If this were only a climate crisis, we would have solved it by now. The technology, funding, and strategies have been available for years. What prevents effective action is a dangerous convergence: the climate crisis colliding with an epistemic crisis.
An epistemic crisis is a breakdown in how knowledge is created and shared. It involves what we know, how we verify it, what we accept as true, and what we reject as false. Alongside the threat to our planet’s life-support systems, we face a threat to the systems that sustain reliable knowledge.
First, we must acknowledge that these systems were never truly solid. There was never a golden age of public knowledge where most people received largely unbiased and accurate information. Throughout modern history, European societies have widely accepted blatant falsehoods—such as the idea that the monarch represented the nation’s interests, that women were unfit for public roles, that Black and Brown people were inferior, and that empire was a force for good. These beliefs were supported by extensive persuasive machinery. Public knowledge has always been shaped by those in power.
Democracy promised that as knowledge spread, everyone’s lives would improve: our growing understanding of the world would drive social progress. For a time, in some regions, it did. But that era appears to be ending.
The core issue is that most communication channels are owned or controlled by the extremely wealthy. If democracy is the problem that capital constantly seeks to manage, propaganda is one of its tools. Like the monarchs and empire-builders of the past, the wealthy use their platforms to promote ideas that serve their interests and suppress those that don’t. This includes supporting right-wing and far-right movements that protect wealth and power from redistribution efforts.
In the U.S., we see this stance hardening rapidly and severely as Trump’s allies, both old and new, take over established media outlets. The likely outcome is increasingly irrational attacks on anyone who challenges capital.
The ultra-rich have also invested heavily in new media, such as online shows that now surpass traditional TV news in popularity. For instance, two fracking billionaires have contributed $8 million to PragerU and $4.7 million to the Daily Wire to expand their reach.
A Yale study reveals that eight of the world’s ten most popular online shows promote climate science denial. Joe Rogan, host of one of the top shows, has repeatedly claimed the Earth is cooling, despite citing research that contradicts this.
A recent Sky News investigation into Elon Musk’s X found that every account created by reporters, regardless of political leaning, was flooded with right-wing content, much of it extreme. Experts consulted believe this pattern could only result from an algorithm designed for this purpose, with senior executives likely deciding on the bias. (X responded that it is “dedicated to fostering an open, unbiased public conversation.”) Another study found that misinformation on X is most often spread by radical right politicians, while mainstream or leftist representatives are far less likely to share falsehoods. The radical right heavily promotes climate denial and obstructs environmental measures, which is why fossil fuel companies fund them.
Even media not owned by billionaires have willing participants in this system. A powerful new article by Peter Coviello, a professor of American literature at the University of Illinois, describes how he and his former college became collateral damage in the New York Times’ campaign against Zohran Mamdani, now the mayor-elect of New York City. Coviello outlines a process all too familiar to climate scientists: treating expert opinions as equivalent to those of paid lobbyists. No effort is made to examineThe author argues that there is a false equivalence in how media outlets like the New York Times treat different sources. If you have the money to fund a “junktank,” it will produce whatever opinion you pay for, yet such opinions are often presented as equal in weight to decades of academic research.
This also applies to the BBC’s interpretation of “impartiality.” While it no longer gives a platform to outright climate denial, it frequently violates its own editorial guidelines by hosting think tanks from Tufton Street—which often oppose environmental action—without disclosing their funders. Shouldn’t the public know if these groups are backed by fossil fuel companies?
The BBC even instructed presenter Evan Davis to stop his podcast on heat pumps, claiming the topic was “treading on areas of public controversy.” But why are heat pumps controversial? Because the Energy and Utilities Association, which promotes gas appliances, hired a public relations firm to stir up outrage. The firm, WPR, openly boasted about its efforts to “spark outrage,” and the media, including the BBC, were quick to amplify the controversy.
None of these actions have led to any BBC executive resigning. This includes plans by former director general Tim Davie and former head of news Deborah Turness to adjust “story selection and other types of output, such as drama” to “address low trust issues with Reform voters.” It also includes editing an interview with Jeremy Corbyn to misrepresent him more severely than Panorama did with Donald Trump, and creating a mock Soviet propaganda poster featuring Corbyn. The author notes that no one at the BBC has ever had to resign for misrepresenting a left-winger, while the appeasement of the right continues endlessly.
In this media environment, it’s no surprise that governments are backing away from climate action. A recent review by the International Panel on the Information Environment found that inaccurate or misleading media narratives about climate breakdown create a “feedback loop between scientific denialism and political inaction.” This is evident at the current Cop30 climate talks, where the president, André Corrêa do Lago, observes a “reduction in enthusiasm” among wealthy nations.
This situation is not accidental. It results from a deliberate and systematic attack on knowledge by some of the world’s wealthiest individuals. Preventing climate breakdown requires defending ourselves against this storm of lies.
George Monbiot is a Guardian columnist.
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about George Monbiots argument that dark forces are hindering the climate fight by holding knowledge captive with clear and concise answers
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What does George Monbiot mean by dark forces
He is referring to powerful entities primarily large corporations and the politicians and media outlets they influence who actively work to delay climate action
2 How are these dark forces holding knowledge captive
They do this by funding climate denial propaganda burying scientific research that harms their interests and using their influence to spread misinformation and doubt about the severity of the climate crisis
3 Why would anyone want to hinder the fight against climate change
Primarily for profit and to maintain power A rapid transition to clean energy would threaten the massive profits of the fossil fuel industry and the economic systems built around them
4 Can you give me a simple example of this happening
Yes For decades oil companies like ExxonMobil knew their products caused global warming from their own internal research but they publicly questioned the science and funded campaigns to mislead the public much like the tobacco industry did with the link between smoking and cancer
5 What is the main goal of these forces
Their main goal is to create enough delay and confusion so that meaningful climate policies are weakened or blocked allowing them to continue business as usual for as long as possible
Advanced Practical Questions
6 Isnt this just a conspiracy theory How is it different
Monbiots argument is based on documented evidence not speculation There are thousands of leaked documents recorded lobbying efforts and public relations strategies that prove a coordinated campaign of disinformation This makes it a documented political and economic strategy not a baseless conspiracy
7 What specific tactics do they use to spread misinformation
Common tactics include
Funding biased think tanks that produce reports questioning climate science
Creating astroturfing campaigns that oppose climate policies
Exploiting media bias for balance giving equal airtime to a small minority of climate deniers against the overwhelming scientific consensus
Using greenwashingmaking small token environmental gestures to appear ecofriendly while continuing destructive practices
