Brussels wants to censor criticism of CO₂ – climate skepticism will soon be considered a “systemic risk”

July 4, 2025

Criticism of CO₂ taxes? Soon to be banned
Brussels wants to classify climate criticism as a “systemic risk” – citizens will pay for their own censorship

The European Union is planning new measures against so-called climate disinformation. The recently published report “HEAT – Harmful Environmental Agendas and Tactics” calls for statements criticizing climate policy to be considered a “systemic risk” within the meaning of the Digital Services Act (DSA). The consequence: platforms could in future algorithmically suppress, delete or flag criticism of CO₂ taxes, energy transitions or heating laws.

Disinformation – redefined

The report, published by the NGO EU DisinfoLab and the analytics firm Logically, identifies a number of problematic claims – including criticism of carbon pricing, calling climate policy a “green dictatorship” and warnings of economic expropriation through the Building Energy Act. It also classifies terms such as “climate shutdown” and “the great reset” as dangerous narratives.

The authors say the goal is to minimize “social risks arising from misinformation.” They therefore recommend including a risk assessment of such content on large online platforms in the future. This is based on Article 34 of the Digital Services Act, which obliges platforms to combat systemic risks.

Platforms as defenders of truth

The report says platforms such as Facebook, X, Telegram and YouTube should actively suppress or remove content containing climate skepticism if it is deemed potentially disinformation, and also calls on the platforms to share more data on user behavior with regulators and researchers.

This means that what was previously considered political debate could soon be considered manipulative information – and disappear into the digital shadows.

Funding: Taxpayers and lobbying funds

The HEAT report was funded by the European Media and Information Technology Fund (EMIF). This fund, managed by the European University Institute and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, is funded by both the public sector and private foundations. According to their own statements, the ideological sponsors of such initiatives include George Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

Criticism of opinion manipulation

Critics see the report as a dangerous precedent: legitimate political opinions are equated with targeted disinformation. The line between free speech and dangerous opinions is blurred in favor of state-defined truth. Anyone who rejects policy measures such as carbon pricing, mandatory heat pump use, or energy rationing will have to reckon with digital invisibility or blocking in the future.

Summary

Citizens pay with their taxes for an infrastructure that classifies their own criticism as a risk. Private companies with political agendas provide additional funding and ideological direction. The planned classification of climate policy criticism as “disinformation” means that political discourse is no longer decided by arguments, but by regulations and algorithmic control.

Additional sources: