🔗 Share this article

If the issue was solely a environmental emergency, it could be resolved. Innovative tools, financial resources and approaches have long been available for some time. What obstructs effective action is a deadly conjunction: the climate crisis running headlong into the crisis of knowledge.

Understanding the Knowledge Crisis

An epistemic crisis is a crisis in the production and delivery of knowledge. It’s about what we know and how we know it, our shared truths and what we identify as false. We face, alongside a worldwide danger to our life-support systems, a international risk to our information infrastructure.

Looking Back: No Perfect Era of Common Understanding

First, we must acknowledge that these systems were never strong. There was no golden age of shared information, no moment at which the data the public consumed was mostly objective and truthful. Throughout modern history, European societies have reached widespread agreement around obvious untruths: including beliefs that royalty represented national interests, that females weren't fit for public roles, that people of color were lesser humans, that colonialism brought benefits. An extensive network of influence was constructed around these ideas. Common understanding is continually influenced by authority.

The Hope of Democracy

The promise of democracy was that the lives of all would steadily improve as information disseminated: we would turn our gathering understanding of the world into social progress. For some time, in certain nations, we did. But that era now seems to be coming to an end.

Core Issue: Wealth Control of Communication Channels

The central issue is the following: that most of the means of information exchange are owned or influenced by the very rich. If democracy is the problem wealth constantly seeks to address, propaganda is part of the solution. Similar to monarchs and colonizers of the past, they use their platforms to project the claims that benefit them and silence perspectives that don’t. This means elevating right and far-right movements, which defend wealth and power against advocates for equitable distribution.

Media Landscape Shifts

In the US, we witness a rapid and extreme hardening of this stance, as political allies acquire legacy media platforms – it seems obvious that the result will be ever more unhinged attacks on those questioning wealthy interests.

Billionaires have also pumped money into digital platforms, such as the online shows that now surpass conventional broadcast journalism. As an illustration, two fracking billionaires have poured millions into various platforms to extend the reach of these channels.

Climate Misinformation

Among the globe's top digital programs, research indicates show several have spread climate science denial. Popular hosts have frequently asserted that global temperatures are dropping, drawing on research that indicate the reverse.

Recent investigations into social media platforms found that user accounts were fed a glut of specific content, a significant portion was radical. Experts believe this likely emerged from algorithmic engineering, and that such bias must be decided by senior executives.

Organized Disinformation

Separate studies found the spread of misinformation is strongly linked with politicians on the radical right: moderate or progressive figures are far less likely to spread falsehoods. Conservative extremists leans heavily into climate science denial and obstruction of environmental measures: this explains why it is funded by energy corporations.

Media Complicity

Wealthy entities have willing workers even in media outlets that don't belong to billionaires. Expert examination records how experts became collateral damage in journalistic attacks against elected officials. This process is grimly familiar to climate scientists: treating scientific consensus with commentary from paid lobbyists. Little effort is made to examine the relation between varying viewpoints, or their histories, their funders, or their relative evidentiary authority.

Public Broadcasting Challenges

This also describes certain broadcasters' understanding of “impartiality”. While they no longer provide space for complete environmental rejection, frequently they violate internal policies by hosting certain thinktanks without disclosing who funds them. Don't we deserve to know whether or not they are funded by energy corporations?

Broadcasting leaders have instructed hosts to stop making informative programs about green solutions, on the grounds that discussing this technology meant “entering disputed territory”. Why are these technologies controversial? Because commercial groups paid public affairs companies to make them so. These companies boasted that they set out to “spark outrage”. News outlets, including public broadcasters, were quite willing to comply.

Results and Ramifications

These actions has obliged any broadcasting leaders to resign. Nor did editorial decisions designed to “address low trust issues” with specific voter groups. Nor did consequence for misrepresenting political figures through edited interviews or propaganda-style imagery. I cannot think of an occasion on which any executive has had to step down for distorting a progressive figure. But the appeasement of the right continues endlessly, and nor will it ever be satisfied.

Global Impact

In this media climate, it's understandable that nations are pulling back from climate action. International reviews have found that “false or deceptive stories” in the media about environmental collapse create “a vicious cycle” between scientific denialism and political inaction. The results can be seen at global environmental negotiations, where participants note on a “decline in commitment” among wealthy countries.

Conclusion: Systematic Assault

This wasn't accidental. It’s the product of a deliberate and systematic assault on knowledge by some of the richest people on Earth. Preventing climate breakdown means defending our society from the storm of lies.