Tensions over how climate change is discussed, and who gets to control that conversation, are escalating across Europe.
At the European Parliament’s environment committee this week, the European Commission defended its campaign against “climate disinformation,” facing down strong opposition from lawmakers who fear the erosion of free expression.
Meanwhile, in the UK, Labour donor and green energy tycoon Dale Vince added fuel to the fire by publicly calling for criminal penalties against climate skeptics.
Opening the committee session in Brussels, Commission official Emil Andersen attempted to draw a line between belief and verifiable fact: “As citizens of a free society, we are each entitled to our own opinions but not entitled to our own facts.” That assertion quickly ran into fierce resistance, with several parliamentarians warning of state overreach cloaked in scientific authority.
Anja Arndt of Germany’s AfD challenged the prevailing climate consensus and accused the EU of weaponizing disinformation policy. “A front-on attack on freedom of expression, freedom of science, and the truth,” she declared. Her colleague Marc Jongen warned that if the European Commission took it upon itself to decide what constitutes truth, then “we’re on the road to a totalitarian system.”
Those concerns found parallels in the UK. Dale Vince, founder of Ecotricity and a major Labour Party financier, stated that climate skepticism should not only be rebutted but also punished. Writing on X, he said, “I’d make climate denial a criminal offence myself – given the incredible harm that it will cause, even by slowing down progress to net zero.” Rather than promoting dialogue or transparency, Vince called for punitive action against dissenting opinions.
His comments came shortly after Energy Secretary Ed Miliband lashed out at both the Conservatives and Reform UK for resisting rapid decarbonization. “Future generations” would hold them accountable, he said in an interview with The Times.
While many agree on aspects of environmental responsibility, calls to outlaw disagreement threaten to undermine core democratic values. Branding opposing views as dangerous, rather than countering them with argument and evidence, risks transforming public discourse into a one-sided echo chamber.
Inside the European Parliament, skepticism about the Commission’s disinformation push was not confined to the political fringes. Sander Smit of the centre-right European People’s Party expressed concern that Commission-backed “fact-checking” could suppress debate, especially during elections. He argued that this approach might render “a certain type of discussion” impossible.
Others in the chamber took the opposite view. Members of liberal and social democratic groups insisted that denying climate science was not an acceptable position in democratic debate. Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy of the Renew group maintained that accepting climate science was based on evidence, while rejecting it was “precisely” ideological. He urged lawmakers to maintain integrity in public discourse and to form a coalition against climate denial. He also asked the Commission to formally refute what he described as the AfD’s “nonsense,” though no assurance was given.
