PeakMetrics / Fact Checks
Climate & environment fact checks
Explore claims publishers have checked about climate & environment. Read their original ratings and follow the evidence.
Search fact checks
Search by text or image1,358 published reviews in this topic
This photo shows Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg holding up the book ‘On The Jews and Their Lies’
Publisher’s rating: Fake
CO2-Reduktion zur Klimarettung ergibt keinen Sinn, denn Pflanzen benötigen CO2 und daher würde eine Reduzierung von CO2 zu weniger Pflanzenwachstum führen.
Publisher’s rating: Die Behauptung, dass CO2-Reduktion zu weniger Pflanzenwachstum führe und deswegen nicht gegen den Klimawandel helfe, ist falsch. Es stimmt zwar, dass Pflanzen CO2 benötigen, um Sauerstoff zu produzieren. Allerdings folgt daraus nicht, dass der CO2-Ausstoß von Menschen positive Auswirkungen hat. Auch eine Studie, laut der die Erde in den vergangenen Jahrzehnten grüner geworden sei, ist kein Beleg für die Behauptung.
Eine aktuelle Studie belegt, dass der menschliche Einfluss auf das Klima nicht relevant und messbar ist.
Publisher’s rating: Es handelt sich um ein Diskussionspapier, nicht um eine Studie, wie mancherorts behauptet wird. Die Arbeit wird von vielen Experten als unzureichend kritisiert. Das gewählte Sample ist demnach nicht repräsentativ und der Interpretationsspielraum bei den Messergebnissen zu groß für so tiefgreifende Rückschlüsse. Der menschliche Einfluss auf die Erdatmosphäre ist wissenschaftlicher Konsens.
The claim concerns a Norwegian Statistics Bureau (SSB) discussion paper that questions whether human influence on atmospheric CO₂ is measurable and relevant. The review distinguishes the document from a scientific study: the authors’ answer was circulated as a study in some media, but the document itself is described as a discussion paper. It examined temperatures from 95 weather stations, rather than providing a representative global assessment of climate change. The review reports that critics challenged both the station sample and the interpretation of its results. The stations covered only about 20 percent of Earth’s land area, while the oceans were neglected, according to retired marine scientist Svein Sundby; critics also objected to the thresholds used to define an abnormally warm climate. The review therefore presents the paper’s findings as too limited to support such broad conclusions, rather than as evidence that human influence is irrelevant. The review contrasts the paper with the IPCC’s assessment evidence and reports that the WMO measured atmospheric CO₂ in 2022 at around 50 percent above pre-industrial levels; it also says a new record of nearly 425 ppm was measured in 2023. It quotes University of Vienna ecologist Franz Essl describing human influence on the atmosphere’s energy balance as necessarily having massive effects. Taken together, the review explains why the discussion paper does not overturn the established evidence it cites for substantial human influence.
Ein Papier aus Norwegen widerspricht bei der Frage, ob vom Menschen verursachte CO2-Emissionen Einfluss auf die Temperaturen der vergangenen 200 Jahre hatten, dem wissenschaftlichen Konsens.
Publisher’s rating: Der menschliche Einfluss auf das Weltklima gilt als wissenschaftlich gesichert und wird von nahezu allen Ländern dieser Welt als gegeben angesehen. Das veröffentlichte Papier ist nicht wie von manchen Verbreitenden behauptet eine Studie, sondern lediglich ein Diskussionspapier, das Experten zufolge aufgrund fehlender belastbarer Aussagen einem wissenschaftlichen Diskurs nicht standhalten würde.
Social media users claimed that 1936 was warmer than 2023.
Publisher’s rating: FALSE: While there was a major heat wave in 1936, 2023 has been warmer so far.
US$8.8-billion climate finance pact is responsible for the recurrent power outages in South Africa
Publisher’s rating: Fikile Mbalula’s claim linking the closure of coal-fired plants to the current load shedding in South Africa is not supported by the facts. The power crisis in South Africa is a result of various factors, and the transition from coal, while a contributing factor, is not the sole cause of the current load shedding.
Windräder verursachen Trockenheit und Erderwärmung und haben eine Laufzeit von nur zehn Jahren. Rotorblätter sind nicht recyclingfähig.
Publisher’s rating: Windräder können durch Luftaustausch die Bodentemperaturen beeinflussen. Allerdings fügen die Anlagen der Atmosphäre nicht mehr Wärme hinzu, sondern sorgen für eine andere Verteilung. Damit verursachen sie keine Erderwärmung. Auch für Trockenheit gibt es andere Auslöser. Die Laufzeit von Windrädern beträgt zwischen 20 und 30 Jahren. Richtig ist, dass es für das komplette Recycling von Rotorblättern bisher noch keine Verfahren gibt.
The review examined a Facebook post making four connected claims: wind turbines cause drought and global warming, last only ten years, and have blades that cannot be recycled. Its evidence distinguishes effects on local air and temperature from changes to the climate overall, and separates the turbines’ technical lifespan from the point when operating them may cease to be financially worthwhile. For temperature and drought, the review cites a German Bundestag scientific-services report and reporting by MDR. The report says that, based on current knowledge, temperatures in lower air layers can rise at night near turbines; the review also reports an MDR estimate of 0.3–0.7°C for very large wind farms. But the described effect is redistribution of heat: air near the ground is moved upward, with cooling there. The Bundestag report characterizes the local temperature shift as a microclimatic change, not a drought, and identifies other drought drivers, including low rainfall, limited access to water, and land-use changes. The review therefore does not treat local temperature effects as evidence that turbines cause global warming or drought. On operating life, the review cites the Federal Environment Agency’s estimate that wind turbines reach the end of their service life after 20–30 years. It adds that some are shut down after 20 years because renewable-energy subsidies end then; rising maintenance and repair costs can also make continued operation uneconomic. That financial decision does not establish a ten-year lifespan. The recycling claim is partly grounded in a real limitation, but overstates it. A report by TU Dresden and the Fraunhofer Institute for Chemical Technology says suitable disposal routes exist for nearly all turbine materials, while rotor-blade disposal remains an exception needing further research. The difficulty is separating composite blade materials while retaining their properties. The review also notes some uses for blade waste, including cement production and flooring, while saying that comprehensive recycling methods are not yet available.
Die CO2-Belastung macht Windkraftanlagen beinahe unrentabel.
Publisher’s rating: Zum Bau von Windenergieanlagen werden tatsächlich grosse Mengen an Zement benötigt. Bei ihrem Betrieb fallen hingegen keine CO2-Emissionen an, sodass die Windenergie eine deutlich bessere CO2-Bilanz hat als andere Energieträger wie Gas, Öl oder Kohle. Der Bau einer Windenergieanlage amortisiert sich in der Regel bereits nach kurzer Zeit.
The review addresses a Facebook post arguing that wind power barely pays off because building wind turbines causes substantial CO2 emissions. The post’s video calculates the cement needed for a turbine foundation; the review says this construction impact is real, but that the video leaves out the comparison needed to judge the claim. Its central point is that emissions from construction must be assessed against the electricity generated over the turbine’s life and compared with emissions from other energy sources. [S1: “In einem Facebook-Post wird jedoch behauptet, Windenergie rentiere sich kaum, weil der Bau der Anlagen viel CO2-Ausstoss verursache.”] [S1: “Unbeachtet bleibt im Video allerdings, wie die Windenergie im Vergleich mit anderen Energieträgern abschneidet.”] The review reports that the video assumes 1,500 cubic metres of concrete for a foundation, while figures cited from PT-Magazin and concrete producer Dyckerhoff are 1,300 and about 1,000 cubic metres. It considers the amount in the video plausible for the large turbines planned for the Altdorfer Wald project in Germany. It then cites EnergieSchweiz figures: over a typical 20–25-year operating life, an average turbine produces at least 40 times the energy used for construction, maintenance and disposal, and takes about half a year to generate that amount. The review notes that results vary with turbine size and location. [S1: “Im Video wird angenommen, dass für das Fundament 1 500 Kubikmeter Beton benötigt werden.”] [S1: “Im PT-Magazin für Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft werden 1 300 Kubikmeter angegeben, und der Betonhersteller Dyckerhoff rechnet mit etwa 1 000 Kubikmetern.”] [S1: “Eine durchschnittliche Windenergieanlage produziert nach Angaben von EnergieSchweiz während der typischen Betriebsdauer von 20 bis 25 Jahren mindestens 40-mal so viel Energie, wie an grauer Energie anfällt.”] [S1: “Bereits nach etwa einem halben Jahr hat eine Windenergieanlage so viel Energie produziert, wie für Bau, Unterhalt und Entsorgung notwendig sind.”] For greenhouse-gas emissions, the review compares lifecycle emissions per kilowatt-hour, including the energy and emissions associated with building the facilities. It gives wind power’s figure as 17.3 grams of CO2-equivalent per kilowatt-hour, compared with 613.7 for natural gas, 771.3 for oil and 771.3 for hard coal. It also distinguishes lifecycle emissions from direct operation: the review says wind turbines have no direct emissions while generating electricity. These comparisons address why construction emissions alone do not establish that wind power is nearly uneconomical or has a poor emissions balance. [S1: “Bei Windenergieanlagen fallen einer Studie von 2018 zufolge 17,3 Gramm CO2-Äquivalente (g CO2e) für die Produktion von einer kWh Strom an.”] [S1: “Darin enthalten ist wiederum die graue Energie, denn bei der eigentlich Stromproduktion gibt es bei der Windenergie keine direkten Emissionen”] [S1: “Mit weitaus mehr Treibhausgasausstoss verbunden sind die Energieträger Erdöl (771,3 g CO2e pro kWh), Erdgas (613,7 g CO2e pro kWh) und Steinkohle (771,3 g CO2e pro kWh).”]
انخفاض الثروة الحيوانية خلال العشرة سنوات الأخيرة لأكثر من 20%، بسبب شحة المياه وقلة الدعم الحكومي
Publisher’s rating: التصريح "مشكوك فيه"، فرغم وجود تصريح لوزارة الزراعة عن أعداد تقديرية للثروة الحـيوانية في عام 2023، إلا أنه لا توجد إحصائية لتلك الأرقام قبل 10 سنوات، وآخر مسح كان في 2008، ويظهر أن الثروة الحيوانية ارتفعت 69% خلال 15 عاما
‘C40 Cities’ have set a target to ban meat or dairy consumption and use of private vehicles by 2030.
Publisher’s rating: False
John Kerry hat gesagt: "Wir müssen Milliarden von Menschen opfern, um den Planeten Erde zu retten"
Publisher’s rating: Es gibt keine Belege dafür, dass Kerry jemals diese Aussage getroffen hat. Sie findet sich zwar in einer Überschrift eines Blogbeitrags, jedoch weder im Text des Beitrags noch in der Rede, auf die sich der Text bezieht.
The allegation is that John Kerry said billions of people must be sacrificed to save the planet. The review traces it to a blog headline, not to a passage in the blog’s article: the article’s text does not discuss the alleged quotation. The blog post was a translation of an article published in October by an American site that has appeared under different names, including NewsPunch. The post pointed readers to Kerry’s speech at the Scottish Global Dialogue on August 24, 2023, and suggested that he spoke there about reducing the world’s population. The review says the linked video contains the complete speech, but that the alleged statement does not appear in it. Instead, the blog presents selected fragments and comments on them. One fragment concerns Kerry’s warning that humanity is being threatened by humanity itself. In the speech, he was referring to people who deny climate-change research and persuade others to accept what he described as a fictional alternative reality in which action is unnecessary. That context makes the fragment different from the alleged call to sacrifice billions of people. The review therefore finds no supporting evidence for the claimed quotation in either the blog’s text or the speech it links.
John Kerry dijo que "debemos sacrificar miles de millones de seres humanos para salvar el planeta Tierra”.
Publisher’s rating: Falso
The claim attributes to John Kerry, the U.S. special presidential envoy for climate, a statement that people should be sacrificed to save the planet. The review says social-media posts shared the wording on X on October 24 and 25, 2023, and linked to an English-language article by The People’s Voice, which alleged Kerry made the remark during the Scottish Global Dialogues. The review identifies that event as the claimed setting for the quotation. [S1: “Publicaciones en redes sociales aseguran que el enviado presidencial especial de Estados Unidos para el clima, John Kerry, dijo que debemos sacrificar a miles de millones de personas para salvar el planeta.”; “se dice que el enviado especial habría pronunciado esa frase durante los Diálogos Globales Escoceses.”] To check the attribution, the review reports that elDetector asked the U.S. State Department whether Kerry had said the words. A department spokesperson replied by email that the allegation from The People’s Voice was “obviously false.” The review also says its staff checked the official transcript of Kerry’s speech at the Scottish Global Dialogues and did not find the quoted statement there. These are the review’s stated checks; the supplied excerpt does not reproduce the transcript or the full email. [S1: “un vocero del organismo nos respondió vía correo electrónico que ‘esta última afirmación ridícula de la página web The People’s Voice es obviamente falsa’.”; “revisamos la transcripción oficial del discurso de Kerry en los Diálogos Globales Escoceses y no encontramos la frase citada en las publicaciones que estamos verificando.”] The article’s conclusion is that Kerry did not say the attributed words. It also reports that the alleged quotation was circulated by The People’s Voice and describes that site as known for publishing disinformation, citing Media Bias / Fact Check. That characterization is contextual information in the review; the specific evidence it gives for assessing the quotation is the spokesperson’s denial and the absence of the wording from the official speech transcript. [S1: “Es falso que el enviado especial de Estados Unidos para asuntos del medio ambiente, John Kerry, dijo que ‘debemos sacrificar miles de millones de humanos para salvar el planeta Tierra’”; “La web The People’s Voice (anteriormente conocida como Newspunch y YourNewsWire) es considerada de ‘cero credibilidad debido a la publicación rutinaria de desinformación’, según el sitio especializado Media Bias / Fact Check”]
Rainforest Alliance veranderde zijn logo van kikker naar plant.
Publisher’s rating: Rainforest Alliance blijft het kikkerlogo gebruiken. Het logo met de plant staat voor het plantaardige assortiment van Magnumijs.
يطرح العراق سنويًا نحو 40 مليون طن من النفايات الصلبة، والفرد الواحد يطرح بين 750 جرام و1.250 كلجم يوميًا، وهو الأعلى في كل دول العالم، لوجود ظاهرة الهدر في المجتمع
Publisher’s rating: التصريح "غير دقيق"، فالعراق يطرح بين 17 و19 مليون طنًا سنويًا فقط من النفايات بجميع أنواعها، كما أن الفرد العراقي ليس الأعلى بين الدول في طرح النفايات يوميًا، بل يأتي في المراتب الـ4 الأخيرة في العالم
IAEA、汚染水のろ過性能を検証していない
Publisher’s rating: ほぼ正確
The review reports that the IAEA had not verified the performance of the ALPS treatment process itself. It distinguishes that from the IAEA’s separate monitoring and assessment of treated water and its environmental impact.
Ein Logo mit Blättern ersetzt das Rainforest-Alliance-Siegel mit dem Frosch.
Publisher’s rating: Falsch. Das Pflanzensiegel hat mit der Rainforest Alliance nichts zu tun. Es wurde vielmehr vom britischen Konsumgüterkonzern Unilever ins Leben gerufen. Das Frosch-Logo der Rainforest Alliance gibt es nach wie vor. Bill Gates verbindet außer einer früheren Großspende nichts mit der Organisation.
The claim concerns an alleged replacement of the Rainforest Alliance’s frog seal by a leaf logo. The review distinguishes the two marks: it says the three-leaf logo is not a new Rainforest Alliance seal, but a label on products from Magnum, the ice-cream brand owned by Unilever. The article says Unilever introduced plant-based Magnum ice cream and that its packaging carries the words “plant based indulgence.” (S1: “Das Logo mit den drei Blättern, dem der Frosch angeblich gewichen sein soll, ist hingegen lediglich ein Hinweis auf Produkten der Eismarke Magnum. Neben den klassischen Sorten bietet Unilever neuerdings auch rein pflanzliches Magnum-Eis an.”) The review also reports that Magnum’s cocoa continued to come from a Rainforest Alliance-certified growing area, and that the Rainforest Alliance frog logo appeared on the organization’s website. This supports the distinction between the plant-based product marking and the certification mark; the review does not describe the leaf logo as replacing the frog seal. (S1: “Der Kakao kommt nach Unilever-Angaben weiterhin aus einem von der Rainforest Alliance zertifizierten Anbaugebiet. Daher ist auch dessen Frosch-Logo auf der Website zu finden.”) On the Bill Gates aspect, the article says the documented links were donations from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, including a one-time grant of $5.3 million with a 53-month term about 15 years earlier and another one-time donation of up to $10,000 about five years earlier. It adds that Gates was one of multiple major donors and did not intervene in the organization’s operations. The review therefore gives no support for the allegation that he influenced a logo change. (S1: “Die Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation spendete der Organisation vor rund 15 Jahren einmalig 5,3 Millionen US-Dollar mit einer Laufzeit von 53 Monaten. Vor rund fünf Jahren kamen zudem eine Einmalspende von bis zu 10 000 Dollar dazu. Gates war damit im Lauf der Jahre einer von vielen weiteren Großspendern der Organisation, in deren operatives Geschäft er allerdings nie eingriff.”)
Vídeo mostra o que seria uma usina hidrelétrica na região Nordeste do Brasil. Uma descrição afirma: “governo deixa o Nordeste sem água e vazão da água não tem para onde ir. Águas do São Francisco foram fechadas e está transbordando”.
Publisher’s rating: Enganoso
The investigation examined a TikTok post that linked footage of abundant water at a São Francisco River hydroelectric complex to an allegation that the Lula government had blocked the river’s waters, leaving the Northeast without water. It found that the post combined two recordings made in different contexts, using them to imply a connection between the water shortage and protests that the footage did not establish. The report says the hydroelectric images showed Paulo Afonso, in northern Bahia, during high water—not the effects of blocked water or closed pumps. [S1] According to the investigation, the visible waterfalls resulted from increased river flow associated with January 2023 rains. The responsible utility, Eletrobras Chesf, confirmed that the images showed the Paulo Afonso complex. The report describes the waterfalls as having an 80-metre drop and says they reappeared with the increase in flow. That footage therefore did not demonstrate that the government had shut off the river’s waters. [S1] The other recording showed a separate event: an October 4 protest on the BR-116 near Belém do São Francisco, Pernambuco. Farmers from irrigation projects in Bahia and Pernambuco were protesting shortages of water and electricity in their localities. The investigation states that these shortages were not caused by a government closure of pumps at the hydroelectric plant. It reports that responsibility for maintaining the irrigation projects had become disputed between Codevasf and Chesf after an administrative change, providing a separate context for the farmers’ complaints. [S1]