Keep climate a national priority — donate today
In the lead-up to Canada’s federal election, climate policy became one of the most hotly debated and deeply polarizing issues. Amid party platforms, campaign promises and heated debates, Canadians were flooded with misleading narratives, questionable statistics and emotionally charged claims about everything from carbon pricing to oil and gas development.
While much of this may appear to be innocent misinformation shared by well-meaning individuals who believe what they’re posting, it’s time we acknowledge a harder truth: Almost all misinformation, especially about climate change, is the downstream product of coordinated disinformation campaigns.
Let’s define the terms. Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information shared without the intent to deceive. Think a Facebook post from your cousin claiming Canada’s emissions are too small to matter globally. Disinformation, by contrast, is deliberately false content spread with the goal of deceiving and manipulating public opinion — often to serve a political or economic agenda.
While this distinction may seem important, in the context of a federal election and the climate crisis, it’s increasingly irrelevant. The two feed off each other in a dangerous feedback loop. Disinformation campaigns — many of them seeded years ago by powerful actors — have built an infrastructure that churns out narratives designed to confuse, divide and delay climate action. Once these narratives take root, they spread as “misinformation,” appearing on your social feeds or in casual conversations, detached from their original intent but still doing damage.
Take, for example, the persistent myth that Canada’s oil and gas sector is already "clean" or that net-zero targets are unaffordable pipe dreams. These are not harmless misunderstandings — they’re the culmination of decades-long disinformation efforts, particularly from fossil fuel interests determined to protect their profits. These actors have funded think tanks, PR campaigns and lobbying efforts aimed at muddying the waters around climate science and policy.
And it's not just fossil fuel companies anymore. In today’s fragmented media ecosystem, these narratives are picked up by political operatives, amplified by partisan influencers and spread by illicit actors hoping to destabilize democratic institutions. Some are motivated by money, others by ideology and some simply want to sow chaos. But the outcome is the same: public confusion, political paralysis and a lack of consensus on how — or even whether — we should act on climate change.
During the election, we saw the consequences play out in real time. From misleading ads claiming that climate policies will "bankrupt the middle class," to talking points that dismiss renewable energy as unreliable, Canadians are being bombarded with claims designed to erode support for meaningful climate action. These messages often use emotional appeals and cherry-picked data, wrapped in populist rhetoric, to create the illusion that fighting climate change is at odds with economic prosperity or national sovereignty.
This isn’t just a problem for environmentalists or scientists — it’s a direct threat to democratic decision-making. Disinformation erodes our ability to have honest, fact-based debates about the future of the country. It undermines trust not only in science and journalism but in government itself. When voters are manipulated by falsehoods, democracy doesn’t function as it should.
If we want elections grounded in reality — and if we’re serious about addressing the climate crisis — we must start treating misinformation as what it so often is: the byproduct of deliberate disinformation campaigns. Recognizing this allows us to shift the focus from blaming individuals for “getting it wrong” to holding accountable those who profit from keeping us divided and misinformed.
Canada has a choice to make about what kind of democracy we want. One that is resilient, informed and capable of tackling the climate emergency? Or one where truth is optional and our future is shaped by the loudest lies?
Clarity is not a luxury — it’s a necessity. And the first step toward clarity is calling disinformation by its name, no matter how innocently it arrives at our doorstep.
Andrew Heffernan is a former post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation's Digital Policy Hub. He is also a climate associate at Information Integrity and an adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa, where he also holds a PhD in political science.
Comments
Thanks Andrew for an important distinction.
It is an important distinction, not least because those two different things call for very distinct actions to combat them. If it was just about unintentional misinformation coming from nowhere in particular, then ramping up education would be sufficient. But concerted disinformation has to be reined in by laws.
Social media has become a disease around the globe and even worse than COVID-19. I cancelled what social media accounts that I had, mostly because disinformation is ramped and dealing with stupid posters spreading the garbage. It is sad that so many in the younger generation get sucked into the disinformation being spread and fail to fact check what they read. Now with AI being used more often, this has made the disinformation even worse.
The disinformation and rage farming comes from two main sources, the oil & gas sector, and the Conservative Party of Canada. Poilievre has used various social media groups to spread his disinformation about climate change and to target the Liberals. The Conservative party's failure to acknowledge climate change is real, unwilling to talk about climate change, comes from the fact that oil & gas is one of their biggest political donors.
Article: "Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information shared without the intent to deceive. … Disinformation, by contrast, is deliberately false content spread with the goal of deceiving and manipulating public opinion — often to serve a political or economic agenda."
So Liberal party fairy tales about how we can reduce emissions and grow our O&G industry at the same time is misinformation or disinformation?
No need to choose. We can do both!
How about the notion that profits and revenues from fossil fuel expansion will not only help us pay for the energy transition, but are absolutely essential to that goal?
Another Liberal fairy tale. But is it misinformation or disinformation?
Or how about the suggestion that magic carbon capture and storage (CCS) will allow us to expand fossil fuel production?
Yet another Liberal whopper. Misinformation or disinformation?
Or how about the complaints that carbon pricing was a financial burden on Canadians?
A lie first peddled by Conservatives, then taken up and amplified by federal and provincial NDP politicians, when they saw that the Conservatives were eating their lunch. Misinformation or disinformation?
Or how about the quasi-religious belief that the "climate sincere" Liberals will take us to the promised land of climate targets? And we should not only breathe a sigh of relief that the Liberals won the election, but actually feel gratitude? A notion popularized by Observer columnists:
Chris Hatch: "It's time to shift from relief to gratitude as Carney helps steer the climate transition" (National Observer, May 5, 2025)
Adrienne Tanner: "Carney's green dream team" (National Observer, 03-Apr-25)
"If climate is your issue, you've got to take a good hard look at the Liberals."
Article: "Disinformation erodes our ability to have honest, fact-based debates about the future of the country. It undermines trust not only in science and journalism but in government itself. When voters are manipulated by falsehoods, democracy doesn’t function as it should.
"… Clarity is not a luxury — it’s a necessity. And the first step toward clarity is calling disinformation by its name, no matter how innocently it arrives at our doorstep."
Amen.
In Canada all three mainstream political parties are guilty of peddling climate disinformation. Sadly, even our climate media has been subverted.
Trudeau (2016): "Our challenge is to use today's wealth to create tomorrow's opportunity."
When the IPCC issued its latest report, then-Environment Minister "Wilkinson reaffirmed Canada's commitment to phasing out fossil fuels and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but said achieving that target will require money generated by fossil fuels."
"Ottawa says it must maximize revenue from the Trans Mountain pipeline to fight climate change" (CBC, 2021)
Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr: "Our plan is to use this time of transition to Canada's advantage by building the infrastructure to get our resources to global markets and using the revenues to invest in clean forms of energy."
Like selling cigarettes to fund cancer research.
Transitions start by moving in the direction you wish to travel. Doubling down on fossil fuels takes us in the wrong direction. When you're in a hole, stop digging.
When the IPCC issued its latest report, then-Environment Minister "Wilkinson reaffirmed Canada's commitment to phasing out fossil fuels and achieving net zero carbon emissions by 2050, but said achieving that target will require money generated by fossil fuels."
"Ottawa says it must maximize revenue from the Trans Mountain pipeline to fight climate change" (CBC, 2021)
Dogwood B.C.: "Trudeau's climate plan: made for the oil patch"
"Trudeau has developed a more palatable but almost as dangerous form of climate denial: believing that, as long as we acknowledge the scientific reality of our warming world, we can continue to expand fossil fuel production with impunity.
"…I think Trudeau and his Ottawa Liberal elite have actually tricked themselves … into believing heavy oil expansion is consistent with a safe climate for my generation.
"…I believe they are trying to deliberately manipulate the Canadian public, exploiting our hunger for win-win solutions by telling us that locking in new tar sands pipeline infrastructure is the pathway to a clean energy future.
"…Trudeau's PR machine is really good at it. They make Orwellian double-speak seem like normal, intellectual political discourse. Canada must build pipelines to fund the clean energy transition! That makes just as much sense as smoking another pack of cigarettes a day to avoid lung cancer."
Sandy Garossino: "There's an extraordinarily compelling case to be made for Trudeau's climate plan, and how the TMX pipeline fits into the bigger picture."
"The serious $70 BILLION climate plan you've heard nothing about" (National Observer, 2019)
Misinformation or disinformation?
"Catherine McKenna says Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will make B.C. coast safer" (CBC, Mar 15, 2018)
"It's an example of the economy and the environment going together.
"I know people have concerns in B.C. We did much greater consultations. We had meaningful consultations with Indigenous peoples. We looked at the science. And we took into account the climate-related impacts, the upstream emissions. We also announced our national climate plan, so the project fits within our climate plan, and it also fits within Alberta's. Alberta has a hard cap on emissions from the oilsands. And we announced our oceans protection plan.
"We are investing in a clean economy, including investments that we're making here in British Columbia, whether it's in public transit or energy efficiency. We're in a transition and we need good projects to go ahead. Transitions don't happen overnight.
"We're absolutely committed to meeting our [emissions] target, working with provinces and territories and municipalities, but we're also committed to growing our economy and creating jobs. You need to do both.
"I just think we're really better as a country when we're together. And I think it is unfortunate that you have two progressive governments that support climate action and there are other politicians who, I don't think, believe climate change is real.
"I think that it's time for political leadership, including here in British Columbia, to say we understand the environment and the economy go together, and we're going to make sure that happens in a responsible way."
In McKenna-speak, "transition away from fossil fuels" means doubling down on fossil fuels. In reality, transitions start by moving in the direction you wish to travel. Doubling down on fossil fuels takes us in the wrong direction.
"McKenna's bafflegab fails to counter that GHG targets keep being missed" (ipolitics, 2018)
Up until the last minute before Pres. Biden cancelled Keystone XL, the Trudeau government was still advertising that Canada's climate plan had room for new export pipelines transporting oilsands bitumen.
Kirsten Hillman, Canada's ambassador to the U.S.: "Keystone XL fits within Canada's climate plan"
Misinformation or disinformation?
As usual, Geoffrey, your comments are very helpful. Clearly, a lot of disinformation is being peddled. I wonder how much some of the folks know they're lying?
I understand how the distinction between disinformation and misinformation came to pass.
However, we now have governments promoting disinformation, while the other fork of the tongue looks like that of a Believer.
My problem is that they have Big Motive$ for their Big Beliefs in Big Lies.
On the one hand, they claim to follow "science." And on the other ... just don't. In any of a number of areas.
Perhaps we need a new arm's length agency: one that would fact check "climate truths" from the lips of politicians. Those with, and those without discernible forked tongues. But you can bet your butt's best bucks that somehow or other, O&G would weasel their way into such an agency, just as with everything else.
I'm not a cynic at heart, but after decades of climate lip service and worse, it's hard to corral a spirit of hopefulness. I'm a believer in grains of sand, but grains of sand are nothing in a typhoon.
This as I wonder who graced my garden with a bucketful of fine sand ... and why ... and when: the periwinkle seems to like it fine, so far.