%202021_edited_edited.jpg)
Shouldn’t Climate Denialism Now Be Criminalised?
- aquest
- 2 days ago
- 5 min read
Hurricane Melissa has forced Jamaica – and indeed CARICOM – into a new, terrifying clarity. As Professor Michael Taylor argued with scientific precision and humane concern in his recent Gleaner column, Melissa was not merely another storm. It was a climate-changed catastrophe: hotter seas feeding violent intensification, weakened steering winds rendering the hurricane almost stationary, and unprecedented rainfall systems fuelled by a warming world. And as Taylor notes, the damage was not only physical. Melissa left behind a nation emotionally shaken: exhausted, traumatised, and disoriented by days of anticipatory dread, hours of terror, and weeks of despair.
In that context, a question I raised on Disqus – and which Dr Denise Forrest and I have clearly advocated in these spaces – now demands serious national debate: Should the wilful, knowing promotion of climate-change denial in any Jamaican or CARICOM jurisdiction be criminalised?
This is not a call for silencing honest scepticism or good-faith scientific discourse. Science requires questions, and healthy democracies thrive on debate. But this is not about debate. It is about the deliberate dissemination of falsehoods, funded and amplified by individuals and corporations seeking to protect their “billioneering” – profiteering at scale – at the expense of Caribbean lives.
The Cost of Denial: Measured in Deaths, Dollars, and Trauma
Climate-denialism is not an abstract annoyance. It reflects the intentional spread of misinformation, supported by interests determined to safeguard their large-scale profits, even when this comes at a cost to Caribbean communities. Such denialism can materially contribute to the conditions that produce death and destruction of the Melissa–Beryl magnitude---and fatality.
Let us look at the examples staring us in the face.
Hurricane Beryl (2024): Rapid intensification beyond historical norms, destroying livelihoods across Grenada, Carriacou, and Canada Hill in St Elizabeth.
Hurricane Melissa (2025): Sea-surface temperatures 1.5°C above normal – precisely the kind of “ammunition” climate scientists have warned would supercharge storms.
Stacked psychological impacts: As Taylor emphasises, the emotional toll now starts before landfall and lingers long after. The Caribbean psyche itself is in the firing line
Both storms bear the fingerprints of climate change. Both storms are consistent with decades of robust peer-reviewed projections. And both storms occurred against a backdrop of suppressed mitigation, delayed adaptation, and underfunded climate-resilience planning – all slowed by political hesitancy, external pressures, and, yes, ongoing climate-denial propaganda.
When Lies Kill, Accountability Is Not Optional
Other jurisdictions are already taking strong stances against mass disinformation that endangers public safety. Many countries criminalise tobacco advertising, not because opinions are illegal, but because lies about harmful products cause measurable harm. Several nations treat anti-vaccine disinformation during pandemics as a criminal offence because spreading known falsehoods leads directly to deaths.
Why, then, should climate-denial propaganda be treated differently?
The evidence is overwhelming:
Climate denial delays adaptation.
Delayed adaptation increases casualties.
Increased casualties convert misinformation into lethal negligence.
Melissa’s devastated communities – from Westmoreland to St James to St Elizabeth – are paying for those years of hesitation with their roofs, their crops, their livelihoods, and too often, their very lives.
Freedom of Speech Is Not Freedom to Endanger
Some will argue that criminalising climate-denialism infringes on freedom of speech. But free speech has never implied the right to cause public harm.
One cannot shout “fire” in a crowded theatre. One cannot freely advertise cyanide as cough syrup. One cannot spread medical falsehoods that endanger children.
In the same way, one should not be permitted to knowingly spread scientifically disproven narratives that:
undermine disaster preparedness,
influence vulnerable communities to reject life-saving information,
pressure governments to underinvest in resilience, or
block regional policies needed to reduce catastrophic risk.
Criminalisation should target only the wilful, knowing, and recklessly negligent spread of falsehoods – especially when backed by financial interests. The distinction is crucial. A citizen misinformed by social media is not a criminal. A corporation, lobbyist, public figure, or academic who knowingly spreads falsehoods to defend their profits absolutely is.
Billioneering and the Politics of Delay
The Caribbean is not immune to wealthy actors who profit from environmental destruction, land speculation, fossil-fuel dependency, and poor zoning practices. Denialism becomes a tool of billioneering – a strategy to delay action long enough for private gains to be locked in, even as public vulnerability increases.
In Jamaica, we have seen:
strong lobbying against renewable-energy expansion despite clear national benefits;
delays in modernising building codes;
persistent underfunding of mental-health infrastructure following disasters;
aggressive promotion of “solutions” that are technologically unready, financially predatory, or structurally unsafe.
Behind much of this is the same refrain: “Climate change is exaggerated.” “The scientists are alarmists.” “Hurricanes have always been this way.”
Such statements are not innocent. They are policy weapons. And Melissa has stripped them of any remaining legitimacy.
The Legal Path: What Might Criminalisation Look Like?
Caribbean legislators could consider the following framework:
Definition of Offence: The purposeful dissemination of scientifically disproven claims that deny or downplay anthropogenic climate change, when done by individuals or institutions who reasonably know the information to be false.
Scope: Applies primarily to:– corporations,– lobby groups,– political actors,– individuals with fiduciary duty (scientists, engineers, broadcasters),– persons with significant influence (major media personalities).
Penalties: Ranging from mandatory public correction and fines, to licence suspension (for broadcasters), to criminal liability in cases where harm is demonstrable.
Exemptions:– bona fide scientific research,– academic debate grounded in evidence,– private citizens expressing confusion or asking questions.
Duty to Correct: Anyone who has platformed climate misinformation must issue a formal correction within a specified timeframe once the falsehood is identified.
This is not about criminalising differences of opinion. It is about criminalising deception that costs people their homes, their crops, their mental health, and their lives.
Resilience Demands Truth
Professor Taylor reminds us that resilience is no longer about concrete and steel alone. Emotional first aid, counselling networks, and community support systems are now as essential as power lines and bridges. And none of these can function effectively in a fog of misinformation.
The Caribbean cannot build psychological resilience on a foundation of lies. We cannot protect our children if policymakers, investors, and citizens are being fed disinformation designed to keep fossil-fuel profits high and safety investments low.
A Moral Duty to This Generation
Future generations will not forgive us if we fail to act. They will ask why we tolerated voices that misled vulnerable people in the middle of a climate emergency. They will ask why we privileged profiteers over science. And they will ask why we allowed the Caribbean to drift into a new era of super-storms without the protection that accurate information provides.
Melissa is a memory written in grief. But it can also be a turning point.
It is time to recognise climate-denial propaganda for what it is: a threat to national security, public health, and regional survival.
The storms will come again.
Our compassion must return with them.
But so must our courage – including the courage to enact laws that defend truth itself.
by Dennis A. Minott, PhD.
November 16, 2025
