EUvsDisinfo: Sneaky heat: the Kremlin uses climate change to push its favourite FIMI narratives
As COP30 approaches, the consequences of deepening climate change are visible all around us. In the midst of Spain's unprecedented summer heatwave, fires have destroyed nearly 380,000 hectares of forest. This is the fifth largest area in history - despite decades of work to improve prevention measures and tougher penalties for those who start fires. Portugal has also suffered - there, fires destroyed 260,000 hectares - proportionally the largest burned area in Europe. In Paris, there are even demands to the authorities to allow the city's zinc roofs to be changed, as they become ovens during increasingly intense heat waves.
On the topic of climate change, we observe an unevenness in pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives. Commentators on official state media outlets like RT often pretend to agree with the science, and official websites quote representatives of Russian institutions saying the right things. But if you enter the conspiratorial universes of “Pravda“ and pro-Russian Telegram channels, climate change denial will immediately take over. Some of the Russian elite reportedly see climate change less as a threat than as a economic opportunity.
Climate as a wedge
However, the truth is more complicated. For Kremlin disinformation spreaders, climate change is not really a threat or an opportunity. They see it as a wedge – a tool that pro-Russian media and commentators can exploit to create gaps in the public debate in the countries they are targeting. Into these gaps, the Kremlin can inject disinformation narratives of its own choosing, such as about sanctions, or try to heighten the tone and destabilize the debate by infiltrating polarizing opinions. Examples are numerous.
One tactic is not to deny climate change, but to condemn the EU’s efforts to transition to renewable energy sources. Commentators often suggest that there is a connection - sometimes indirect, sometimes direct - between sanctions, green energy and lower-carbon measures, the inability to import Russian oil and gas, and the decline of European industry. There is an obvious goal - in a given country's online debate, to use climate change as a means to instill skepticism about sanctions against Russia.
„Green dogmatism“ and „industrial suicide“
As an example, we will cite the narrative that under Ursula von der Leyen at the head of the EC, the Union is suffering from „deindustrialization and decline“ and „cosmic high energy prices“. From here to the claim that the source of the problem is precisely the refusal to import Russian oil and gas, there is only one step. Another often used suggestion is that sanctions against Russia are the basis of the EU's “destructive“ policies. When such suggestions are floating around, it becomes easy to claim that by adopting “green dogmatism“ and rejecting Russian energy, Europe is committing “industrial suicide“.
This series of stories is part of the “frosty“ narrative about the coming of winter, which the Kremlin has a habit of repeating every autumn. His idea is that without Russian oil and gas, European countries would freeze out. The apocalyptic forecast regularly and predictably fails, and this year it hasn't even come out yet. But who knows - maybe the evil Santa Claus will deliver this unwanted gift again.
Another tactic is outright denial of climate change to inflame an already polarized discourse. Pro-Russian commentators are turning up the heat on rhetoric in the hope of destabilizing political discourse, encouraging extremism, and ultimately blunting the resilience of European countries to pro-Kremlin disinformation narratives.
Divided and distracted
There is discrediting the scientific community, described as a “sect“. Propagandists also republish articles attacking political leaders like Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez for daring to point out the link between his country’s devastating summer fires and climate change. The attack on Sanchez is a telling illustration of the tactics Moscow is employing: taking an issue like climate change; using it as a link to unite with local media; and attacking a leader perceived as hostile to the Kremlin.
Finally, we will focus on the narrative of Russia as a responsible partner, working with non-Western countries to solve the problem of climate change. According to the flip side of the narrative, the EU’s efforts to adapt to climate change – and especially those undertaken jointly with African countries – have been a form of neocolonialism.
Wherever it is implemented, Russian information manipulation seeks to sow discord between countries and continents. Make no mistake: the Kremlin is not really interested in climate change, nor in the countries it supposedly respects. Moscow also knows that the green issue is a good tool to spread its narratives.
Let us not be fooled.
EUvsDisinfo/ translation: Representation of the European Commission in Bulgaria