DATA MONITOR MAY 2025: Disinformation During a Crisis – Lessons from the Iberian Blackout

It’s the blackout that made global headlines. In late April, Spain, Portugal, Andorra and some of southern France experienced an unexpected energy grid failure, knocking out power in different regions from a few hours to up to a day.

Faster than you can say “I should have bought that emergency kit”, vested interests were already oiling up the gears of the disinformation machine. Just two hours after the blackout hit, a mainstream British newspaper released an article online asking if renewables ‘could’ be the cause of the outage – the classic ‘just asking questions’ rhetorical technique.

Our latest CAAD briefing has all the details on how speculation about the power outage gave way to conspiracy theories and, ultimately, disinformation blaming renewables or net zero, covering Spanish-, Portuguese- and English-language. We saw it spill over or originate in other languages too, but our briefing focuses on these three.

This data monitor gives the spark notes of what we found; and we connect the dots between this, extreme weather events, and disinformation incentives during times of crises.

IN THE DARK – DISINFORMERS EXPLOIT THE INFORMATION VACUUM

Many who experienced the blackout first hand will tell you about the rampant speculation that took place that day. This is a natural thing to do, with people tending to provide explanations that fit their existing ideologies.

If you shouted loud enough that day, your (probably wrong) theory might have reached a small, bemused crowd. But online, a transnational network of news media and social media accounts had a much bigger audience, into the millions.  This network reached millions with conspiracy theories and falsehoods blaming renewables or net zero policy for the incident.

A selection of posts blaming renewables for the Iberian blackout across languages. See this and more evidence at CAAD’s briefing on the blackout.

Conspiracy theories and content blaming the Spanish and Portuguese governments were common in both these languages, taking place very quickly after the blackout began. However, content blaming renewables in these languages gathered momentum later that day, with far more engagement on average than what came before, peaking between 12 and 24 hours after the crisis. The criticisms of renewables in Spanish and Portuguese appeared to follow the lead of English-language media and social media accounts spreading such rumours and falsehoods.

Infobox: What do we know?

Early on, explanations of a cyberattack and excess renewables were ruled out, though the former is still on the table, albeit highly unlikely. An official explanation is still pending, with the Spanish government stating there are no simple explanations. Attempts to explain the impact are technical and very focused on destabilising events on the grid, and how the grid operates, not on the energy source powering it. Note that, whatever the ultimate explanation, speculation or assertion at this point is at best irresponsible, at worst deliberately spreading disinformation; as it’s virtually impossible that any news outlet or social media user would know for sure what caused the outage, even at this stage.

Check out our briefing to get a fuller understanding of the disinformation that took place and when.

CRISES ARE PROFITABLE

This is the inevitable result of information environments where profits are more important than the truth. In the case of social media platforms, false information and speculation can be more engaging, and spread further and faster. In the case of traditional media, ideological editorial stances can masquerade as factual reporting. Those with a stake in the fossil fuel economy or the attention economy exploit these dynamics, especially during times of crisis (like extreme weather events) or when there is a void of information. In the case of the Iberian outage, we had both.

Despite this – with one partial exception from hundreds of examples – we found no fact check, information label or community note on any of the speculatory or false content on social media. Meanwhile, no action appears to be taken against the media that have blamed – and continue to blame – renewables.

The world is currently on pace to increase renewable capacity by 2.7x by 2030 – slightly behind the pace of UNFCCC goals. But disinformation following crisis events like this risks reducing public trust in, and political will for, the necessary technologies. Anyone serious about the Paris Agreement must be serious about the integrity of the information ecosystem during such times of crisis. Clearly, it is not in a good place; but the CAAD coalition has a list of policy solutions that would help.

ROAD TO BELEM

Leading up to COP30, we’re dedicating a short section each month to climate disinformation trends in Brazil.

Brasilia hosted Brazil’s largest annual indigenous gathering this April, with over 6,000 indigenous people from 150 ethnic groups in attendance. Online, misinformation was spread about the event, with its attendees and organisers subjected to racist slurs, all in an attempt to block climate action.

 

What do lies about indigenous people have to do with the climate in Brazil? Have a read of Oii’s latest newsletter to learn more.

IN OTHER NEWS

Next play? Seek immunity. The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) have uncovered a fossil fuel industry campaign seeking legal immunity from current or future lawsuits. UCS’s blog reports on a front group, a shady website, and an advertising campaign unearthed by CAAD analysts. In response, UCS have released a dossier of evidence showing why the industry is culpable, as well as a handy timeline to track its deceit. We’re expecting that 2025 won’t be that timeline’s last entry.

New media spreads new denial. A Yale Climate Connections analysis found that 8 of the top 10 podcasts in the US (as previously analysed by Media Matters) have spread climate change misinformation. Yale points out that most of the misinformation is of the modern variety – or, more specifically, “New Denial” (as previously identified by Center for Counter Digital Hate). Messages like “Climate solutions don’t work,” “Climate change has some benefits,” and that pollution reduction policies are “tools for governments to control people” were found on said right-wing podcasts.

‘Offsets do not prevent or undo the harms caused by burning fossil fuels.” But don’t take it from us – take it from Energy Australia, who apologised to its customers after implying that emissions from energy use could be totally offset by its “go neutral” carbon offset programme. What’s the best way to prevent harms caused by burning fossil fuels? Don’t burn them. A clear and simple message that is systematically avoided by the fossil fuel industry writ large.

Speaking of important precedents, news broke late last week that energy companies can in fact be sued for damages caused by their products half way across the world. Peruvian farmer Saul Luciano Lliuya did not win his specific case against German energy company RWE, because the damage total was considered too small to take the case further. However, the case has established that climate science can provide a basis for legal liability in the future.

Breaking new ground. Over 30 global health organisations representing 12 million health professionals pledged to cut ties with PR & ad agencies serving the fossil fuel industry at the World Health Assembly in Geneva this month, as part of the “Break the Fossil Influence” campaign from the Global Health and Climate Alliance. In other ‘fossil fuel distancing’ news, the Dutch city of Delft has joined The Hague and Utrecht in banning fossil fuel adverts.

If 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].