Public support can make or break climate policies, and misleading information about global warming may be more influential than previously thought. While governments struggle to introduce carbon taxes high enough to curb greenhouse gas emissions, new research suggests that public misconceptions about climate risks could be a major obstacle. When disinformation spreads, voters may underestimate the dangers of climate change, weakening political support for stronger environmental measures and potentially reversing progress already made.

In a study published in the journal Risk Sciences, researchers from University College Dublin and the ILaVita Foundation developed a climate-economy model to examine how misinformation influences carbon taxation. The model divided the population into two groups: informed individuals who accurately understand the consequences of climate change and misinformed individuals who underestimate its potential damage. The proportion of informed citizens changed over time as people gained knowledge, encountered disinformation or witnessed the growing effects of climate change.

Researchers examined two approaches to setting carbon taxes. Under the first, a government planner recognised the true economic and environmental costs of climate change but faced political resistance when proposing policies beyond what the public would accept. Under the second, carbon tax decisions were determined by majority voting, with policies changing gradually to reflect the slow pace of real-world tax adjustments. Surprisingly, the findings challenged the assumption that expert-led policymaking necessarily produces stronger long-term climate action.

According to corresponding author Katsiaryna Bahamazava of University College Dublin, majority voting could initially deliver more ambitious carbon taxes than a politically constrained planner. When informed voters represented more than half the population, they supported stronger measures to reduce emissions, resulting in more effective early climate action and lower peak temperatures. However, this advantage depended heavily on maintaining an informed majority, making democratic climate policies particularly vulnerable to shifts in public understanding.

The researchers discovered that once disinformation reduced the informed population below a majority, support for carbon taxation could collapse abruptly. This created a dramatic “cliff-edge” effect, with tax policies weakening rapidly rather than declining gradually. By comparison, policies established by a politically constrained planner deteriorated more steadily as public support diminished. The timing of misinformation also proved crucial. Disinformation introduced later in the transition, or sustained over longer periods, was especially damaging, potentially pushing both political systems towards substantially higher warming trajectories.

Despite these concerns, the study offered encouraging evidence that effective efforts to counter climate disinformation could protect climate policies. Strong interventions introduced after an early misinformation shock almost completely restored outcomes to levels expected without disinformation. Co-author Stanley Reznik of the ILaVita Foundation emphasised that maintaining an accurate information environment is essential not only for public debate but also for economic and environmental stability. The findings suggest that combating climate misinformation could be just as important to sustaining carbon pricing as designing the taxes themselves.

More information: Katsiaryna Bahamazava et al, Climate disinformation, belief distortions, and the timing of carbon taxes: A policy analysis, Risk Sciences. DOI: 10.1016/j.risk.2026.100063

Journal information: Risk Sciences Provided by KeAi Communications Co., Ltd.