DATA MONITOR | MARCH 2025: German elections: AfD-led disinformation puts climate action at stake

The results are in. On a record-breaking turnout, over half of Germany’s national election votes went to centre-right or far-right parties. Was this due to growing negativity towards climate policies? Unclear – migration, security and the economy dominated the campaigns, while most voters expect more climate protections overall.

Less unclear – anti-climate sentiment and climate disinformation are growing as an electoral tactic in Germany and elsewhere. This activity distorts reality; threatening climate action despite widespread public support.

In this data monitor we look at climate misinformation spread during the German election period primarily on X, Telegram and TikTok; how this activity was supported by platform and media amplification; and how all of this is part of a wider trend helping climate denying parties gain more power worldwide.

AFD A MAJOR PROPONENT OF CLIMATE DISINFORMATION

The far-right party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) achieved its best vote share in a German national election since World War II. AfD rhetoric mirrored that of many far-right parties and leaders globally: from scapegoating migrants, to undermining institutions, to making false accusations of electoral fraud. The AfD also used disinformation as a tactic to take up space in the attention economy, garner support, and put opponents on the back foot.

The AfD – through its channels and its candidates – shared a large proportion of climate disinformation during the election period. This included climate denial, railing against climate policies as unaffordable and elitist and attacking climate institutions, including proposing a departure from the Paris Agreement. The tactic seems to be working. The AfD’s climate disinformation posts drove significant engagement on platforms, in line with other AfD posts on key political issues such as migration.

Both the popularity of the AfD online and its propensity to share divisive climate content aligns with broader European trends. Analysing over half a million press releases from 78 parties, Dickson and Hobolt found that far-right European parties are increasingly using climate change as a wedge issue, especially since 2020.

Meanwhile, a Global Witness investigation sought to discover if the recommender systems of TikTok, X and Instagram favoured any particular parties in the German elections. It set up politically-engaged but politically-neutral accounts on each of the platforms, and found that recommender algorithms on X and TikTok had a strong bias towards right-wing parties, especially the AfD. No strong bias was found on Instagram.

Figure 1: Global Witness found that TikTok and X’s recommender algorithms had a strong right-wing bias during the German elections.

DIGITAL PLATFORMS AND MEDIA AMPLIFY FALSE NARRATIVES

Aside from the AfD, we found posts from other accounts across X, TikTok and Telegram mocking climate activists, attacking net zero policies and denying climate change. Hashtags like #Klimahysterie (climate hysteria), #CO2Lüge (CO₂ lie), #EnergiewendeFail (energy transition fail), #GrünerWahnsinn (green madness) and #Klimadiktatur (climate dictatorship) frequently accompanied posts.

Figure 2: Examples of high traction posts from X accounts that frequently posted climate misinformation in the run up to the German election. Text is translated from German to English in each case, with account names anonymised and dates and times randomised.

This matches a growing trend of ‘issue stacking’, where disinfluencers pivot topics, depending on which may garner the most engagement at the time. These separate narratives combine to create a highly conspiratorial ‘super-narrative’. During the German election period, climate misinformation was slotted in alongside AI influencers and AI deepfakes, Russian-backed narratives on Ukraine, public health disinformation, claims of electoral fraud and attacks on migrants and asylum seekers.

Legacy media contributed too. False narratives relating to climate change and energy policy – though less extreme than some narratives found on digital platforms above – were spread by the AfD. For example, DeSmog notes that “during an official election debate on ZDF, AfD chancellor candidate Alice Weidel [falsely] told over five million viewers that wind energy was more expensive than coal and that Germany’s energy prices were the highest in the world.” Weidel also made false statements on the Caren Miosga talk show on February 2nd and the ARD programme ‘Farbe Bekennen” on February 18th. Fact checks are of limited use in combating misinformation to begin with, but post-show fact checks are certainly too little, too late.

TRANSATLANTIC FAR-RIGHT SUPPORT

Also in line with recent trends, the AfD benefited from transatlantic far-right amplification. The best example is rapidly rising figurehead Elon Musk. DeSmog uncovered how Musk first publicly involved himself with AfD politics last summer through direct message exchanges with Naomi Seibt on X. At 24 years old, Seibt was once paid by climate denier think-tank, The Heartland Institute, to be the ‘anti-Greta’. In 2025, ahead of the elections, Musk provided an exclusive space for AfD leader Alice Weidel on X. He tweeted AfD support from his own account, and joined the AfD’s election campaign launch in February. A poll conducted afterwards showed his presence at the launch likely increased overall support for the party. Given his position as “Special Government Employee” under the Trump administration, his interventions can be viewed as a more overt form of foreign interference. Meanwhile, his actions may have implications for ongoing investigations into his platform, X, under the Digital Services Act.

Civil society organisations including climate NGOs were also accused of being part of a coordinated ‘deep state’, in narratives that look strikingly similar to those employed in both Hungary and the US of late. Climate NGOs continue to come under scrutiny at the EU level and, indeed, in Germany itself. Naomi Seibt also spread a lot of posts claiming electoral interference relating to USAID, calling for investigations into legacy media outlets.

WHAT NOW?

Climate disinformation, especially during election periods, can have a chilling effect on climate policy. At best it removes political capital to act. At worst it can install an administration which spreads anti-scientific views itself, and end up in the dismantling of scientific or civil society organisations altogether. In Germany, the winning party – the centre-right CDU – has already announced its intention to roll back some climate policies from the previous government, despite multiple warnings from industry and scientists, while the country remains behind target for 1.5 degree aligned policies.

Especially worrying is how all of the findings in this data monitor reflect ongoing trends. A recent CAAD webinar on techno feudalism made links between Big Oil and Big Tech, pointing out that industrial actors are often “wrong, on purpose, for money”, polluting our environment by polluting our information environment. Something must be done, fast.

The EU’s Digital Services Act must enforce better transparency from platforms on algorithmic amplification of climate disinformation, especially during electoral periods and during extreme weather events. A CAAD analysis in 2023 found platform enforcement and accountability on climate misinformation under the Digital Services Act severely lacking.

There are some promising signs. Some leaders in the EU are looking to hold big tech platforms and their owners to account, while momentum gathers on an agreement to secure better information integrity on climate change worldwide.

Finally, at risk of sounding banal, we shouldn’t forget to simply get offline more. Given recent events, the importance of building new, real-world organizing muscles face to face has never been more important.

IN OTHER NEWS

Poland: Russia attempts to undermine public confidence in climate science, net zero and the EU’s Green Deal. A report by Poland’s military counterintelligence service – summarised in English by DeSmog – revealed that Russia has used climate disinformation as part of a long-term “cognitive war” to sow division.

Edelman’s Untrustworthy Barometer. Edelman has become the latest PR company with fossil fuel clients to win a contract supporting COP. Untimely for the climate, but timely for the briefing we released on why not to trust Edelman’s annual ‘Trust Barometer’. “The lack of transparency and external review of the research methodology cast doubt on its scientific validity”, said Duncan Meisel of Clean Creatives, while Robert Brulle, visiting professor at Brown University said “Edelman’s work with fossil fuel polluters makes them one of the least trustworthy sources of data imaginable.”

Facebook’s decision to remove fact-checking will have a detrimental impact on safety and democracy. There’s no sugar coating it, but don’t take it from us. Pallavi Sethi at the London School of Economics and the researchers over at the Center for Countering Digital Hate delve into the issue in detail.

f you have any investigative leads CAAD should explore, want to find out more about our research and intel, or interview one of our members, please email [email protected].