Category: Advocacy

When Disaster Strikes, So Do the Lies: How Misinformation Makes Weather Emergencies Worse

/ activist360
Cover of the CCDH report titled “Extreme Weather,” featuring images of a wildfire, hurricane, flood response team, and destroyed homes, with a subtitle warning about the spread of false climate information on social media.
Cover of Extreme Weather, a 2025 report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate, examining how social media platforms allow climate misinformation to spread during natural disasters — putting lives at risk. Source: Center for Countering Digital Hate, 2025

When deadly floods swept through Texas during the July 4th weekend of 2025, families searched for help and answers. But instead of facts, many found dangerous lies online — like claims that the government had used “weather weapons” to cause the disaster.

It sounds far-fetched, but these ideas aren’t just fringe conspiracy theories anymore. They’re reaching millions of people, right when those people need trustworthy information the most. In moments when accurate updates can save lives, false claims on social media can confuse, scare, and even cause harm — and that’s exactly what’s happening on platforms like X, YouTube, and Facebook.

What’s Happening?

A new report from the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) found that false claims about disasters like floods, wildfires, and hurricanes are spreading quickly across social media. The researchers reviewed 300 of the most-liked misleading posts from April 2023 to April 2025.

Here’s what they discovered:

  • These posts gained over 221 million views.

  • Nearly all went unlabeled and unchallenged — no fact-checks, no warnings, no corrections.

  • Some of the most extreme lies — like the idea that natural disasters were caused by “weather weapons” — were given huge platforms, even after real tragedies.

One of the most troubling examples came from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, who claimed the Texas floods were caused by government interference. His posts weren’t hidden or flagged. They were amplified.

Who’s Behind It?

It turns out that many of these misleading posts came from verified users. On Twitter, that blue checkmark, once meant to help people spot reliable voices, is now, on X, being sold and used by those spreading misinformation.

  • 88% of the false posts on X came from verified users.
  • 73% on YouTube, and 64% on Meta (Facebook and Instagram).

One of the most high-profile figures in the study is Alex Jones, a far-right media personality and conspiracy theorist best known for his website InfoWars. Jones has promoted numerous false claims over the years — including that the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting was a hoax. For these and other violations of platform policies on hate speech, harassment, and misinformation, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and Twitter between 2018 and 2020.

However, Jones returned to X (formerly Twitter) after the platform reinstated several previously banned accounts in 2023. During the LA wildfires in 2025, Jones used his X account to spread false claims that FEMA was confiscating food and that the fires were part of a “globalist plot.” His wildfire-related posts received over 408 million views — more than FEMA and 10 major news outlets combined during that period.

Even when banned users like Jones couldn’t post directly on some platforms, their false messages lived on. Others reposted their claims or created content that echoed their talking points. On YouTube, for example, 1 in 3 misleading videos led to more misleading videos through the “Up Next” panel.

Why It’s Dangerous

It’s easy to think, “People won’t believe that stuff.” But the truth is, misinformation can cause real harm — especially during emergencies.

  • Some victims avoid seeking aid, believing false claims that disaster relief is only given to certain groups.

  • First responders have been threatened after lies spread about their efforts.

  • A man in Oklahoma vandalized a weather radar system, thinking it was part of a weather-control conspiracy.

And the consequences don’t stop there. A cloud seeding company received over 100 death threats due to false claims linking it to the floods.

How Big Is the Problem?

The reach of misinformation is staggering.

  • Alex Jones’ posts about the LA wildfires alone received 408 million views on X. That’s more than FEMA and 10 major news outlets combined during the same period.

  • In the week following the Texas floods, false posts blaming cloud seeding or climate hoaxes racked up 8.4 million views — without a single fact-check.

These lies are spreading faster than the truth. That’s a big problem.

What Needs to Change

We need to expect more from social media platforms. Here’s what the CCDH report found:

  • Less than 2% of false posts were labeled or fact-checked.

  • Platforms are still profiting — through ads, subscriptions, and increased engagement — even when the content is dangerous.

That means the current system rewards outrage and falsehoods, not truth. And when disaster strikes, that business model puts people at risk.

What You Can Do

We don’t need to wait for platforms to act. Each of us has a role to play in slowing the spread of dangerous misinformation.

Here are a few simple actions we can take:

  • Follow trusted sources like FEMA, your local emergency services, and reliable news outlets.

  • Think before sharing: If something sounds too wild to be true, double-check it first.

  • Report harmful posts that spread misinformation during emergencies.

Collectively, taking these small steps helps us help our communities stay informed and safe.

Summing Up

The next hurricane, wildfire, or flood isn’t a matter of if — it’s when. And in those crucial hours, the difference between truth and lies could mean life or death.

That’s why it’s so important to demand better from platforms — and do our part to protect each other. Let’s make sure the next time disaster strikes, facts come first.

Source: Center for Countering Digital Hate. (2025). Extreme Weather: How social media platforms profit from climate denial and misinformation during disasters. https://counterhate.com/research/extreme-weather-false-claims/

Planetary Solvency: Why Our Future Depends on Protecting Nature

/ activist360
Cover of 'Planetary solvency – finding our balance with nature: Global risk management for human prosperity' study.
Cover of “Planetary solvency – finding our balance with nature: Global risk management for human prosperity” study.

The Big Picture

Imagine waking up to find grocery store shelves half-empty, the price of fresh produce soaring, and unpredictable storms disrupting everyday life. This isn’t science fiction—it’s a growing reality as our planet’s climate shifts in dangerous ways.

Scientists warn that unless we change course, we risk reaching Planetary Insolvency—a state where nature can no longer support human needs. But here’s the good news: we still have time to act. Understanding the risks and making smarter choices today can help us create a future where people and nature thrive together.

What Is Planetary Solvency?

Think about a business. If it spends more money than it earns, it eventually goes bankrupt. Our planet works in a similar way—if we take more from nature than it can regenerate, we risk collapsing the very systems that support life.

Planetary Solvency is the idea that we must manage Earth’s resources wisely to keep society stable. This means keeping our air and water clean, protecting forests and oceans, and ensuring that nature continues to provide the essentials we rely on—like food, water, and a livable climate.

For decades, economies have focused on short-term profit without considering the environmental “debt” we’re racking up. Now, we’re starting to see the consequences—but it’s not too late to course-correct.

The Warning Signs: Key Statistics You Need to Know

Climate scientists and risk analysts have uncovered troubling trends that show just how urgent this issue is:

  • The past 12 months were the hottest on record, with global temperatures averaging 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels (Trust et al., 2025).

  • A key ocean current system (AMOC) has a 45% chance of collapsing by 2040. This would cause extreme weather shifts, including stronger hurricanes, longer droughts, and disrupted food production.

  • If global warming reaches 2.5°C, over 50% of land suitable for growing wheat and maize could be lost, making food shortages more common.

  • Economic risk models ignore 87% of industries, assuming they won’t be affected by climate change. This is a dangerous miscalculation—nearly all businesses depend on stable natural systems.

  • Some projections estimate that climate-driven disasters could reduce global GDP by up to 63% by 2100, leading to widespread economic instability.

The takeaway? Climate change isn’t just about rising temperatures—it affects food security, jobs, public health, and global stability.

Why Current Climate Plans Are Not Enough

Many governments have pledged to cut carbon emissions and protect ecosystems, but current efforts fall short. Here’s why:

  • The Paris Agreement didn’t account for tipping points: Climate disasters don’t happen in isolation. When one event (like Arctic ice melting) triggers another (such as changing ocean currents), the effects spiral out of control. Many climate policies fail to consider this domino effect.

  • Short-term economic focus: Many governments prioritize economic growth over environmental stability, even though our economy depends on nature—from agriculture to clean water to disaster resilience.

  • Underestimated risks: Climate models often leave out the worst-case scenarios because they are hard to predict. However, ignoring unlikely but catastrophic events is a major risk management failure.

In short, we need stronger and more realistic climate policies that recognize the full scale of the threat.

What Needs to Change: The RESILIENCE Plan

To prevent Planetary Insolvency, experts recommend a RESILIENCE-based approach, which includes:

  • Better Risk Assessments: Governments and businesses need realistic climate risk models—like financial audits, but for Earth’s health.

  • Stronger Policies: Enforceable limits on pollution, deforestation, and overfishing.

  • Faster Emissions Reductions: The longer we wait, the harder it becomes to prevent extreme warming.

  • Restoring Nature: Protecting and rebuilding ecosystems like forests and wetlands, which absorb carbon and prevent natural disasters.

  • Educating Leaders: Many policymakers lack a deep understanding of climate risk. We need climate-literate decision-makers who can balance economic growth with sustainability.

The path forward isn’t just about stopping damage—it’s about creating a world where nature and people thrive together.

What Can YOU Do?

While governments and businesses play a major role, individuals can make a difference too. Here are some ways to take action:

  • Stay Informed: Read about climate solutions, not just problems. Understanding what works can help shape smarter decisions.

  • Push for Policy Change: Vote for leaders and support policies that prioritize sustainability. Your voice matters.

  • Make Smarter Choices: Support businesses committed to sustainable practices. Reduce waste and be mindful of energy consumption.

  • Spread Awareness: Talk about these issues with friends and family. Many people want to help but don’t know where to start.

These small steps, when multiplied across millions of people, can drive real change.

Summing Up

The future isn’t set in stone. What we do today will determine whether our planet remains livable or spirals into crisis. By managing Earth’s resources as carefully as we manage money, we can protect future generations and ensure a stable, thriving world.The good news? We still have time to act—but the clock is ticking. Will we make the right choice?

Source: Trust, S., Saye, L., Bettis, O., Bedenham, G., Hampshire, O., Lenton, T. M., & Abrams, J. (2025, January). Planetary solvency – finding our balance with nature: Global risk management for human prosperity. Institute and Faculty of Actuaries & Exeter University.

National Parks at Risk: How Privatization Could Speed Up Climate Change

/ activist360
Yosemite Valley, among the trees.
Yosemite Valley, among the trees, in June 2023. Credit: Diana Bald

America’s national parks are powerful and beautiful. They are scenic vacation spots and part of our shared heritage. They are home to countless wildlife species and natural protectors against climate change. Recently, concerns have grown about privatization—the idea of private companies taking over or managing aspects of our national parks. Why does this matter? Privatization could change how these lands are cared for, possibly speeding up climate change and limiting public access.

Below we’ll share what privatization is, why it’s happening, and how it might put our parks—and our planet—at risk. You’ll learn about potential harm to wildlife and ecosystems and see how private profit-seeking might increase carbon pollution. Finally, we’ll look at the different sides of the debate and share ways you can help protect these treasures for future generations.

What Is National Park Privatization?

Privatization of national parks means involving private companies in running parts of a park—or, in more extreme cases, selling park land. While the second option is very rare and highly controversial, there are other, more common ways private interests can step in.

  • Concessions: This is when private businesses manage hotels, restaurants, campgrounds, or gift shops inside a national park. A company might build and operate a lodge while paying fees to the government.

  • Public-Private Partnerships: The government owns the park but hires or partners with a private operator to handle daily services, like cleaning facilities or running visitor centers.

  • Outright Sale: In uncommon situations, park land could be sold to a private entity, meaning it is no longer publicly owned.

Why It’s Happening

Many parks have significant funding gaps. According to the National Park Service (NPS), national parks in the United States face an estimated $11.9 billion maintenance backlog, meaning there’s a lot of work that needs to be done—like fixing roads, upgrading water systems, and repairing trails—but not enough money to do it all. Some people believe private companies can fill this gap by bringing in their own funds and running things more efficiently.

Why Do People Worry About Privatization?

Privatization sometimes gives private businesses room to push for more development—like building bigger hotels or even introducing commercial activities in delicate areas. This can mean fewer trees to absorb carbon dioxide, more greenhouse gas emissions from construction, and more energy use to support amenities like large resorts (Source: National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA)).

Loss of Public Control

Our national parks belong to all of us. When for-profit companies take a bigger role, everyday citizens can lose their say in how these lands are used. Government agencies like the National Park Service aim to protect wildlife, natural beauty, and our shared heritage. Private companies have a duty to earn profits. These two goals don’t always line up.

Risk of High Prices and Limited Access

Private businesses often raise fees to cover costs and make a profit. That might include higher prices for overnight stays, guided tours, or even basic park entry. Imagine a scenario where only those who can pay premium rates get to enjoy our national treasures. That kind of setup could exclude families on a budget or students looking to learn about nature firsthand.

How Could Privatization Speed Up Climate Change?

Privately built hotels, roads, and resorts can encroach on forests or wetlands that store carbon. Removing trees or filling in wetlands releases carbon that was previously locked away in plants and soil, adding to the greenhouse gases warming our planet.

When privatization weakens environmental protections, there’s a chance that companies will seek permission to mine, drill, or log on public lands near or even within parks. Extracting natural resources not only increases carbon emissions but also disrupts critical habitats for animals and plants.

A private operator looking for higher profits might want to draw large crowds. More visitors can be wonderful for education and appreciation, but it can also mean more cars, heavier traffic, and longer lines, all leading to additional exhaust fumes and higher greenhouse gas emissions.

Harm to Wildlife and Ecosystems

Big developments like roads, fences, or commercial sites can cut wildlife habitats into smaller pieces. When animals can’t move around freely to find food or migrate, their populations may decline. This fragmentation makes ecosystems more fragile and less able to bounce back from natural disasters linked to climate change.

Reduced Biodiversity

National parks often safeguard a vast range of plant and animal species. Overbuilding, pollution, and noise can push away or endanger species—leading to a drop in biodiversity. Healthy ecosystems rely on a balance of predators, prey, and plants. When that balance is lost, the entire system can unravel.

Less Resilient Ecosystems

Forests, wetlands, and grasslands inside parks help lessen the worst impacts of climate change by storing carbon, stabilizing soils, and buffering against floods. If these areas become fragmented or polluted, they can’t protect us as effectively from the rising threats of wildfires, severe storms, or droughts (Source: United Nations Environment Programme).

Different Sides of the Argument

We’re stunned by the concept of loosing national parks that belong to all of us to private ownership of a few. Privatization supporters argue that private companies could bring much-needed funding, potentially fix aging facilities, and even offer new innovations—like using clean energy in park buildings. They also point out that private partnerships might generate jobs for local communities. Critics worry that a focus on profit could weaken conservation efforts, possibly leading to higher entrance fees that shut out families or lower-income visitors. They also warn that private operators may not face the same level of public oversight, which could make environmental regulations harder to enforce.

Arguments For Privatization

  • May bring more money to fix trails, roads, and park facilities.
  • Could create jobs in local communities, especially around tourism.
  • Potential for private innovation, such as using solar power in new building projects if the contract requires it.

Arguments Against Privatization

  • Profit motives overlook long-term conservation and climate goals.
  • Increased fees could limit public access and make visiting too expensive for many people.
  • Less accountability and oversight mean environmental standards may not be enforced strictly.

Actions Concerned Citizens Can Take

You don’t need a science degree or a powerful position to help protect our parks. Here are some ways you can make a difference:

  • Stay Informed
    • Subscribe to newsletters from organizations like the National Parks Conservation Association or the Sierra Club.
    • Monitor local and national news to learn about any privatization bills or policies that might affect your favorite park.
  • Speak Up
    • Contact your elected officials—call, email, or meet them at a town hall—and share your concerns about privatization proposals.
    • Write letters to local newspapers or post on social media to raise awareness.
  • Support Public Funding
    • Advocate for strong public budgets for parks. For instance, the Great American Outdoors Act helps fund maintenance and conservation projects without relying solely on private money.
    • Encourage your community to vote in favor of bond measures or other funding initiatives that keep parks public and well-maintained.
  • Volunteer and Donate
    • Donate to nonprofits dedicated to conservation and biodiversity.
    • Look for volunteer programs in local or national parks, where you can help maintain trails or educate visitors about conservation.

Final Thoughts

National parks belong to everyone. While privatization might seem like a quick fix to budget problems, it can have serious effects on our climate and on the health of these special places. Private operators could prioritize profits over the long-term well-being of wildlife and ecosystems, leading to more carbon emissions and less public involvement.

By staying informed, speaking up, and supporting strong public funding, you can help protect national parks for generations to come. Your voice matters in deciding how these natural wonders should be cared for. With a little effort, we can make sure our parks remain open, wild, and resilient in a changing climate—leaving a healthy legacy for those who come after us.

Sources