In the era of big data, climate information has emerged as a powerful tool for shaping environmental policies and guiding economic decisions. Despite this progress, certain practices have arisen that exploit the selective and misleading use of such data to further political or economic interests at the expense of genuine environmental concerns. This analysis focuses on examining examples of the negative use of climate data, including its exploitation in election campaigns, misleading consumers through green marketing, and attracting funding for projects with questionable environmental viability.

Supporting Selective Environmental Policies

Big data analysis of climate change impacts in specific regions enables governments to make evidence-based decisions. However, data manipulation or selective use can portray certain areas negatively, supporting policies that restrict economic development.

For example, climate change impact data in Africa, such as desertification and drought information, sometimes guides economic decisions that may hinder development. In northern Kenya and Niger, satellite data identifies areas most vulnerable to drought due to climate change.[1]  While this data clearly shows environmental degradation, it can be exaggerated to depict a climate catastrophe[2], leading to political decisions that impede economic progress.

Consequently, such data may justify reducing agricultural projects in farming-dependent areas, limiting development opportunities and increasing reliance on international aid. Climate concerns are selectively highlighted to support specific policies, potentially serving the political interests of countries or international organizations seeking to influence African policies. Meanwhile, aspects presenting a more balanced climate reality are often overlooked.

False Green Marketing

Some companies employ data for marketing analyses that portray their products as environmentally friendly. For instance, a company might present data showing lower carbon emissions from its product compared to competitors. Although the intention is to enhance the company's public image, such data may not reflect real changes in environmental practices.

The practice of using data to market products as "green" when they are not is widespread among companies seeking to attract sustainability-conscious consumers. Known as "greenwashing," this false green marketing involves the use of misleading or selective data to create a deceptive impression of environmental friendliness.

Examples of such practices include:

1- Coca-Cola marketing products as "recyclable":

Coca-Cola's marketing campaigns touted the recyclability of their bottles, emphasizing data that showcased an increased percentage of recycled materials in their packaging. By highlighting these figures, the company aimed to present an eco-friendly image[3]. However, the reality painted a different picture. The plastic used in these bottles remained non-biodegradable, and recycling rates in numerous regions were dismally low. Moreover, the environmental impact extended beyond the bottles themselves, as plastic production and resource extraction processes continued to inflict significant damage on the ecosystem.[4]

2- Ford’s "green" car marketing:

In 2010[5], Ford launched a marketing campaign for its hybrid car, the Ford Fusion, touting its environmental friendliness due to its hybrid engine that combined fuel and electricity.[6] The car indeed offered lower fuel consumption compared to traditional vehicles. However, certain analyses revealed that Ford had selectively used data to market the car as a fully eco-friendly product.

Contrary to Ford's marketing messages about the car being "green" and "sustainable," the reality was more complex. The manufacturing process and extraction of raw materials for hybrid batteries had a substantial environmental impact, including significant pollution from battery production. 

3- Nike’s "green" color marketing:

Nike's marketing campaigns, including "Nikelab" for shoe sales[7], have occasionally promoted certain footwear as sustainable, citing the use of recyclable materials or natural dyes. Upon closer examination, however, it became evident that Nike had not implemented substantial changes to its manufacturing processes or materials. The shoes in question contained only a small proportion of sustainable components.[8]

Rather than making significant eco-friendly improvements, these campaigns emphasized minor material enhancements while employing "green" colors and designs to create an illusion of environmental responsibility[9] (see Figure 2). Such practices exemplify a form of greenwashing, where a company presents itself as more environmentally conscious than its actual practices warrant.

4- Harley-Davidson’s "eco-friendly" motorcycle marketing:

Harley-Davidson launched LiveWire, an electric motorcycle marketed as "eco-friendly," in 2019.[10] The company's advertising emphasized energy savings and emission reductions but failed to address the significant environmental impact of battery production and charging infrastructure, which may be unsustainable in some countries. Additionally, challenges related to scaling electric vehicles were downplayed.

Notably, Harley-Davidson ranked 394th out of 500 U.S. companies in Newsweek's 2023 list of America's Most Responsible Companies. The list included 17 companies from the automotive and parts sector,[11] reflecting their commitment to social and environmental responsibility. While Harley-Davidson's inclusion on the list is noteworthy, its low ranking highlights the challenges it faces in implementing broader sustainability strategies compared to larger companies in the same sector.[12]

Marketing products as "green" or eco-friendly using selective data, when they are not truly sustainable, is a form of consumer deception and greenwashing. In the examples mentioned, companies used partial data or minor product improvements to promote their products as environmentally friendly while ignoring larger associated environmental impacts, thereby misleading consumers seeking sustainable choices.

Attracting Funding

Big data provides detailed reports on climate change impacts, attracting investments and funding for environmental projects. Unfortunately, some entities exploit this funding to support ineffective or misaligned initiatives. Analyzing this phenomenon reveals several key aspects:

Limited use of environmental data in project evaluations hinders the determination of real environmental improvements. For instance, certain projects may promote tools or technologies considered sustainable in specific contexts while disregarding broader environmental impacts elsewhere.

Gaps in government oversight and lack of transparency enable the exploitation of environmental funding for projects with low environmental viability.

An imbalance between economic and environmental benefits in project evaluations can lead to problematic practices. Projects showing quick economic returns may be favored, even if they harm biodiversity or increase pollution in the long term.

To address these issues, it is crucial to strengthen oversight mechanisms and ensure more accurate and transparent environmental assessments. By doing so, funds can be allocated in line with genuine environmental goals. An example of this phenomenon follows:

Bioenergy Projects in the European Union: In the European Union, significant funding was allocated to bioenergy projects under the umbrella of achieving environmental goals related to reducing carbon emissions. These projects included using wood or agricultural crops to generate energy. However, in some cases, these funds were exploited to support bioenergy initiatives that were not environmentally effective.

A prime example is the Drax Power Station in North Yorkshire, UK, a coal plant converted to operate using wood pellets (bioenergy). By 2023, the plant was responsible for producing about 5% of the UK's total electricity. Funded under the UK government's green subsidies, electricity produced from wood pellets was classified as "renewable energy" and labeled as emission-free.[13]

However, a 2024 BBC Panorama investigation revealed that Drax imported wood pellets from rare forests in Canada, specifically old-growth and primary forests (which have seen minimal human intervention). These forests are high-biodiversity environments, and their exploitation has significant environmental impacts. Although Drax had previously claimed it did not source wood from these forests, it was found that the company imported over 40,000 tons of wood from ancient Canadian forests in 2023.

Canadian environmental experts consider these forests "irreplaceable," and using wood from them as a source of bioenergy has faced major criticism for contributing to deforestation and increased carbon emissions. Environmental organizations confirmed that burning these wood pellets releases millions of tons of carbon dioxide, despite claims that these emissions are offset by planting new trees. Ultimately, these practices contradict the stated goal of mitigating climate change.

Serving Political Agendas

In election campaigns, political parties often leverage data to emphasize climate change impacts in specific regions, bolstering their positions. They might, for instance, utilize data showing rising temperatures in an area to justify certain policies, even when the reality is more nuanced.

Graphical analysis for political climate purposes involves the selective or misleading use of climate-related data and statistics to serve specific political or economic agendas. Data manipulation or directed interpretation can occur to support certain policies or sway public opinion in alignment with political interests.

Several practices illustrate this phenomenon:

1- Exploiting climate data in election campaigns (2020 U.S. Elections): 

During the 2020 U.S. presidential election, climate change emerged as a pivotal issue in campaign debates. Both Democratic and Republican parties strategically utilized climate data to convey political messages.[14] Certain politicians cherry-picked specific data points to support climate denial, highlighting brief periods of temperature decline to cast doubt on global warming. Conversely, others emphasized extreme weather predictions, such as hurricanes, to underscore the urgency of addressing climate change.[15] These selective analyses aimed to sway public opinion in alignment with each party's agenda: Democrats advocated for environmental legislation, while Republicans pushed for more conservative approaches to environmental restrictions.

2- Brazil’s Bolsonaro administration and climate data use:

Under Jair Bolsonaro's administration in Brazil, data related to Amazon deforestation was manipulated to downplay international concerns about environmental issues. On numerous occasions, the government sidestepped the reality of escalating deforestation rates in the Amazon, using carefully selected data to paint a less alarming picture.[16]

Reports indicating a significant rise in deforestation in recent years were frequently minimized or disregarded (See figure 4). At times, the administration presented reports suggesting environmental improvements in the Amazon, despite deforestation rates reaching unprecedented levels.[17]

Politically, the use of this data served two primary purposes: quelling international criticism, particularly from European countries and environmental organizations demanding stronger protective measures for the Amazon, and supporting local economic interests such as agriculture and mining, which contribute significantly to deforestation.[18]

Climate data's political exploitation continues to shape public policies on climate change. Selective or misleading use of data to support specific political agendas often complicates efforts to address global environmental challenges effectively. Climate big data serves as a powerful tool for influencing international policies and stances. However, its potential for manipulation to serve narrow political and economic objectives remains a concern. Such practices can sideline real issues that demand effective solutions, highlighting how big data can be leveraged to achieve goals that may conflict with environmental or social objectives.

In conclusion, big data has emerged as a crucial tool for comprehending climate change and forecasting its future impacts. Advancements in analytical and statistical technologies now enable the collection and analysis of vast amounts of environmental data, facilitating informed decision-making at various levels. Nevertheless, we must remain vigilant about the potential manipulation of climate data analysis for political or economic gains, which can lead to misleading or inaccurate outcomes. 

To optimize the use of big data in addressing climate change issues, several recommendations should be considered:

a. Enhancing data collection transparency: Climate data collection and analysis should adhere to clear and transparent standards. Professional sources and methods endorsed by global scientific bodies should be employed to ensure accuracy.

b. Investing in advanced technology: Leveraging advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning is crucial for developing more sophisticated analytical systems capable of handling environmental data with greater precision and efficiency. These technologies can improve climate models, accelerate future predictions, and contribute to innovative solutions for climate challenges.

c. Promoting education and public awareness: All stakeholders, including policymakers, researchers, and individuals, must engage with climate data more consciously. Through education and public awareness initiatives focused on interpreting environmental data, we can reduce the risks of misleading analyses and elevate public understanding of environmental issues.