简体中文
English
Website review
This review may include AI-generated content and is not individually verified. Domain, certificate and other facts come from the observed data on this page.
What is DeSmog?
DeSmog is an investigative journalism and research outlet focused on climate disinformation, public relations tactics and the fossil fuel industry. Its own framing is "clearing the PR pollution" around climate science and policy, and its coverage is organized around beats such as energy, science denial, advertising and PR, social justice, agriculture, politics and policy, "false solutions," finance and Canada.
What you'll find there
- Investigative reporting: articles that trace who funds and shapes climate messaging, including think tanks, trade bodies and advocacy groups.
- Databases and maps: topic hubs like climate disinformation, the Koch Network, lobbying and ad/PR industry contracts, plus mapped networks of influence.
- Opinion and analysis alongside news, and multimedia such as photos, videos and cartoons.
- Regional editions: international, US and UK sections.
Who it's for
It suits journalists, researchers, campaigners and engaged readers who want to understand the money and messaging behind climate debates, rather than a neutral daily news digest. A reader trying to identify who is behind a lobbying push, or a student tracing a disinformation campaign, will get more from its databases and investigations than from general coverage.
Trade-offs to weigh
The site is openly mission-driven, so treat its framing as advocacy-adjacent journalism: useful for leads, documents and named sources, but worth cross-checking against primary documents and other outlets when you need a balanced account. It is not a general-purpose news source, and its focus on PR and industry influence means technical climate science gets less space than the politics around it.
Next step: start with the databases or a specific series (for example, intensive livestock pollution or COP30 influence mapping) rather than the homepage, and follow the linked documents to judge the evidence yourself. For broader environmental reporting to compare against, see The Guardian or Inside Climate News.
How can I use DeSmog's databases to research climate disinformation campaigns?
DeSmog's databases are best used as a starting point for tracing who is funding and spreading climate disinformation, not as a finished research tool. The site organizes its material around named networks and topics—its menu lists databases on climate disinformation, agribusiness, the Koch network, air pollution and lobbying—so you can pull a specific thread rather than search an undifferentiated archive. The "Mapped" series (for example, maps of advertising and PR industry contracts and of political anti-green networks) is the most directly useful entry point for campaign research, because it shows relationships between funders, PR firms and political actors.
A practical research workflow
- Start with the actor, not the topic. If you are investigating a specific company, think tank or PR firm, search its name and read the database entries and articles that mention it. This surfaces its known connections faster than browsing by theme.
- Follow the money and the intermediaries. DeSmog's core focus is the PR and advertising layer—trade bodies, consultancies and front groups—so look for the firms and associations named between a funder and a public message.
- Cross-check before citing. Database entries and maps are leads and summaries; for anything you publish, verify claims against primary documents such as lobbying registers, corporate filings or the original ad campaigns.
- Watch the date. DeSmog's coverage is ongoing journalism, so note publication dates and check whether a campaign or funding relationship is still current.
Where it fits and where it doesn't
DeSmog suits journalists, campaigners, students and researchers who need to connect climate messaging to its backers. It is less suited to quantitative analysis—if you need systematic data on emissions, lobbying disclosures or ad spending, pair it with primary registries and official datasets. For broader corporate accountability context, SourceWatch and OpenSecrets cover organizational and political-finance angles that complement DeSmog's climate-specific focus.
A useful decision rule: use DeSmog when your question is "who is behind this message and how is it being amplified?"; use official registries when your question is "how much was spent and under what legal disclosure?"
How do I subscribe to or donate to support DeSmog's journalism?
DeSmog supports itself through two separate reader actions: a newsletter subscription and a donation. Both are reached from the top of the site, where "Subscribe" and "Donate" appear in the header navigation, and the "Donate" link is repeated several times in that same header area.
Subscribing
Use Subscribe if you mainly want DeSmog's reporting delivered to you. It is the lower-commitment option: you follow the outlet's investigations into climate disinformation, PR and lobbying without paying anything. This suits readers who want to keep up with stories like its series on intensive livestock pollution or its mapping of industry influence networks, and who may later decide to contribute.
Donating
Use Donate if you want to fund the journalism itself. DeSmog's stated purpose is investigating the public relations and lobbying that obscure climate science and policy, and reader donations are one way that work is supported. Donating makes sense for people who use the site as a research source — journalists, campaigners, students, or residents tracking a local project — and want that coverage to continue.
Choosing between them
- Subscribe for regular updates and no financial commitment.
- Donate to support the reporting directly, whether or not you also subscribe.
- Do both if you want the newsletter and want to back the work; the two links sit side by side, so they are clearly treated as complementary rather than alternatives.
A practical next step: open the site, click Subscribe in the header to see the sign-up form, then use Donate if you decide to contribute. If you are unsure about the amount, start with a one-off donation rather than an ongoing commitment, and check the donation page for the options offered.
What evidence does DeSmog provide about PR and lobbying by fossil fuel and agribusiness networks?
DeSmog's evidence is primarily investigative journalism built from documents, not general commentary: leaked slide decks, internal objections, funding records and contract data that show how industry networks organize messaging and lobbying.
What kinds of evidence appear
- Internal strategy documents. A report on Canada Action describes internal slide decks explaining how pro-oil groups generate viral content, which is direct evidence of a planned messaging operation rather than organic grassroots enthusiasm.
- Lobbying and funding trails. Articles examine who funds EU think tanks, which consulting firms work for both fossil fuel clients and disaster-hit towns, and how trade bodies objected to the terms of a UN nature fund.
- Databases and maps. DeSmog maintains searchable databases on climate disinformation, agribusiness, the Koch network, advertising and PR, and lobbying, plus mapped networks such as Big Food's routes to influence at COP30 and advertising/PR industry contracts from 2020–2024.
- Named investigations. A series on intensive livestock pollution links farm waste to water pollution and health harms; other pieces trace corporate money into local politics, such as Chevron's donation to a Bay Area group opposing a heat pump rule.
How to use it
DeSmog is most useful when you need a lead on who is funding or coordinating a campaign, then want to check the underlying document yourself. For a concrete case: if a local planning fight features a new "community" group, search DeSmog's Ad & PR and lobbying databases for the consultants or funders involved, then read the linked source material before citing the claim.
Its trade-off is that it is an advocacy-oriented outlet focused on exposing industry influence; it is strongest on documentation and weakest as a neutral overview. For balance, pair its investigations with primary sources it cites, or with outlets covering the same beat, such as Climate Home News or The Guardian's environment desk.
How does DeSmog's coverage differ between its US, UK, and Canada editions?
DeSmog organizes its journalism into US, UK and Canada editions, but the site itself gives only limited clues about how the three differ editorially. The clearest signal is structural: each edition is a separate regional entry point with its own mix of news, investigations and opinion, so the practical difference is usually which country's politics, industries and campaigns a reader wants to follow.
What the editions appear to cover
| Edition | Apparent focus |
|---|---|
| US | Federal politics and policy, the Koch network, MAGA-aligned climate agenda, climate lawsuits, and ad/PR campaigns |
| UK | UK politics and lobbying, including coverage of think tanks and advocacy networks operating in Brussels and Westminster |
| Canada | Canadian energy projects, pipelines, carbon capture, provincial politics and oil-industry messaging |
From the page, US coverage leans toward national political networks and organized climate denial; UK coverage includes cross-border European lobbying and influence work; Canada coverage is heavy on energy infrastructure and industry-funded communications. The site's cross-cutting topics—greenwashing, agribusiness, finance, false solutions—appear across editions rather than belonging to one.
How to choose
If you are tracking a specific company, lobby group or campaign, start with the edition covering that country, then check the others for related investigations. For example, a reader following a fossil-fuel PR firm active in both London and Brussels would use the UK edition first, while someone researching pipeline politics would begin with Canada. The databases section is worth checking regardless of edition, since it aggregates climate-disinformation and influence-network material.
A useful next step is to compare how each edition frames the same industry actor—an oil major, a trade body or a PR agency—to see whether the regional lens changes the story's emphasis.
How can journalists or researchers cite DeSmog's investigations and mapped networks?
Journalists and researchers can cite DeSmog's investigations and mapped networks as primary-source reporting on climate disinformation: each article carries a named byline and publication date (for example, Taylor Noakes' October 2026 report on Canada Action's internal slide decks, or the mapped networks of lobbying and PR contracts), which gives you a citable author, outlet and timestamp rather than an anonymous claim.
How to cite it well
- Treat the maps as datasets, not illustrations. DeSmog's mapped networks (advertising and PR industry contracts, Big Food's COP30 influence routes, Trump's transatlantic anti-green network) are visual arguments built from documents. Cite the specific map, its stated date and the underlying documents the article describes, and note the map's scope so readers know what it does and does not cover.
- Quote the documented evidence, not just the conclusion. DeSmog's strength is internal documents and filings — slidedecks, trade-body objections, lobbying disclosures. Cite the document and then DeSmog's reporting on it; that lets a reader check the chain independently.
- Attribute the investigation to its reporters. Credit the named journalists and link the original article. If you are summarizing rather than quoting, say "according to DeSmog's reporting" so your audience knows the claim's origin.
- Cross-check before amplifying. DeSmog is an advocacy-oriented outlet focused on PR pollution, so for contested claims pair it with the primary documents it cites or with establishment reporting on the same event — this strengthens rather than undermines your citation.
A concrete example
A researcher writing on lobbying at COP30 could cite DeSmog's mapped routes of food-industry influence, quoting the specific contract or disclosure figures the piece describes, naming the reporter, and noting the map's date — then linking the original so readers can inspect the network themselves.
For a second independent angle on the same lobbying or disinformation story, The Guardian and BBC cover climate policy and corporate influence, and OpenSecrets provides US lobbying and money-in-politics data you can use to verify claims about disclosed spending.
Decision criterion
Cite DeSmog when your point depends on documents, funding trails or PR strategy that mainstream outlets have not assembled; cite it as one voice with named reporters, and anchor any contested factual claim in the primary document it references.
Cloudflare
User reviews (0)