Rumours and conspiracy theory spread more quickly than emergency officials are able to respond.
In Canada social media posts falsely claim that wildfires are intentionally started, that government orders to evacuate are an overreach, or that smoke maps have been manipulated. People in several communities delayed leaving because of uncertainty about which information they could trust.
It wasn’t just noise on the internet. This directly influenced the way Canadians responded to real danger . Misinformation that delays evacuations or fragments compliance, or undermines trust in official warnings reduces the ability of the state to protect people and critical infrastructure.
Misinformation becomes a threat to national security. Public trust is essential for emergency response systems to work. When trust is eroded, the response capacity weakens. Preventable harm also increases.
Canada has entered a new era in which climate misinformation threatens public safety. Wildfires, flooding and droughts are becoming more common. Emergency systems rely heavily on a fragile assumption that people will believe the information provided. If this assumption is wrong, the whole chain of crisis communications begins to fail. Early signs of this failure are already evident.
This dynamic goes beyond the immediate disasters. This dynamic also impacts long-term climate policy and efforts to adapt. Public support for climate action falls when trust in institutions is eroded and misinformation is easier to digest than scientific evidence.
A recent study by me and my colleagues on the perception of droughts shows how members of society rely heavily on their lived experiences, memories and identity, as well as social and institutional cues, such a perceived familiarity, environmental concerns and trust, to determine whether or not they are in a dry period, even when official data suggests otherwise.
These cognitive dynamics are complex and create predictable vulnerabilities. Evidence gathered from Canada and other countries documents how false narratives in climate emergencies can reduce protective behaviours, increase confusion and weaken institution authority.
Misinformation must be addressed
Canada has invested in billions of dollars to improve physical resilience, firefighting capability, flood resiliency, and energy reliability. The Canadian government has also joined the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change in order to investigate false narratives, and strengthen response capability.
These are important steps in the correct direction. Canada, however, still views misinformation as a secondary component rather than an important part of climate risk management.
This fragmentation leaves the responsibility for effective messages scattered across public safety and environment, emergency management, digital policy, and digital policy. No single entity is responsible for monitoring, anticipating, or responding to information risks during crises. This fragmentation results in slower responses, weaker coordination and increased risk to public security.
Canada continues to rely on old-fashioned communication media like radio, television, and static government websites. Climate misinformation, however, is optimized for social media. False information is often spread quickly on the internet, and its emotional resonance gives it an advantage .
The research on misinformation dynamics shows that platforms amplify sensational claims, and how false updates spread faster and farther than verified updates.
In times of crisis, when emotions are high and timelines are pressed, governments try to correct misinformation. Correction is often reactive and ineffective by then.
In the midst of a crisis, trust cannot be established. Transparency, consistency and modern communications systems are essential to maintain a long-term infrastructure.
Proactive preparedness
Canada must shift its focus from reactive corrections to proactive preparation. Preparation is crucial as the wildfire season is only a few months away. Repetition is the result of waiting for the next crisis, which will expose the same weakness.
We can’t afford to react under pressure again and then reflect on the steps that we should have taken sooner. This shift requires systematic planning.
-
Public preparedness is proactive: Federal, provincial, and local emergency agencies should consider public awareness of alerts and evacuation systems, and climate risk, as an ongoing responsibility and not just a response to emergencies. These information must be shared well in advance of a disaster, using the platforms that people use. They should also have clear expectations regarding where they will get authoritative information.
-
Institutional coordination: Responsibility for combating climate misinformation is currently shared between departments. The federal-provincial coordination mechanism would be linked to emergency communications rather than political communication, allowing early detection and quicker response.
-
Partnerships involving trusted messengers In times of crisis, community leaders, educators and health professionals, as well as local organizations, have more credibility. This relationship should be formalized as part of emergency planning and not just improvised when under pressure. In recent wildfires community pages and volunteers proved to be the most effective in countering false allegations.
We can’t eliminate all rumors or misinformation. Without strengthening public trust and integrity of information as core components in climate infrastructure, emergency situations will be more difficult to manage and dangerous.
Climate resilience does not just concern physical systems. Also, it is about whether or not people take the warnings seriously. It is important to take this reality seriously if we want Canada’s security in the long term.
