The great majority of conspiracy theories and disinformation spread about environmental and health topics are popularly attributed to the conservative/right side of the political spectrum.
But there is no shortage of conspiracy theories and disinformation generated by the left/liberal side of the spectrum – as outlined by Ilya Somin in Reason (May 2023).
Misinformation is incorrect information spread without intent to harm, while disinformation is false information designed to mislead others. A conspiracy theory is a belief that some influential organisation/group is responsible for a notable event. Misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories are harmful, regardless of origin.
Examples of misinformation and disinformation emanating from the left/liberal side include exaggerations about climate change and nuclear power, and dangers posed by genetically modified (GM) food.
Examples on the conservative/right include claims that Covid vaccines are ineffective or that drinking pasteurised milk is dangerous. Examples of conspiracy theories emanating from the left include the old theory blaming international Jewish wealth and influence for injustice, unemployment and corruption, echoed in recent years in allegations regarding the UK Labour Party at the time of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
And the “great replacement theory” is a well-known conspiracy theory on the right claiming a “race war” is ongoing to replace white people in the West with non-whites.
Wrong-headed ideas conflicting with science concerning climate change and other aspects of the environment are currently popular on the left. One such notion claims that the world faces an imminent climate change “tipping point” into global apocalypse within the next 10–20 years, whereas science tells us that things may get worse but civilisation will certainly not end within 20 years.
[Significant minority of Irish people believe conspiracy theories, research showsOpens in new window ]
Another example is outright condemnation of GM foods as deadly dangerous both to human health and natural ecology, despite scientific validation of specific GM foods as safe for human consumption. Finally, we have the outright Green rejection of nuclear energy, the most effective clean energy source, to supplement renewable energy.
A particularly egregious example of the left’s opposition to the settled position of science is the outright opposition to the introduction of golden rice (GR) to poor countries whose national diets centre entirely around white rice. White rice is devoid of essential Vitamin A. Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness and death, killing up to half a million people worldwide annually.
The tragedy is that this huge loss of life could be prevented by substituting GR for white rice. GR is genetically modified to produce a Vitamin A precursor Beta Carotene, which is converted to Vitamin A in the human body.
GR is scientifically certified as safe to eat but nevertheless its introduction has been successfully frustrated by anti-GM organisations, principally Greenpeace. These organisations trumpet science when it suits them but ignore science when it doesn’t. They also have an ideological aversion to genetic engineering and a technical understanding of its effects that, in many respects, diverges considerably from mainline science.
Greens are ideologically opposed to nuclear power, to some extent because nuclear power companies are capitalist corporations. That is not to say of course that there have not been genuine reasons to feel apprehensive about traditional large-scale nuclear power plants and about nuclear waste. However, we must also remember that the nuclear industry’s safety record in terms of deaths and injuries to workers is far better than any other energy industry – for example, coal or oil.
Recent nuclear power industry developments include small modular nuclear plants, factory-manufactured and assembled on-site. These plants largely rule out accidents that could threaten human life – if problems arise, the reactors fail safe. One modular plant could power a data centre. If a second data centre is needed, a second reactor can be placed on-site.
Of course, even small modular reactors generate high-level nuclear waste that must be segregated from the environment for thousands of years. But such waste is converted into a stable glass form for safe storage, stored long term in deep underground stable geological repositories. In Ireland’s case the overseas nuclear plant manufacturer would both supply the nuclear fuel and take back the high-level waste.
[Ireland should consider small nuclear reactors to achieve zero-carbon energy by 2050, engineers’ think tank urgesOpens in new window ]
Environmental groups generally greatly underestimate the difficulty in achieving net-zero carbon dioxide emissions if relying exclusively on renewable energy. It may be well-nigh impossible to reach net-zero without some assistance from nuclear energy.
In summary, misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories arise all along the political spectrum and they all sow confusion and frustrate progress.
William Reville is an emeritus professor of biochemistry at UCC