“YouTube pockets 13 million dollars per year thanks to climate skeptic videos”, denounces François Gemenne

Every Saturday, we decipher climate issues with François Gemenne, professor at HEC, president of the Scientific Council of the Foundation for Nature and Man and member of the IPCC. Saturday February 10: new forms of climate denial on social networks and platforms.

franceinfo: This week, we are looking at a report from an NGO specializing in the fight against online disinformation, the Center for Countering Digital Hate, in French?

François Gemenne : Yes, this organization, recognized for its work on disinformation, particularly during the Covid crisis, was interested in new forms of climate denial on social networks and platforms, YouTube in particular. The report also looked at the profits generated by this denial. YouTube, for example, pockets $13.4 million per year from climate skeptic videos hosted on the platform.

What does this report reveal? Exactly ?

Above all, it shows that climate denial strategies have evolved profoundly over the last five years. In 2018, arguments claiming that climate change did not exist, or that human activities were not responsible for it, still made up two-thirds of climate skeptic videos. Now, they only constitute a third and have been replaced by arguments relating to the reliability of climate science, the beneficial impacts of climate change, and above all doubts about the effectiveness of the solutions implemented. And I admit that I was quite taken aback by this: can we really place doubts about the solutions in the same category as doubts about the reality of the problem itself?

“Can we really consider that pessimism is a form of climate skepticism or climate denial?”

François Gemenne

franceinfo

I believe that we can consider that a certain critical perspective on the solutions is sometimes necessary, so as not to buy a cat in a bag or chase pipe dreams. However, even if the study is American, I am struck by the proliferation, in France too, of videos which assert that we will never have enough materials for the transition, that the COPs are useless, that the Green Deal would be harmful for Europe, that the decarbonization of the economy is useless if we do not overthrow capitalism… And all this is often expressed in rather endless interviews.

“16% of French people, or one in six French people, think that there is nothing more to do and this defeatism generates inaction and eco-anxiety.”

François Gemenne

franceinfo

But that’s really the effect of these videos, aren’t there other factors at play?

Of course, it’s not just these videos, and the seriousness of the situation itself undoubtedly has a lot to do with it. But I am struck by how our communication on the climate is very often negative, divisive and quite heavy-handed. For example, we always emphasize the risks or costs associated with inaction, but we almost never talk about the benefits generated by action. So, we tell people what will happen if we don’t act, but we talk very little about the benefit of taking action. Which is not very motivating, because often, to act, we need to be able to see the benefits of our action.

What do you think explains this negative communication? ?

I think we need to question the economic model of online platform algorithms. Today, many people get their information online, on YouTube or on social networks.

“What will generate engagement on networks, and therefore revenue, is often divisive and negative content.”

François Gemenne

franceinfo

These are the emotions that will generate the most engagement, and particularly when these emotions are negative, such as anger, indignation or despair. And when your business model is based on the engagement that you can generate on social networks, you will obviously highlight what will generate the most engagement. Between a positive video which will show that the solutions are within our reach and another where a guru will explain to us that we are screwed, the choice is quickly made.

But it cannot generate an electric shock which will also push to action ?

I wonder quite a bit about the forms of action that this generates. When you put a like under an outraged post which denounces Total’s profits, you may have the impression of having taken concrete action for the energy transition, but that is not what will move things forward. Basically, we must admit, we have not invested in communicating climate science a tenth of the amount that we invest in marketing each new pot of yogurt.