The United Nations' COP30, held from November 10 to 21, 2025, in Belém, Brazil, has thrust "information integrity" into the spotlight for the first time in the conference's history. On November 12, twelve nations, including Brazil, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Belgium, and Uruguay, signed the Declaration on Information Integrity on Climate Change. This document, launched under the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change (a partnership between Brazil, the UN, and UNESCO), pledges to combat what signatories describe as disinformation, misinformation, denialism, and attacks on environmental journalists, scientists, and researchers. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva framed the summit's opening as a battle against "obscurantists" who "reject not only scientific evidence but also the progress of multilateralism," vowing to "defeat the denialists."
At first glance, this declaration appears as a noble effort to safeguard evidence-based climate discourse amid rising online falsehoods. Reports from the Climate Action Against Disinformation and the Observatory for Information Integrity noted a 267% surge in COP-related disinformation between July and September 2025 alone. The declaration aligns with broader UN frameworks, such as the 2024 Global Digital Compact adopted at the Summit of the Future, which outlines principles for digital cooperation, AI governance, and closing digital divides while upholding human rights. It calls for promoting a "diverse and resilient media ecosystem," funding research on information integrity, and urging tech platforms to assess how their architectures amplify harmful content — all while emphasising compliance with international human rights law, including freedom of expression.
Yet, as highlighted in the essay from The New American, (link below), this initiative raises profound concerns about censorship and narrative control. The declaration's language, labelling dissent as "disinformation" or "denialism," risks conflating legitimate scientific debate with outright falsehoods. For instance, UN Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications Melissa Fleming's 2022 admission of partnering with Google to prioritise UN resources in climate change search results underscores a troubling precedent: "We partnered with Google... if you Google 'climate change,' you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of UN resources." Fleming justified this after being "shocked" by "incredibly distorted information" appearing prominently, effectively admitting to algorithmic curation to favour institutional narratives. Such interventions, while aimed at countering what the UN deems misinformation, blur into suppression of alternative viewpoints, including valid critiques of past climate models, green energy inefficiencies, or the carbon footprints of elite climate summits themselves.
The core charge, that this push is "anti-science," strikes at the heart of the issue. Science thrives on falsifiability, rigorous peer review, and open discourse, not top-down enforcement of consensus. Historical precedents abound: Early 20th-century eugenics was once "scientific consensus" before being debunked; mid-20th-century warnings of global cooling gave way to warming narratives without equivalent scrutiny of failed predictions. The UN's own track record includes overestimations in IPCC reports, such as the 2001 forecast of Himalayan glaciers vanishing by 2035 (later retracted). By framing critics as "obscurantists" who "control algorithms" (a claim Lula echoed in his COP30 address), the declaration inverts reality: It's governments and tech giants, not sceptics, wielding the real algorithmic power, as evidenced by Google's UN collaboration.
Moreover, the hypocrisy is glaring. COP30 attendees, including jet-setting leaders and celebrities, contribute disproportionately to emissions, private aviation alone for such events rivals small nations' annual outputs, while preaching austerity for the masses. The declaration sidesteps these inconsistencies, instead demanding governments fund "evidence-based" information flows and pressure platforms for transparency. This isn't just advocacy; it's a blueprint for state-backed propaganda, echoing the Global Digital Compact's calls for "global framework[s] for digital cooperation" that could entrench UN oversight over online speech.
Democracy, too, is imperilled. The declaration's non-binding nature belies its potential: By endorsing "equitable access to accurate... information," it invites policies that could demonetise, deplatform, or algorithmically bury dissenting content. We've seen this playbook in COVID-19 debates, where platforms censored credentialed experts questioning mandates, only for some views (e.g., lab-leak origins) to later gain legitimacy. In a digital age where 4.9 billion people rely on social media for news, ceding control to unelected bodies like the UN risks eroding the marketplace of ideas. Independent media and the internet have democratised information, elevating critiques of the "man-made climate-change agenda" that challenge UN orthodoxy. Suppressing this under the guise of "integrity" isn't protection, it's paternalism, assuming publics can't discern truth without gatekeepers.
The signatories' diversity, spanning Europe, the Americas, and beyond, lends an air of multilateral legitimacy, but it also highlights a Western-centric bias in climate governance. Developing nations, often bearing the brunt of "green" transitions without adequate support, may find their voices muffled if local dissent is branded as disinformation. And while the declaration nods to protecting journalists, RSF's involvement in its drafting notwithstanding, history shows such protections often shield establishment voices while targeting independents.
Let Reasoned Arguments Prevail
If the goal is truly a "wave of truth," as Brazil's Digital Policies Secretary João Brant proclaimed, then the solution lies not in declarations or algorithmic tweaks, but in amplifying open debate.Let reasoned arguments in the public domain solve the issue. Platforms should prioritise transparency in their moderation, publishing methodologies and appealing processes, without UN-mandated biases. Fund diverse research, not just aligned with Paris Agreement principles. And above all, trust citizens: Educated publics, armed with data from all sides, have historically driven progress, from abolishing slavery to advancing civil rights.
Outlets like The New American, promising on-the-ground coverage at COP30, exemplify this approach, asking tough questions about predictions, policies, and hypocrisy. In a world barrelling toward 1.5°C warming (or whatever threshold du jour), silencing sceptics doesn't accelerate solutions; it breeds resentment and erodes trust. By framing free speech as a "threat" to the agenda, the UN risks turning a global crisis into a global control experiment. True integrity starts with intellectual freedom, not its curtailment.