Researchers from University College Dublin and the ILaVita Foundation built a climate-economy model where some people hold accurate views on climate damage and others understate it. They tested how disinformation affects carbon tax outcomes under two settings: a constrained planner and majority voting. The model found that majority voting can deliver stronger early carbon taxes while informed voters are in the majority, but that advantage collapses quickly once disinformation shifts the balance. Late or persistent disinformation was especially damaging because it erodes support after the transition to stronger policy has started, leading to hotter warming paths in both policy regimes. A strong counter-disinformation intervention nearly offset an early disinformation shock. The authors argue that protecting the information environment is part of making carbon pricing politically feasible, not just a matter of public discourse.
