"The following nine conclusions are based on the analysis presented in this report. The first five are specific to information integrity around climate change and climate-related disaster. The remaining conclusions draw on the analysis of both climate-specific and non climate-specific interventions to highlight differences and commonalities that can inform future directions for information integrity efforts.
Conclusion #1: Weaponized narratives weaken climate action and disaster response. The analysis shows that climate-related information pollution increasingly undermines climate action and disaster response by eroding trust, delaying policy uptake, and disrupting emergency management efforts. Rather than directly contesting climate science, these narratives reframe mitigation and adaptation as economically harmful, socially unjust, or politically motivated, particularly in relation to the energy transition [...]
Conclusion #2: Information pollution on climate has shifted from outright denial to narratives of delay, minimization and distrust, with significant regional variations. The report documents a shift in climate-related information pollution from global, science denial narratives toward more context-specific narratives that seek to delay action, minimize risks, or undermine trust in institutions and expert knowledge. Across regions, these narratives adapt to local political, economic, and social conditions. In OECD countries, they often emphasize the perceived economic costs, trade-offs, and unreliability of net-zero transitions. In the Global South, misinformation linked to extreme weather events spreads rapidly during disasters and periods of heightened uncertainty. In regions such as Africa, Central Asia, Latin America, and the Western Balkans, climate-related narratives frequently intersect with broader debates around water, energy, governance, and security concerns. This regional diversification highlights the need for context sensitive interventions that are responsible to local information ecosystems.
Conclusion #3: Information integrity supports the legitimacy of climate policies at various stages of the information lifecycle. Information integrity contributes to the effectiveness of climate action by supporting informed public debate, strengthening trust in evidence-based policymaking, and helping to safeguard the integrity of climate-related decision-making processes. By addressing greenwashing, misleading narratives and coordinated information campaigns targeting climate policies, information integrity interventions ensure that mitigation and adaptation efforts are assessed on the basis of evidence. National programmes increasingly seek to integrate information integrity into existing governance frameworks, which increases the long-term sustainability and effectiveness of climate policies [...]
Conclusion #4: Information integrity supports disaster-associated risk reduction and improves the effectiveness of disaster response. Information integrity is an important enabler of effective disaster risk reduction and disaster response. It helps ensure that the information ecosystem—including data, warnings, and public communication—remains reliable, accurate, and consistent. During the preparedness phase, information integrity contributes to disaster risk reduction by supporting evidence-informed planning and risk communication [...]
Conclusion #5: Strengthening climate information integrity requires combining technical monitoring with social resilience strategies. The analysis suggests that effective approaches to climate- and disaster-related information integrity combine technical monitoring with social resilience strategies. Prevention-oriented approaches such as pre-bunking or media and information literacy build demand-side resilience by teaching the public to identify misinformation tactics before they encounter them. These approaches can be complemented by analytical tools, such as the use of AI-enabled monitoring systems, which support the identification of emerging narratives, information trends and coordinated information campaigns in real time [...]
Conclusion #6: Strengthening information integrity requires moving beyond reactive responses towards resilient information ecosystems. Promoting information integrity is more than responding to individual instances of misinformation and disinformation. While reactive measures such as fact checking, debunking and other measures remain important, they are not sufficient on their own to address the broader conditions that enable information pollution to thrive. Addressing individual instances of false or misleading content is necessary, but it does not by itself strengthen the broader conditions that enable a healthy information environment. This shift in perspective requires moving beyond a predominantly technical focus on the individual claims towards a broader approach that considers the health and resilience of the information ecosystem as a whole [...]
Conclusion #7: The current structure of efforts to address information pollution does not fully support the long-term goals of information integrity; while innovation across interventions is strong, important structural gaps remain. The analysis suggests that the current response landscape remains fragmented, limiting its ability to address information pollution that increasingly operates across platforms, sectors and borders. While innovation across interventions is strong, many promising initiatives remain difficult to scale beyond specific national, thematic, or project-based contexts. This fragmentation weakens the ability of the field to respond to information pollution as an ecosystem-level challenge. Several structural gaps help explain this limitation. Social media platforms remain insufficiently integrated into many multi-stakeholder information integrity efforts, despite their central role in shaping online information environments. Recovery-oriented interventions also remain underdeveloped, leaving limited attention to the long-term work of rebuilding trust, institutional credibility, and social cohesion after information-related harms occur [...]
Conclusion #8: AI is accelerating the spread of information pollution faster than it is bolstering the tools to fight it [...] AI increasingly functions as an analytical engine within information integrity interventions, particularly in support of monitoring and response activities such as (1) narrative detection: Large Language Models (LLMs) and other AI-enabled tools can analyse large volumes of data to identify emerging narratives, including climate-related delay and distrust narratives; (2) Real-time monitoring: AI-driven systems such as eMonitor+ support the tracking of information flows across digital platforms, helping identify the spread and evolution of misleading claims; (3) Fact checking at scale: automated tools can assist journalists and researchers by identifying potentially misleading content, filtering large datasets, and supporting verification processes. At the same time, AI introduces significant risks and challenges for information integrity. Generative AI can produce increasingly realistic synthetic media and personalized misleading content at a scale that challenges traditional verification mechanisms [...]
Conclusion #9: New types of partnerships can strengthen the effectiveness and sustainability of information integrity efforts. Building resilient information ecosystems requires moving beyond silos and fostering new types of partnerships that bridge the gap between technical detection and social recovery. By promoting multi-stakeholder collaboration—particularly among local authorities, social media platforms, independent scientific institutions, civil society organizations, and international actors—interventions can achieve a level of integration that purely global or digital-only approaches often lack [...]" (Conclusions, pages 28-33)