How to protect people and planet from misinfluencers in the Age of Disinformation

In this episode of Cities 1.5, David Miller speaks with Pragyna Senapati of Ripple Research about the pervasive impact of climate-related dis- and misinformation. In the past few years, false narratives have been pushed around climate issues in an attempt to derail the policies the world needs to protect the health of people and planet. Ripple has carried out extensive research of these misleading narratives and tactics at the nexus of climate and health and their investigations show clear and actionable strategies and pathways for combating false information through proactive policymaking and climate literacy. The recommendations Ripple and Pragnya offer are key for mayors and city governments to strengthen community resilience and push back on the false claims wielded by climate misinfluencers. 

Image Credit: Brian McGowan @ Unsplash

Featured guests:

Pragnya Senapati is the Policy and Research Lead at Ripple Research, and graduate of the C40 Women4Climate program.

LINKS: 

Disinformation Thrives in Times of Crisis - Cities 1.5
World’s 1.5C climate target ‘deader than a doornail’, experts say - The Guardian
Spanish floods: before and after footage shows the scale of destruction in Valencia - The Guardian
How rioting farmers unraveled Europe’s ambitious climate plan - Vox
EU DisinfoLab
Europe was a leader on saving nature. Now, its backsliding could threaten global progress - The Guardian
Why Women are Saving the Planet - Cities 1.5
The Natura 2000 protected areas network - EEA
Dutch Farmers Protest Misinformation study - Ripple Research
Meat and Dairy misinformation study - Ripple Research
Investigation into Climate

If you want to learn more about the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy, please visit our website: https://jccpe.utpjournals.press/

Cities 1.5 is produced by the University of Toronto Press and Cities 1.5 is supported by C40 Cities and the C40 Centre for City Climate Policy and Economy. You can sign up to the Centre newsletter here. https://thecentre.substack.com/

Our executive producers are Calli Elipoulos and Peggy Whitfield.

Produced by Jess Schmidt: https://jessdoespodcasting.com/

Edited by Morgane Chambrin: https://www.morganechambrin.com/

Music is by Lorna Gilfedder: https://origamipodcastservices.com/

Transcript

David 00:00 

[Cities 1.5 main theme music] I'm David Miller and you're listening to Cities 1.5, a podcast exploring how cities are leading global change through local climate action. [music ends]  

[urgent music] When I spoke to Jennie King from the Institute for Strategic Dialogue last season, she said this: 

Jennie King 00:27 

Disinformation thrives in times of crisis. 

David 00:31 

Our current moment is a period of complex, existential, and interlinked global crises – crises that threaten the health and very survival of both people and planet. Just this week, even more record-breaking temperatures caused by fossil fuel usage have led to the conclusion from many scientists that the 1.5° target is already dead in the water. 

And, speaking of water, recent catastrophic and deadly flooding in Valencia, Spain, has yet again demonstrated how underprepared we are for the increasingly frequent and severe extreme weather events we are now facing. 

We are also in an economic crisis. Neoliberalism has proven to be an outdated doctrine, one which concentrates wealth in the hands of a few, while many of the rest struggle to make ends meet. We must radically change the priorities of our global economic systems which value endless and unsustainable consumption, and replace them with a system which puts the health of all of us, and of the Earth itself, first. 

Economic uncertainty and other recent political trends have created fertile ground for far-right populism to thrive and take hold. Disinformation and, often, outright lies are the building blocks of false but tantalizing narratives which offer easy and seductive answers. In reality, these tall tales hold the answers to none of the crises we face. In fact, the policies espoused by these movements will make our problems exponentially worse. [music ends]

[driving music] Misinfluencers, including far-right figureheads, tech giants, and all those who wield their platforms to share false claims about the climate crisis and more, are now increasingly taking the stage at all levels of society. Some of these bad actors have already played a vital role in diluting both the farm-to-fork and nature restoration policies of the EU, which were key to ensuring that the bloc cut agricultural emissions, protected public health and ecosystems, and preserved biodiversity. And, in future, they risk derailing the climate action we are taking.  

Ushering us into a new and dangerous era, the disinformation age may truly now be upon us. But cities, mayors, climate leaders, experts, scientists, and people like us can be the defenders that stand between disinformation super-spreaders and the future that we all need. It's vital to know what we're facing and how to prevent it from accelerating. The health of the planet and ourselves depend on it. [music continues then ends] 

[light, rhythmic music] The Cities 1.5 team met today's standalone guest at the European Union Disinformation Lab Conference in Riga, Latvia, a hub of disinformation experts offering vital insights. She's an expert in disinformation and has led multiple projects exploring the narratives wielded to create climate anxiety, derail nitrogen minimization policies in Europe, and disseminate falsehoods around the food we eat. Her insights are crucial for city leaders to incorporate into policy to ensure their action does not fall victim to misinfluencers. 

A quick disclaimer before we get into this discussion. At C40, we use the term "disinformation" to mean false information, which is spread with malicious intent and deliberately intended to mislead. We say "misinformation" to mean false information which is shared without malicious intent. Other organizations, including Ripple, sometimes use "misinformation" as a catch all term and you will hear both terms in this conversation. [music ends] 

Pragnya Senapati 04:58  

[rotary dial telephone rings] [clicks] Pragnya Senapati. I'm the Lead of Policy and Research at Ripple Research and I'm calling you from Mumbai, India. [receiver chimes, replaced in cradle] 

David 05:09 

Pragnya, welcome to Cities 1.5.  

Pragnya Senapati 05:13  

Thanks so much for having me, David. I'm really excited to be here, and hello to everyone listening.  

David 05:20 

Can you just tell our listeners a little bit about yourself, about Ripple Research and a bit about your background?  

Pragnya Senapati 05:29  

Sure, absolutely. I'd love to. I'm based in Mumbai, India. I've lived here my entire life. By training, I'm a lawyer with a Masters in Public Policy, and over the years, I've worked across public health, climate change, food systems, and community engagement, and I've had a chance to do this alongside some brilliant partners—you know, legislators, advocacy groups, and governments. 

Currently, I lead policy and research at Ripple Research where we focus on understanding and addressing emerging challenges in the fields that I just mentioned. We use data, we use behavioural insights, and also cultural insights to drive meaningful change, and I'm excited to talk a lot about our work in misinformation today. 

David 06:14 

I understand you were also involved with the C40's Women4Climate program before your current role. Can you talk a bit about that experience?  

Pragnya Senapati 06:22  

Absolutely. I'd love to. So, I was a part of C40's Women4Climate program in, I believe, 2022, and I think this was its first cohort in India and so, for those who aren't familiar, the women's climate program was a mentorship program that was supporting women in leading climate action in cities, and it connected me to this incredible network of women and provided the sort of guidance that's very hard to find elsewhere. 

So, during the mentorship, I focused on understanding why, despite resources and a fair amount of awareness, practices like waste segregation and, more common in Mumbai, a pretty critical issue considering our city's landfills are full, and full of household waste, and so I found that people weren't really resisting sustainable practices in general. They had some information. They just needed a more accessible do-it-for-me approach to make sustainability a lot easier. 

And now, even though the mentorship has ended, sadly, I am still exploring very similar questions and insights at Ripple Research where we're kind of decoding the drivers and barriers to action on issues like, yeah, climate action and public health.  

David 07:39 

So, one of those barriers is climate mis- and disinformation. Can you speak about why Ripple is so focused on that issue?  

Pragnya Senapati 07:47  

Well, just in terms of why we focus on misinformation related to climate, related to our planetary health is because it's one of the biggest challenges of our time – the climate crisis, our deteriorating environment. And, misinformation is one of the biggest obstacles to solving it. To borrow a phrase from this one singer, Chappell Roan—she's amazing. You should definitely check her out—so she describes herself as your favourite artist's favourite artist. And, in a way, that's how misinformation works in relation to climate change. It's like your biggest problem's biggest problem. 

What misinformation essentially does is that it intensifies the issues that we face by undermining trust in institutions, by spreading doubt, and by hindering effective action on critical matters like climate.  

David 08:41 

So, I want to get into some examples to help bring out to our listeners the importance of fighting misinformation if we are going to ensure that we can live sustainably on a healthy planet, and I know that Ripple and you were involved in work about the issue of the use of nitrogen on farms in the Netherlands, and this was a complex political fight which was rife with, if I understand correctly, misinformation.

Can you talk about your work and your research on that, in that particular fight, so we can understand a little bit about how equipping ourselves with knowledge might help deal with this challenge? 

Pragnya Senapati 09:28  

[delicate, sombre music] To get to the heart of this Dutch nitrogen crisis, I think we need to step back and look at a bigger picture because, over the past year or so, I think we've seen farmers protesting worldwide against many issues, including policies that they feel kind of overlook the realities of agricultural life. We've seen it everywhere; whether it's Canada, the UK, or across the EU, farmers have rallied against many things—restrictions on pesticides, water allocation, and so on and so forth. 

And so, similarly, in the Netherlands, farmers were protesting policy. Let's just call it the nitrogen reduction policy, for the sake of simplicity. Here's a little bit of background, and please do bear in mind this is, of course, a very simplified version of the entire situation. [music fades out] But, the Netherlands has struggled with high nitrogen emissions for years, and despite efforts they just haven't been able to bring these levels down effectively.

An important point to note is that agriculture is the largest source of nitrogen pollution. As one of the world's top agricultural exporters, the nitrogen has a dense livestock sector that releases significant nitrogen compounds, and one of the most dangerous, let's say, being ammonia from manure, right? And so, this huge amount of nitrogen pollution, amongst other things, led to a landmark 2019 ruling in Dutch courts, essentially blocking any new nitrogen-emitting projects, at all, until the government could bring down emissions to sustainable levels.  

And so, the Dutch government put forth a €25 billion plan aiming to cut nitrogen emissions in half by 2030. So now, environmentally, this is essential, but for Dutch farmers, this was nothing short of a crisis, because this particular policy, this plan, it could have meant drastic livestock cuts and even farm buyouts, which a lot of farmers described as forced. And so, faced with this potential loss of their livestock and livelihoods, farmers protested quite fiercely. They blocked roads, demonstrated outside politicians' homes. 

And so, now coming to our work on this and why we wanted to understand the narrative surrounding the protests against this particular policy is because we had seen emerging signals of misinformation surrounding this topic in a previous study we conducted, and we really wanted to understand it at a deeper level, because it was very interesting to us, as well.  

David 11:59 

Can I just ask you... The nitrogen pollution and the emissions – what's the harm that the law was trying to prevent by curtailing those emissions?  

Pragnya Senapati 12:07  

So, it did contribute to a few different types of pollution. It was contributing to soil erosion. It was also polluting water. It wasn't just any land. It wasn't just any water. It was in these protected sites that were protected by this other new wide law called, I believe, the Natura 2000, where the laws have said that you have to protect these areas from environmental degradation. You know, you need to keep emissions levels within, well, a certain threshold, and these emissions were going far past that in some of these areas.

David 12:41 

Got it. Particularly, my understanding is, that nitrogen in certain kinds of water creates all sorts of negative issues – algae blooms and these kinds of things. So, Ripple is interested in this and takes a deeper dive. What do you see?  

Pragnya Senapati 12:56  

So, I would say that one of the most striking findings was just how widespread the misinformation was around these particular Dutch protests. That's number one. There was a lot of misinformation. But, another interesting finding is where it was coming from, because now you think that protests about the nitrogen policy of a specific nation would be kind of a local matter, right? I mean, an economic and environmental debate for the Netherlands, or let's say, even just within the EU. But, what we found is that misinformation surrounding the protests wasn't only coming from the Netherlands or the EU; it was driven by misinfluencers from other countries.  

And, before I go ahead, let me just explain the term "misinfluencers", which we use a lot. So, when I use this term, you can think of misinfluencers as digital super-spreaders. I think we all probably would have heard this word a lot during COVID.  

David 13:55 

Unfortunately, yes.  

Pragnya Senapati 13:57  

Well, they exist in a different form too here, and these misinfluencers, they don't just share opinions. They shape the narratives that resonate with huge, huge audiences. And so, these misinfluencers, we found were amplifying misinformation, creating misinformation on the protests, and they were using very emotional, sensational language. And, these posts that they created, they received hundreds and thousands of likes, shares, comments, and it made the misinformation go absolutely viral. 

We identified 15 top misinfluencers behind all of these narratives in our study. Only two out of the 15 were actually from the Netherlands, and the others were from places like the US, the UK, and yet they had a huge impact in spreading misinformation about the Dutch crisis. We found that, even aside from these misinfluencers, posts and engagement from the US, UK, Canada, and Australia matched the number of posts from the Netherlands itself. 

[driving music] And so, essentially—at least online—this was no longer really just a Dutch issue. It had very much been amplified by these international voices and, in many cases, far-right voices with no direct stake in the matter.  

David 15:16 

The debate, as framed, seemed to be about this environmental good of reducing nitrogen versus farms having to shut down, and one could have some sympathy with farmers in that perspective. What was the role of misinformation? And, you know, was that really the state that it was either the environmental good or the farming, and there was no reasonable path forward for the farmers?  

Pragnya Senapati 15:42  

[music continues] I would say farmers have very real and very legitimate concerns. Like you said, you can sympathize with them. They would have needed to discuss this with their government. [music fades out] What misinformation did over here, though, is that it didn't amplify any of these specific narratives. It didn't amplify any of the specific concerns of the farmers. In fact, it eroded them entirely, I would say. 

It took every single legitimate concern and brought it down to a very us-versus-them debate, you know, kind of obfuscating the actual nature of this entire protest, of the entire issue, and that's where I would say the real problem is, not that protest narratives are being amplified, but that misinformation protest narratives are being amplified. 

David 16:29 

The us-versus-them dynamic is very worrying because it can be really subject to significant abuse, particularly when manipulated by far-right movements. It fascinates me that these misinfluencers were coming from other countries, much more than Holland. What was the outcome of all this debate and protests?  

Pragnya Senapati 16:49  

Well, observing recent political trends in the Netherlands, we do see a pretty close connection, I would say, between the far-right narratives, the misinformation narratives that we were seeing online from the nitrogen protest, and the direction that the political landscape in the country is taking. 

Just as one example, the Farmer-Citizen Movement, the BBB [BoerBurgerBeweging], which actually emerged directly from these protests, they have gained significant traction. They've gone from grassroots activism to major political influence. Earlier this year, a coalition government was formed, including both the BBB and this other party called the Party For Freedom, and they're both known for their anti-environmental regulation stances.

And, look, while no single factor is responsible, it's quite evident that this far-right, populist, misinformation-laden messaging has served the interests of parties that are opposed to strict climate regulations... or any climate regulations. And I would say that this political shift that we just spoke about has already led to some concerning policy proposals.

The new coalition plans to pull back on some of these nitrogen-reduction targets, possibly reclassify biodiversity conservation areas to bypass standards, and potentially even reverse a lot of these farm buyouts, which was a very core part of the previous nitrogen strategy. And, if these changes go through, it represents a pretty significant rollback on tackling nitrogen pollution, right? And this would have some pretty severe implications for Dutch biodiversity. 

David 18:35 

I know that you recently were invited to present at the European Union Disinformation Lab Conference, which is how we at the Centre know your work – a paper on some recent research you've done in this connection between climate and health and culture. Can you speak to that work and the findings you've made, especially about more human aspects of this and how online actors are trying to exploit the emotional connections people have with food or with land or, you know, with their country of origin? 

Pragnya Senapati 19:12  

So, we were invited to speak at the EU DisinfoLab Conference, a brilliant event. Just some background – our panel focused on climate and health misinformation where we presented specifically on the nexus between the two topics and, from our research, it was pretty clear to us that the most compelling lens to understand this intersection is through food because food is something, after all, that we need, that we want, and that we think about every single day, right?

It, one, affects our physical health very directly, but two, it's also deeply tied to climate because food systems account for somewhere over a third of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, so important for health, important for the planet. 

[light, gentle music] But, food is also important for another reason, beyond its impact on public and planetary health, and that is because food is so deeply personal and cultural and emotional. Because think about it, right? We use food to celebrate life's highs, comfort us when we're down, food is something that connects us to our families and to our communities, and food is, in many, many ways, a part of who we are, shaped by culture, traditions, and memories. This makes it extremely powerful, and, as our research shows, it also makes it very vulnerable to exploitation by misinformation. [music fades out] 

And so, in studying millions of posts across different regions and events, we've seen that misinfluencers, they know how central food is to our identities, and they're using this connection. They're using this connection to manipulate us and to spread narratives, and it becomes more than just obfuscating facts. They're definitely tapping into our emotions and values. And so, the narratives that they seed in our minds, it makes it quite difficult to counter them. You know, it becomes difficult to counter them with facts alone, because the belief is not just based on facts; it's also based on feelings.  

David 21:13 

So is there any gender-related language that's being used, or one of the sort of stereotypes of these online misinfluencers is that they're speaking to a kind of far-right vision of the world where women aren't treated as equal. How does that play out in what you see?  

Pragnya Senapati 21:36  

We have seen so much of this in our work, especially when we look at misinformation around meat because it has become a very gendered issue and the far right has kind of turned it into a very sort of traditional-male-roles kind of debate. And, I think the best way to actually understand that is through this one—let's call it a narrative that we've seen—that's called the "soy boys". It sounds bizarre.  

David 22:04 

The "soy boys"? 

Pragnya Senapati 22:04  

"Soy boys." Yes, yeah. 

David 22:06 

Okay. 

Pragnya Senapati 22:07  

Yeah, I know it sounds really bizarre, but it's also so insidious. And so, let me just explain. At its core, "soy boys" is a derogatory term that is meant to mock men who choose plant-based diets. This entire narrative is based on a myth, a complete myth that consuming soy increases estrogen levels and that it weakens men both physically and emotionally. And, this slur, it's weaponized to suggest that avoiding meat makes you less of a man, right? And we found so many posts where it just talks about how not even giving up meat, even reducing meat in any way, leads to some emasculation. 

You know, we see misinformation that very aggressively, by the way, talks about how drinking too much soy milk may cause the development of breasts in men, and we've seen misinformation narratives or posts that say things like, "No more soy boys! We need more meat eating. We need more masculinity, 10,000%," you know?

And, we can see that specifically with "soy boys," A, it's gendered, B, it's used in the context of food, but, C, we also see it being used now in conversations that don't have anything to do with food at all. You know, we saw that, at least in our research, it's evolved beyond just attacking dietary choices. It's being thrown around in conversations that have nothing to do with food, at all. 

And so, we're seeing that anywhere where the far right, where the traditionalists, as they call themselves, think that there is a weakness in society, they kind of just throw "soy boys" in there casually at the end, just to say that, "Okay, if you're being sustainable, if you're sort of challenging traditional norms in any way, you are a soy boy.”

And so, essentially, to sum it up, we've seen that this particular term, this gendered term has become a tool in a much larger culture war, and it is being used as shorthand to dismiss people advocating for progress.  

David 24:15 

Fascinating that that expression, which was used to try to be derogatory about food choices, is now a general slur and seems to indicate the link between all of this and sort of traditional far-right narratives about men being strong and those kinds of things.  

Pragnya Senapati 24:37  

I mean, we've seen this across topics as well, you know, not just public health, not just climate – everywhere. Any time there is a void, there are people looking to fill that void and those are, I guess, situations in which we need to be a bit more alert to the effects of disinformation, to actors like this.  

David 24:53 

It also speaks to if you're a city trying to promulgate a policy that might be controversial, you need to lead with facts told in an authentic and compelling way, right from the beginning, I would think, as part of that strategy.  

Pragnya Senapati 25:10  

I think that's such an interesting and important point that you've brought up because something that we speak about, just with regards to policymaking is that governments, especially city governments, kind of need to take a bit of a proactive stance by building this sort of foresight that you just mentioned directly into their policymaking, you know, just so that you don't follow the usual launch the policy, hope for the best, and react to disinformation as it arises, rather taking a bit more of a proactive approach and thinking about the possible narratives that could be used to derail your policy, in advance.  

David 25:45 

What are the misinformations about food that are actually happening, and what's the context of this?  

Pragnya Senapati 25:52  

So, in terms of food misinformation, firstly, it's quite widespread. We did this huge study about meat- and dairy-related disinformation, and I think we found over a million posts in the span of a year, just focused on meat and dairy, and to put it simply, what we found is that this misinformation generally follows two main tracks which we like to call, enhance and disparage. So, the enhance track, you can think of it as essentially a PR campaign, portraying meat and dairy as essential and natural and even environmentally friendly. You know, it's classic greenwashing healthwashing, so on and so forth, and we've seen that this misinformation, it frames meat and dairy as indispensable and positions them as some sort of backbone of health and sustainability. 

Simultaneously, on the disparage track, you can think of this as a targeted smear campaign against plant-based products and alternative proteins. We found, in our main study, that five main attack points keep coming up and they tap into fears and cultural values, ranging from health risks of alternative proteins or framing them even as environmentally damaging. 

[pensive, gentle music] And, one more thing I'd probably like to mention is that they're really not just questioning the science. There's also a very cultural component to this, too. A lot of these misleading narratives suggest that plant-based diets threaten traditional values, or they accuse proponents of, let's say, plant-based meat of pushing some sort of an elite agenda, and they often invoke language from this one thing called the Great Reset conspiracy, which suggests that these shadowy global elites use food policy as a way to control people, weaken people, harm their health, so on and so forth.  

David 27:50 

The two pillars of enhancing in a false way and then having a false detraction is very interesting, but that's a common thread because certainly people who are trying to communicate about complex issues can keep an eye out for that very much. [music continues then ends] 

[light, driving music] This episode of Cities 1.5 is produced by University of Toronto Press with generous support from C40 Cities. Want more access to current research on how city leaders are approaching climate action? We also publish the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy. Our mission is to publish timely, evidence-based research that contributes to the urban climate agenda and supports governmental policy towards an equitable and resilient world. The Journal serves as a platform for dynamic content that highlights ambitious, near-term climate action, with a particular focus on human-centred solutions to today's most pressing climate challenges. To read the latest issue, visit JCCPE.utpjournals.press or click on our link in the show notes. [music ends] 

David 29:10 

Can you talk a bit about any other insights you have, other than the one powerful one about making sure that there is a factual narrative—an accessible and factual narrative, one that's heard by people—before any public policy battle? Any other insights from your research about how misinformation of this kind that tries to enhance and detract should be fought?  

Pragnya Senapati 29:40  

This is such an interesting question and, just in terms of fighting it, I would say, for various actors, whether that is governments—national governments, city governments—or any other groups trying to fight misinformation and disinformation, then I think the simple answer is that you need to know your constituents. I think that is the absolute main thing. 

Disinformation is a structural threat, right? When you are proposing policies or when you want to take some sort of large-scale action, you need to kind of be aware of the fact that even the most forward-thinking, science-backed policies can be derailed by climate-related disinformation if it takes root amongst your constituents. 

Last year, there was a mayor who put forth the proposal to slash food-related greenhouse gas emissions in the city by a third, and while this was, again, a science-backed, well-intentioned policy, we saw very real impacts in real time. We saw how misinformation narratives around this particular topic jumped immediately after this announcement was made. And, it was said that, "Oh, look, this mayor is calling for some sort of a war on meat." That's what it was called at the time. And, they were saying that, "Oh, no. Right now, they're trying to take away your meat. Who knows what they're going to try and take away tomorrow." Look at this climate communism. Look at how they're trying to control you." 

And so, this is a narrative that we have seen. This is how we've seen narratives kind of take over policies and obfuscate what they're actually trying to do in real time, and we can see, globally, how policies with enormous potential end up facing backlash fuelled by misinformation. And so, I would say again, you know launching the policy, hoping for the best, reacting to disinformation doesn't work as well. I think what needs to be done is a bit more of a proactive stance, and so this means two things.  

One, like I said, is about understanding your constituents. What are their hopes and fears? What do they care about? What is important to them? And number two, I think governments, in general, need to understand the disinformation landscape as a whole, a little bit. Be aware of narratives that are out there, anticipate in advance how they could target your policy and also, very importantly, think about how they could exploit the specific fears or values of your constituents. And, this is how you build that foresight that I was talking about.  

David 32:37 

It just interests me because the online misinformation is sort of a half truth. Nobody's going to actually take anybody's meat away, but he is hoping to change people's habits.  

Pragnya Senapati 32:50  

[delicate, sombre music] Absolutely, yeah, yeah.  

David 32:53 

I think that applies to the Dutch situation as well, because there was more than a kernel of truth that the regulations are going to be challenging for farms and farmers. One point I want to raise, in the context of this preparing when you're talking about policies, can you just talk about the importance of climate literacy – people understanding these issues in combating misinformation? 

Pragnya Senapati 33:19  

Yeah, absolutely. That's a pretty important question because one of the biggest challenges with misinformation is its persistence. You know, once it embeds itself into someone's thinking, it is so, so, so hard to dislodge, and climate misinformation in particular is especially sticky—that's the word we use it. It resists correction for a lot of reasons. You know, it's because it's a complex topic, because it's wrapped up in emotion. Sometimes now, because of misinformation, it's even wrapped in personal identity, so on and so forth. 

And, I would say that this is where climate literacy and also media literacy becomes invaluable. Think of it as an inoculation against misinformation. If the misinformation is a virus, then the climate literacy is the vaccine building resilience against it. And so, I would say that the earlier we introduce this inoculation, especially to younger people, the stronger their natural defences become because, when someone understands the science, the stakes, the solutions, they're a lot better equipped to spot and resist misinformation. 

And, we've also explored ways to build this resilience. We recently collaborated with Professor Gunnar Schade at Texas A&M University on this one project where his students, they actually identified and analyzed climate misinformation on LinkedIn, and this was kind of aimed at doing this exact thing that we're talking about – strengthening their climate literacy and digital literacy while also creating a very unique dataset on climate. 

But overall, in our view, you know, I'd say that resilience against misinformation is a multi-layered thing because, like we've discussed, it isn't just an obfuscation of facts. Misinformation is—and we're seeing this more and more—crafted to tap into people's feelings, their beliefs, their values, and I think all of these things—climate literacy, digital literacy and understanding of misinformation itself—can create a very effective and multi-layered defence, and this defence is what can prevent a lot of these misleading narratives from just taking hold in the first place.  

David 35:34 

People need to do a lot to avoid being drawn into these webs of deceit. Can I just ask you, you spoke a lot about the results of the work Ripple has done and your research. What's next for Ripple? What's next for you? And, if people want to learn more or partner with Ripple, how do they do that?  

Pragnya Senapati 35:57  

We have a lot of very interesting insights and I think the next step for us is transforming these insights into a lot of action, and I think we've uncovered a lot of critical insights around climate, public health, misinformation, and our goal is to bring these insights to life and help organizations and communities make real progress, and this would involve developing tools, strategies, frameworks that empower people to counter misinformation, build resilience, and take meaningful steps towards both climate action and action on public health, for example. 

And, one thing that I would say is that we see a huge need for solutions that are tailored to unique needs of different communities because I would say that a very one-size-fits-all approach can't really address the complex landscape of climate and misinformation, for example, across cultural lines. 

So, just as an example, this is one thing – the UNEP's Anatomy of Action Framework and this outlines five core lifestyle areas. [gentle music] I think it's food, stuff, move, money, and fun. And, while these areas are pretty consistent across people, across geographies, in terms of their consumption, our data shows that people's priorities definitely differ by community, for example. You know, for some, food sustainability is essential, but for others, travel emissions are more pressing, and I would that our approach, our methodology, it meets these diverse needs across people, across geographies and, again, this is what we really want to do. 

I think this is what we can help organizations with, kind of enable them to engage with their audiences in a more responsive way, rather than through purely some sort of a top-down lens, right? And, yeah, so we're really excited to do this and partner with organizations that share our vision for the sustainably-farmed communities, and I would say that anyone who's listening, you know, if your team is committed to making a tangible difference in all of these areas, we would love to collaborate with you, build solutions with you, and help you empower your communities to just move towards more health, more resilience.  

David 38:15 

Pragnya, you've been very gracious with your time, and I think you've given really powerful outlines of what can be done. But, is there anything you'd like to add about what city governments can do to combat the rising tide of climate-related disinformation, particularly if they're in countries where those disinformation narratives are rife at a national level?

What I outlined earlier about being proactive, about building foresight into policymaking, I think that still stands for city governments, but I think I'd like to add that cities have this sort of unique strength because, I mean, they're home to, like over half of the world's population. That's only going to grow. And, I mean, they're so densely populated that they're like small countries in themselves, right? And, I would say that this density gives cities a very unmatched capacity for climate action, particularly at an individual level.

And so, if city governments, especially those committed to climate action, can use these proactive strategies, can understand their constituents better, I think that could be very, very meaningful, especially like you said, in nations where there may be a lot of disinformation floating around because I think we've all heard this phrase, right, – "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" and everything, but over here, I would say that it's actually the parts, the cities that can be greater than the whole, even if there is some sort of a tide of disinformation at national levels. 

I think city governments have the ability, by being proactive, to inoculate their communities by getting ahead of disinformation narratives and by helping their specific constituents, their specific communities, spot misleading tactics before they even have a chance to take hold.  

David 40:07 

Really helpful and thoughtful, and certainly, at C40 Cities, we very much believe in the power of city governments to work with their residents to find solutions to the climate crisis. 

My last question is a question we've asked all our guests this season. In the context of the conversation we've just had, what does a good life mean to you, and maybe your reflection on what a good life means to people in general, when we're taking into account the real rise of digital misinformation? 

Pragnya Senapati 40:39  

I mean, it's really shaped by your culture, your values, the circumstances you're in, so on and so forth. But, one thing I can say is that I spend a lot of time—probably way too much time—online, looking at what people are talking about and sharing and saying, both in work and in general, and I'm constantly looking at how people express their hopes and their dreams and their worries, and in all of this, looking at other people's opinions, right? I've seen some trends and I've had some insights about this and what I see is that the idea of a good life for other people and even for me, incidentally, it's slowly coalescing towards one thing, and that's stability, right?  

I've seen that people talk a lot about what they want in life, even if they don't call it "the good life" outright. I see people talking about the same classic dreams of getting that ideal job or saving up for a car, or travelling to some sort of a bucket list destination, and all of those things are still there online. People are still talking about it, and they are the components of a good life for many, but over the last few years, I've noticed a shift. People are starting to talk about things that may seem basic, but they've also become aspirations, in themselves. 

You know, like, I see people talking about wanting access to fresh and healthy and affordable food. That's a real goal for people. And I see people hoping for cooler summers and remembering the days where the weather didn't feel like it was attacking them, you know? And I see people wanting to live somewhere with clean air, talking about more green spaces, and I think the idea of a good life is quietly becoming more about just having reliable access to things that felt so basic, you know?

And, even if we don't mention climate change directly, I see a lot of awareness everywhere, you know, in the sense that the environment is impacting people's lives in ways that they can't ignore. 

[light, percussive music] And, what's happening is that this idea of a good life is just coalescing across countries, cultures. There is this desire for stability, safety, health. And, a good life? If I had to say it right now to other people and even to me, it just seems to be where we can be at peace with our surroundings and a life where we don't need to dread thickening heat waves every summer or this constant low-level anxiety about how the next rain could mean some sort of a disaster. 

And, I think this is happening because, for a lot of people, these things that we consider basic, they're kind of just slipping away faster than we can even think about adapting. And so, I think [laughs] it's a bit of a bleak answer, so I'm sorry, but for me and for others, yeah, I think that's what a good life is right now.  

David 43:26 

I think it's a beautiful answer. Pragnya Sanapati, thank you so much for all of your answers today, but more importantly for your ongoing work, really investigating the causes of misinformation and helping chart a path for those who are trying to build a good life through the right kind of public policies. Thanks so much.  

Pragnya Senapati 43:47  

Absolutely. Thanks so much for this conversation and for having me on podcast. It's been wonderful. [music continues then ends] 

David 43:57 

[energetic, upbeat music] The world seems very dark right now, and sometimes the challenges we face can seem insurmountable. But, that's exactly what those who oppose climate action want us to think and feel, because that's what stops us from uniting and challenging the status quo.  

Disinformation is a key weapon in our opponents' toolbox, and the way to fight back against it is by inoculating ourselves and urban climate action against these insidious false narratives. After all, knowledge is power, and if cities, mayors, and urban residents can unite and speak with one voice, we may yet be able to successfully steer ourselves and our planet through this age of disinformation. [music continues then ends] 

[energetic, upbeat music] Next time on Cities 1.5, we're reflecting on the conversations that came out of the Summit of the Future event earlier this fall. I sit down with Sasha Rodricks, Director of Global We at the Museum for the United Nations, UN Live, and Global We Facilitator, Kayla Archer. You'll also hear reflections from all around the world. You won't want to miss it. 

[Cities 1.5 main theme music continues] This has been Cities 1.5, leading global change through local climate action. I'm David Miller. I was the Mayor of Toronto, Canada, and I know, firsthand, the role cities can play in solving the climate crisis. Currently, I'm the Editor in Chief of the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy, published by the University of Toronto Press in collaboration with the C40 Centre for City Climate Policy and Economy, where I'm also the Managing Director. C40's mission is to use the voices and the actions of its member mayors to help the world avoid climate breakdown. 

[music continues] Cities 1.5 is produced by University of Toronto Press in association with the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy and C40 Cities. This podcast is produced by Jessica Schmidt, and edited by Morgane Chambrin. Our executive producers are Peggy Whitfield and Calli Eliopoulos. Our music is by Lorna Gilfedder. 

The fight for a healthier world is closer than you think. To learn more, visit the show's website, linked in the episode notes. See you next time. [main theme music continues then ends]