Climate Misinformation Is Becoming A National Security Threat. Canada Isn't Ready For It.

(MENAFN- The Conversation) When a crisis strikes, rumours and conspiracy theories often spread faster than emergency officials can respond and issue corrections.

In Canada, social media posts have falsely claimed wildfires were intentionally set, that evacuation orders were government overreach or that smoke maps were being manipulated. In several communities, people delayed leaving because they were unsure which information to trust.

This wasn't just online noise. It directly shaped how Canadians responded to real danger. When misinformation delays evacuations, fragments compliance or undermines confidence in official warnings, it reduces the state's ability to protect lives and critical infrastructure.

At that point, misinformation is no longer merely a communications problem, but a national security risk. Emergency response systems depend on public trust to function. When that trust erodes, response capacity weakens and preventable harm increases.

Canada is entering an era where climate misinformation is becoming a public-safety threat. As wildfires, floods and droughts grow more frequent, emergency systems rely on one fragile assumption: that people believe the information they receive. When that assumption fails, the entire chain of crisis communication begins to break down. We are already seeing early signs of that failure.

This dynamic extends far beyond acute disasters. It also affects long-running climate policy and adaptation efforts. When trust in institutions erodes and misinformation becomes easier to absorb than scientific evidence, public support for proactive climate action collapses.

Recent research by colleagues and me on how people perceive droughts shows that members of the public often rely on lived experiences, memories, identity and social and institutional cues - such as environmental concerns, perceived familiarity and trust - to decide whether they are experiencing a drought, even when official information suggests otherwise.

These complex cognitive dynamics create predictable vulnerabilities. Evidence from Canada and abroad documents how false narratives during climate emergencies reduce protective behaviour, amplify confusion and weaken institutional authority.

Tackling misinformation
A devastated neighbourhood in west Jasper, Alta., in August 2024. Wildfire caused evacuations and widespread damage in the National Park and Jasper townsite. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Amber Bracken

Canada has invested billions of dollars in physical resiliency, firefighting capacity, flood resiliency and energy reliability. In addition, the Canadian government also recently joined the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change to investigate false narratives and strengthen response capacity.

These are much needed steps in the right direction. But Canada still approaches misinformation as secondary rather than a key component of climate-risk management.

That leaves responsibility for effective messaging fragmented across public safety, environment, emergency management and digital policy, with no single entity accountable for monitoring, anticipating or responding to information threats during crises. The cost of this fragmentation is slower response, weaker co-ordination and greater risk to public safety.

Canada also continues to rely heavily on outdated communication mediums like radio, TV and static government websites, while climate misinformation is optimized for the social-media environment. False content often circulates quickly online digitally, with emotional resonance and repetition giving it an advantage over verified information.

Research on misinformation dynamics shows how platforms systematically amplify sensational claims and how false claims travel farther and faster than verified updates.

Governments typically attempt to correct misinformation during emergencies when emotions are high, timelines are compressed and false narratives are already circulating. By then, correction is reactive and often ineffective.

Trust cannot be built in the middle of a crisis. It is long-term public infrastructure that must be maintained through transparency, consistency and modern communication systems before disasters occur.

Proactive preparedness
Floodwaters surround a house in Abbotsford, B.C., on Dec. 12, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ethan Cairns

Canada needs to shift from reactive correction to proactive preparedness. With wildfire season only months ahead, this is the window when preparation matters most. Waiting for the next crisis to expose the same weaknesses is not resilience, but repetition.

We cannot afford another round of reacting under pressure and then reflecting afterwards on steps that should have been taken earlier. That shift requires systemic planning:

• Proactive public preparedness: Federal and provincial emergency agencies should treat public understanding of alerts, evacuation systems and climate risks as a standing responsibility, not an emergency add-on. This information must be communicated well before disaster strikes, through the platforms people actually use, with clear expectations about where authoritative information will come from.

• Institutional co-ordination: Responsiblity for tackling climate misinformation currently falls between departments. A federal-provincial co-ordination mechanism, linked to emergency management rather than political communications, would allow early detection of misinformation patterns and faster response, just as meteorological or hydrological risks are monitored today.

• Partnerships with trusted messengers: Community leaders, educators, health professionals and local organizations often have more credibility than institutions during crises. These relationships should be formalized in emergency planning, not improvised under pressure. During recent wildfires, community-run pages and volunteers were among the most effective at countering false claims.

We cannot eliminate every rumour or every bit of misinformation. But without strengthening public trust and information integrity as core components of climate infrastructure, emergencies will become harder to manage and more dangerous.

Climate resilience is not only about physical systems. It is also about whether people believe the warnings meant to protect them. Canada's long-term security depends on taking that reality seriously.

MENAFN21122025000199003603ID1110508729