EU overreach amid failing climate policies, accusing leaders of using censorship to silence opposition rather than address economic fallout (e.g., high energy costs, farmer protests).

As of January 2026, climate disinformation is not explicitly classified as a DSA systemic risk. Enforcement focuses on illegal content, elections, and general misinformation; no widespread “climate censorship” actions reported.

HEAT: Harmful Environmental Agendas & Tactics is the title of a 2025 investigative report published by EU DisinfoLab in collaboration with the analytics firm Logically.

The project, funded by the European Media and Information Fund (EMIF), examines how climate-related misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (collectively termed MDM) are strategically spread and amplified in three European countries: Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

Proponents, including climate advocacy coalitions, see it as a necessary response to coordinated efforts that delay urgent action on climate change.

The full report is available on the EU DisinfoLab website (76 pages, released June 2025). It reflects broader tensions between combating disinformation and protecting open debate on politically charged topics like environmental policy.

---

From No Trick Zone

By P Gosselin

As EU narratives collapse, desparate leaders are planning more tyrannical measures to keep it all from sinking. 

Currently, EU leaders are fuming that US officials would be so audacious as to accuse them of practicing censorship. Yet, when it comes to suppressing open discussions and differing viewpoints on major issues, things are in fact worse than most people think. And it’s about to get even worse.

HEAT as a pretext for censorship, arguing it labels legitimate policy criticism (e.g., opposition to CO₂ taxes, heat pumps, or energy regulations) as “harmful disinformation.” They claim it paves the way for algorithmic suppression on platforms like X, YouTube, or Facebook, eroding free speech. Discussions on X (formerly Twitter) often frame it as EU overreach, with users highlighting funding ties to foundations like the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation or indirect links to groups like Open Society Foundations.

A recent (indirectly EU-funded) report released earlier this year shows how the EU is planning to broaden censorship to include the topics of climate and energy science.

In the “Harmful Environmental Agendas and Tactics” (HEAT) report, published by EU DisinfoLab and Logically, its authors investigate how climate-related misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation (MDM) are strategically used to undermine climate policy in Europe, specifically in Germany, France, and the Netherlands.

Climate science skeptics threaten democracy

The report argues that climate disinformation has moved beyond simple science denial and has become a tool for broader political and social polarization.

Outright denial of climate change, the authors claim, is being replaced by narratives focused on “climate delay.” These often acknowledge climate change but attack the feasibility, cost, and fairness of solutions, e.g., they claim green policies will bankrupt households or destroy industries.

The enemies

The report identifies four main pillars driving these agendas:

1. The Conspiracy Milieu: Distrust of elites and “deep state” narratives (e.g., the “Great Reset”).
2. Culture War/Partisan Discourse: Framing climate action as an authoritarian or elitist project.
3. Hostile State Actors (HSAs): Significant involvement of Russian-linked networks (e.g., Portal Kombat) that use localized domains like Pravda DE to amplify divisive climate content.
4. Big Oil Alignment: Narratives that align with fossil fuel interests, even if direct corporate attribution is often obscured.

In Germany, for example, there are attacks on the Energiewende (energy transition) and the Building Heating Act.

In France, there are links between climate policy and the “Yellow Vest” movement or anti-elitist sentiments.

Meanwhile, the “nitrogen crisis” has been reframed as “government land theft” in the Netherlands. 

European leaders are convinced that their policies have nothing to do with all the failure going on. In their eyes, it’s all the fault of unruly citizens and their disinfoarmtion campaigns.

The report’s key recommendations

The authors call for decisive institutional and platform-level action to treat climate disinformation as a structural threat and a danger to democracy. This all needs to stop!

Platforms must act!

The primary recommendation is for the EU to explicitly recognize climate disinformation as a systemic risk under the Digital Services Act (a.k.a. by critics the Digital Censorship Act). This would force so-called Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) to take proactive measures and conduct risk assessments.

The authors also call for mandating algorithm audits and public reporting on content moderation, specifically for climate content. It’s time to crack down on skeptics, they say. 

“Independent” auditors

Moreover “independent researchers” are to be provided with access to disaggregated platform data to track how these narratives spread.

Another recommendation is calling for the labelling and limiting the reach of “ideological or sponsored” climate disinformation.

“Trusted flaggers”

The authors also are calling for greater monitoring of Russian-aligned and other hostile state operations that exploit climate debates to weaken EU democratic resilience.

Another step suggested to counter “climate disinformation” is the establishment of reporting channels for civil society organizations (so-called “trusted flaggers”) to flag coordinated inauthentic behavior (CIB) and harmful narratives to regulators.

“Prebunking”

Also “prebunking” campaigns aimed at proactively educating the public on disinformation tactics before they are exposed to them—especially in lower-educated rural and working-class areas that are frequently targeted.