Google continues to profit from climate disinformation despite pledging against it

In October last year, Google declared that it would no longer be allowing advertisers, publishers, and YouTube creators to monetise content that aims to deny the fact that climate change exists. However, a recent report by The Climate Action Against Disinformation (CAAD) coalition has revealed that Google is still earning from climate disinformation on YouTube today. 

The coalition, which includes over 50 nonprofit organisations, reported that its researchers had identified 200 YouTube videos containing climate misinformation and disinformation with 73.8 million views in total as of April 17th, 2023.

"The videos have all featured ads, and contained either outright denial of climate science that violates YouTube’s existing policies or other forms of climate disinformation," it said. 

Don't miss: Planning for a sustainability campaign this Earth Day? Here's how to not fall into the trap of greenwashing

YouTube’s policies currently state that ads are not permitted on videos “contradicting authoritative scientific consensus on the existence of and causes behind climate change”.

However, CAAD reported that it had identified 100 videos breaching this policy and that these videos have carried ads with videos amassing a total of 18.8 million views.

Some of these videos made claims such as the fact that climate hysteria is "just another rebrand, a Trojan horse for anti-white anti- Western communist tyranny" and that there is "no link between CO2 and temperature”.

Researchers identified a further 100 YouTube videos that meet the Climate Action Against Disinformation coalition’s definition of climate misinformation and disinformation.

It said:

These videos have amassed a total of 55 million views and carried ads from brands including Nike, Hyundai and Emirates.

Repeated research projects by the Center for Countering Digital Hate show that Google has repeatedly broken its promise not to profit from ads on climate denial content, it added. Tests reportedly indicate that 63% of popular climate denial articles still carry Google ads.

Google also allowed Daily Wire to run ads on searches for “climate change is a hoax".

The CAAD called for Google to start enforcing its promise not to profit from climate denial, on YouTube and on its other advertising platforms. It also noted that Google should expand its policy to cover other prevalent forms of climate disinformation.

Greenwashing still a prevalent problem

The news comes just as Earth Day wrapped up on April 22. Throughout the month, brands were out in full force with environmental campaigns and movements in honor of the celebrations. 

While many brands manage to do it right with meaningful campaigns and movements that have made significant impact, there are some brands that simply just miss the mark. 

So how can brands avoid falling into the trap of seeming opportunistic or simple flat out being cancelled? The answer it would seem lies in good storytelling. 

"Themed days like Earth Day or World Environment Day typically allows algorithms or media folk to pick out environmental news which might otherwise get lost at any other point in the year," said Qiyun Woo, a Climate Action Singapore Alliance executive member, sustainability consultant at Unravel Carbon and environmentalist. "Hence, brands can gain media mileage by aligning themselves with the cause in this month. However, jumping on the bandwagon comes with a fair amount of reputational risk depending on how a particular solution, product or campaign is marketed."

Woo added that intention, while important and good, does not absolve brands of the responsibility and accountability of fair and representative marketing. Essentially, she argues that good intentions by brands may lead to unintentional greenwashing. 

The solution Woo proposes is to invest in good storytelling. "Good storytelling is key to paint a representative picture of the work that has been done," she said. She added that regulations targeting green claims such as the Green Claims Directive (GCD) by the EU or even eco-labelling initiatives provide good guides for companies when it comes to environmental campaigns and green marketing.

"These rules provide a framework and guideline on what brands can claim as green. This can look like claims being substantiated with data, certifications, explanations, etc."

She added that we haven't seen much of this background work being done in Singapore, nor in Southeast Asia yet.

These rules are important to consumers as firstly improves the environmental literacy of consumers to understand what makes a product green, but it also builds trust as consumers know that these claims are well supported.

Woo continued by saying that greenwashing, intentional or not, breeds mistrust and that the inconsistency around what counts as green will eventually result in doubt being cast on brands and might even discourage well-meaning consumers from considering real eco-friendly options.

"My advice for brands is to engage meaningfully with local environmentalists, professionals, science communicators to find ways to communicate something complex in a way that's still entertaining, eye-catching but scientifically sound," said Woo. She added that brands should familiarise themselves with recognised guidelines and that even if they are not applicable in Southeast Asia per say, that they should consider it a good starting point. 

You need to be able to back up what you put out and also be consistent throughout your campaign - as much as possible.

Sincerity is key 

Agreeing with Woo, Robin Hicks, a sustainability journalist and deputy editor of Eco Business, a media publication dedicated to sustainable development, noted that brands simply cannot afford to be insincere or superficial in their marketing efforts when it comes to sustainability.

"There may be more to lose reputationally than there is to gain from using Earth Day as a marketing platform," Hicks noted. "Consumers can tell opportunistic brands that are bandwagon-jumping. A brand that communicates their greenness for one day of the year walks a fine line. It might be better to give Earth Day a miss and avoid the noise."

Hicks continued by saying that if marketing efforts are not backed up with evidence of real impact, a brand is likely engaging in greenwashing and that the first principle brands should adhere to is to "do it before you say it".

"There’s no reason why brands can’t communicate any point of their sustainability journey, as long as they’re honest and transparent about where they are at that point in time," he said. 

Noting that many brands seem to "get away with" greenwashing in "most Asian markets", Hicks noted that consequences are coming as more countries begin taking action against brands who engage in greenwashing. 

In Singapore, just recently, Minister of State for Trade and Industry Alvin Tan noted in Parliament that consumers who encounter instances of greenwashing based on claims made by suppliers can now approach the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) for help with the case. 

He noted that at the point of time, no specific complaints of greenwashing have been received by CASE but that the government will continue to monitor developments on greenwashing. These complaints can include a company making false claims about the environmental benefits of a product of services. 

MARKETING-INTERACTIVE reached out to CASE to confirm this and Mr Melvin Yong, the president of CASE, confirmed the statement. 

"As at 21 March 2023, CASE has not received any consumer complaints related to greenwashing," Yong said. 

Related articles:
Why Google removed over 5.2 billion ads on its platform in 2022
Coca-Cola's COP27 greenwashing backlash: Can brands win over sceptics?
You can now go to CASE for greenwashing related claims, according to minister Alvin Tan