors and falsehoods; it is also a matter of power, incentives, and accountability', and the WHO and member states must build mechanisms to prevent conflicts of interest and protect against those who use disinformation as a 'hybrid weapon'. Dr. Laura Jung, chair of the World Medical Association's working group on the environment, emphasized that health consequences can be 'immediate': misleading information can discourage people from evacuating during fires or floods and undermine trust in heat and air pollution warnings.

How to recognize disinformation

In parallel, the European Commission's Directorate-General for Climate Action has launched the #ClimateFactsMatter campaign, the aim of which is to help people recognize climate disinformation and to highlight the main manipulation techniques. The campaign advises checking the source of an article, double-checking statements made by 'experts', paying attention to emotionally charged language, and being critical of materials that promise a 'quick fix' for climate change. For clarity on terminology: disinformation is the deliberate spread of false or misleading information about the climate, whereas misinformation is inaccurate or out-of-context data presented as fact without the same level of intent; the consequences of both phenomena can be equally dangerous.