Wednesday, October 28, 2026

Deadly parasite: How fox tapeworm warns of pandemic X

By Franziska Müller

Published on 27 October 2026 - EURONEWS

The WHO has developed an early warning system to spot looming pandemics. Tropical medicine expert Dr Carsten Köhler from Tübingen explains the background to Euronews.

The warning about fox tapeworm is something almost everyone in Germany has heard if they have ever wanted to pick berries or collect mushrooms in the forest. The concern is that the tapeworm eggs could be stuck to them - a parasite that attacks the liver and can cause a potentially life-threatening disease.

This disease is one of 21 illnesses that the World Health Organization WHO has placed on its list of NTDs. These so-called "Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs)", known in German as "vernachlässigte Tropenkrankheiten", are regarded as a global early-warning system.

"Wherever NTDs occur, they mark the weak points in the global health system, precisely because there is no system in place there," explains Dr. Dr. Carsten Köhler from the University of Tübingen in an interview with Euronews. He heads, among other things, the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Travel Medicine and Human Parasitology and is president of the German Society for Tropical Medicine, travel medicine and global health.

NTDs can therefore show where medical care, disease surveillance and reliable data are lacking. Precisely in such places, infectious diseases may remain undetected for a long time - with consequences that can reach far beyond the regions directly affected.

Fox tapeworm: Is it still a threat?

The parasite measures only two to six millimetres but can cause severe liver disease in humans. The medical term is alveolar echinococcosis. Adult tapeworms live in the small intestine of foxes and occasionally also in the intestines of dogs and cats.

These animals are then the so-called "definitive hosts" of the tapeworms.

To explain: in biology and medicine, a definitive host is the organism in which a parasite reaches sexual maturity and reproduces. Many parasites have a complex life cycle and change their host - their "home" - during their lifetime. Example: a mouse (intermediate host) ingests the tapeworm eggs. Larvae develop inside the mouse. A fox (definitive host) eats the mouse. In the fox's intestine, the larvae develop into adult tapeworms, which then mate and produce new eggs. The fox is therefore the definitive host.

According to the Bavarian State Office for Health and Food Safety (LGL), the most important definitive host in central Europe is the red fox. Infection in humans is very rare but, if it occurs, can be life-threatening.

In 2024, 52 infections were recorded at the Robert Koch Institute (RKI); in previous years the number in humans mostly lay between 40 and 45 cases. According to the German Liver Aid, the majority of cases come from the southern federal states of Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria. Depending on the region, between 33 and 50 percent of foxes are infected with the parasite.

Echinococcosis is one of the neglected tropical diseases that occur in Germany. But according to Köhler, leishmaniases are now also knocking at the door. This infectious disease can present in different ways and is transmitted by tiny sandflies.

"Many Germans like to travel to the Mediterranean region on holiday and can then bring it back with them," Köhler explains in the interview with Euronews. According to the health magazine of the AOK health insurer, the disease is often curable if it is detected and treated early. The WHO estimates that around 700,000 to one million people worldwide fall ill with leishmaniases every year.

However, most of the 21 neglected tropical diseases occur above all in parts of the world whose health systems are less developed than Germany's.

New neglected disease identified

For example, in 2026 the state of Gabon in Central Africa submitted an application to the World Health Organization WHO to have another disease added to the list of NTDs. "Only endemic countries are allowed to submit applications," Köhler explains. In this case it concerns Loa loa disease, a so-called eye worm. According to Köhler, the WHO will deliberate on the request.

The parasite is transmitted by horseflies. The worms can move through the subcutaneous tissue and sometimes become visible under the conjunctiva of the eye. Infection may be accompanied by itching, swelling and other complaints.

In Köhler's view, the WHO should consider the application. However, in October 2026 the responsible WHO advisory committee recommended a temporary pause in adding new diseases. First, the criteria and procedures for inclusion on the list are to be fundamentally reviewed.

"NTDs occur in regions where the health system does not exist or is only rudimentary," Köhler continues. The diseases themselves are not automatically a danger to the global population. What matters far more is what they reveal about the conditions under which infections can spread: lack of medical care, inadequate monitoring and gaps in the recording of disease cases. There is also a risk that illnesses with pandemic potential may emerge and spread there.

NTDs as an early-warning system for potential endemics

So-called community health workers operate in such regions. They go from community to community, inform the population and observe the local health situation. "A community health worker who is looking out for a worm infection that itself has no pandemic potential would still notice if, all of a sudden, an entire family had died and could report that immediately," says tropical medicine specialist Köhler.

They can recognise illnesses, refer people to medical facilities and report unusual developments to the responsible authorities. "That is why we say these structures can be used as an early-warning system if such basic services have already been set up for NTDs," he explains in his interview with Euronews at the World Health Summit.

The advantage is that helpers are already present in the communities. If NTD programmes are already running in these regions, diseases with pandemic potential are likely to be detected earlier.

Emergency structures do not have to be created from scratch when a new infectious disease appears. If staff are already supporting people with neglected tropical diseases, they can at the same time observe changes that point to other health threats. The work of health workers is also about collecting data as comprehensively as possible.

For this reason, in its strategy to combat neglected tropical diseases up to 2030 the WHO is also relying on integrated approaches: measures are to be more firmly embedded in existing health systems and linked with other areas of public health.

Ebola outbreak: data gap noticed too late

The Ebola outbreak in the Democratic Republic of Congo showed exactly how problematic missing data can be, says Köhler. "In fact we had expected an outbreak in other hotspots," explains the director of the Centre for Tropical Medicine. "Then we had to realise that the data for the Democratic Republic of Congo were out of date."

When up-to-date information from a region is lacking, health authorities may misjudge the risk. Contact tracing and the targeted deployment of medical staff and supplies also become more difficult.

Local health workers are therefore not only vital for the treatment of individual diseases; they also help to detect outbreaks earlier and to coordinate the response more effectively.

In some cases, the withdrawal of the USA from health promotion has also made data collection in affected areas more difficult. "Because funding from the USA has fallen so sharply, the community health worker structures that were built up over recent decades have collapsed dramatically," Köhler explains.

The missing funds meant, among other things, that former health workers had to give up their jobs. According to UNAIDS, as a result of US funding cuts, thousands of community health workers in Malawi were affected by contract terminations in 2025. The organisation also reported restrictions in the electronic recording of health data.

A study published in 2026 from Zambia likewise describes how cuts in international development aid undermined the work of health facilities. Staff reported lay-offs, a lack of diagnostic tests and difficulties in using electronic patient records. The result: less comprehensive health data.

The next pandemic: Disease X

A new pandemic triggered by Ebola is not considered likely, as the risk varies greatly from disease to disease. While in the case of coronavirus, for example, droplet infection was enough, Ebola mainly threatens people who come into contact with the body fluids of infected patients.

Neglected tropical diseases likewise do not automatically have pandemic potential. A high number of NTD cases is rather a possible indication that medical care and surveillance in a region need to be strengthened.

"We should prepare for the next pandemic, which the WHO calls Disease X, whatever it turns out to be," warns Köhler. It is assumed that Covid-19 will not have been the last pandemic; only the timing cannot be predicted.

Preparation therefore means not only developing vaccines and medicines. It also includes having laboratories, specialist staff, data infrastructures and international networks in place that can work together quickly in an emergency. Köhler points to the importance of European and international cooperation.

"That is why I very much hope that programmes such as the European Vaccine Hub for Pandemic Preparedness (EvH) or the European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) continue to receive support," Köhler says in his Euronews interview. These programmes bring together research structures, laboratory capacity and experts.

"It is important to create a platform now that enables very rapid action and to have functioning cooperative structures in place when this Disease X arrives," Köhler stresses. "For that you need a network. Health has no borders, and neither do pathogens."

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for FOXES

The Lancet: Experts call for climate change to be declared a global health emergency, as many health impacts outpace climate action

The Lancet

The 10th indicator report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change suggests that some of the health harms of climate change grew faster in the decade since the Paris Agreement entered into force (2016–2025) than in the previous decade (2006–2015) as climate action fails to keep pace.
Annual average heat-related deaths rose by nearly 36% globally after the Paris Agreement was introduced. In 2023 alone, heat was linked to a record 710,000 deaths with more than 70% of that toll attributable to human-caused climate change.
Extreme drought affected nearly 52% of the world’s land for at least a month in 2025 (the second-highest level on record), while a new satellite-based analysis suggests that since 2003, 80% of the world’s land has faced significant shifting patterns of increasing dry and wet groundwater storage conditions, with implications for food security and sanitation.
Globally, clean energy investment reached a record US$2.1 trillion in 2025, almost double what was invested in fossil fuels, and cleaner air has prevented an estimated 323,000 deaths a year in at least 77 countries where air pollution from fossil fuels has fallen since 2016. Yet fossil fuels still supply more than 80% of the world’s energy, and the 100 largest oil and gas companies are on track to exceed 1.5°C-compatible production levels by 150% by 2040 – up from 138% from last year.
The report’s authors are calling for climate change to be formally recognised and addressed as a global health emergency, and for health to be placed at the centre of every climate decision, from emissions reductions to funding priorities.

**Country Data Sheets and Infographics available – see Notes to Editors**

The 2026 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change finds that many of the health risks and harms of climate change grew faster in the decade since the Paris Agreement was introduced (2016–2025) than in the decade before it (2006–2015). Clean energy investment, health system leadership, more health-protecting legislation, and growing scientific evidence helped deliver real health gains, but not enough to offset the rapidly growing harm from fossil-fuel-driven climate change. The report’s authors call for climate change to be formally recognised and addressed as a global health emergency, and for health to shape both climate policies and funding priorities to prevent climate change.

The 10th Lancet Countdown annual report, led by University College London (UCL), and produced in collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), represents the work of 146 multidisciplinary researchers from more than 100 institutions across more than 30 countries. Published ahead of the 31st UN Conference of the Parties (COP31), it tracks 54 indicators of the health impacts of climate change and the health effects of climate action, including four new indicators introduced this year covering the availability of water in land (indicator 1.2.2), healthcare sector greenhouse gas footprint assessments (indicator 3.5.2), climate-related health research funding (indicator 4.3.4), and legislative engagement with health and climate change (indicator 5.5). New this year, the report includes an updated media engagement indicator (indicator 5.1), and now also attributes estimated heat-related deaths to human-caused climate change (indicator 1.1.5).

“A decade after the Paris Agreement, our findings are unambiguous: the health harms of climate change are growing faster than the world's response to them, and in many cases even accelerating,” says Professor Marina Romanello, Executive Director of the Lancet Countdown, based at University College London. “Real progress has been made in clean energy, health system readiness, and health-protective regulation, all of which are already delivering health benefits to local communities. However, progress has been too slow, too small, and isn't reaching those who need it most. That is why we are calling for climate change to be formally recognised as a global health emergency, with health placed at the centre of every climate decision.”

Many health harms accelerating faster than a decade ago

Heat was linked to an average of 540,800 estimated deaths per year between 2016 and 2023, 68% of them (369,900) caused by climate change, up from 55% (219,100) per year in 2006–2015. In 2023 alone, the hottest year in that period, heat was linked to a record 710,000 estimated deaths, exceeding those from malaria or HIV, with 71.5% of them driven by climate change. Altogether, climate change is estimated to have caused almost 3 million heat deaths between 2016 and 2023.

Heat also reduced people’s capacity to work productively in 2025, costing the global economy an estimated US$1.07 trillion in potential income (0.91% of global economic output), the third consecutive year that losses topped US$1 trillion. South-East Asia and Africa were hit hardest, with losses equivalent to 3.9% and 3.2% of GDP, respectively, compared to 0.2% in Europe and 1.5% in the Americas. The agriculture and construction sectors, both largely outdoor and physically demanding jobs, absorbed the biggest share of the losses (38% and 29% respectively), because heat directly impacts people’s labour productivity, and puts workers’ health at risk. The impact is particularly pronounced in Africa, where agriculture accounts for 71% of heat-related potential income losses.

More than half the world's land (51.8%) was hit by extreme drought for at least a month in 2025, the second-worst year on record after 2023. Since 2016, the area affected by drought has grown more than 700% faster than it did in 2006–2015. In addition, a new satellite analysis identifies growing extremes in water storage. Since 2003, 43% of the world's land has seen a long-term drop in water storage (getting drier) while a separate 37% has seen a long-term rise (getting wetter), together creating hydrological extremes affecting more than 80% of the world's land and threatening crops, food supplies, and sanitation. Very extreme rainfall is also becoming more common, reaching almost 17.2% of global land each year in 2016–2025, up from 14.8% the previous decade, and increasing the risk of floods, landslides and waterborne disease.

“These numbers point to a clear emergency,” says Professor Romanello. “The rate of increase in many climate-related health threats is accelerating, while heat deaths linked to climate change have reached a record-high, and the economic toll is battering vulnerable sectors and communities the hardest. The risks become even more profound when you consider how different hazards interact and compound. At the same time, drought is spreading, and the world is swinging to water extremes, some drying out, while others are flooding. This isn't a gradual worsening; it's a step change that must be recognised as the global health emergency it is”

Despite gains, progress is falling short

Cleaner energy, more resilient health systems, along with more health-protecting legislation and growing scientific evidence have brought real health benefits to local communities since the 2016 Paris Agreement, but these gains are still too slow, too insufficient, and too inconsistent to offset the growing risks.

Global investment in clean energy grew 7.2% in 2025, to a record US$2.1 trillion, 82% more than the US$1.16 trillion invested in fossil fuels. Such investment has helped renewable electricity grow from 5.5% of the total generation in 2016 to 13.5% in 2023. Health gains are already evident, with cleaner air preventing an estimated 323,000 deaths a year in at least 77 countries where air pollution from fossil fuels has fallen since 2016. However, rising overall energy demand and slow system change means fossil fuels still supply over 80% of the world's energy, and climate-heating emissions reached a record high in 2024. Despite gains in some countries, fossil-fuel air pollution still kills an estimated 2.73 million people a year worldwide.

Health systems are taking important early action: a quarter (56 of 194) of WHO member states now have a national plan for adapting health services to climate change, up from just 14 in 2015, and 47 have separately completed a vulnerability assessment to underpin plans. Beyond planning, almost half of WHO member states declared already having a health surveillance system that incorporates climate information, and more than half (75 of 145 respondents) declared having at least one climate-informed health early warning system. Importantly, the report finds that health early warning systems are slowing down the increase in deaths from extreme weather events in those places which have them.

Legal momentum is building as well. National laws referencing both climate change and health have risen roughly 50-fold since 2000, most of that since 2016. Funding for climate-related health research has also increased, up 655% between 2016 and 2024 from US$42 million to US$316 million, though almost all of it (84%) still goes to researchers in the world's wealthiest countries, leaving evidence gaps where the risks are often greatest.

“Ten years ago, we proposed that responding to climate change could offer the greatest health opportunity of the 21st century through adaptation efforts and rapid progress in phasing down fossil fuels and other emission sources”, says Prof Anthony Costello, Co-Chair of the Lancet Countdown. “A decade on, we have proof that health-centred climate action works: cleaner air, more resilient healthcare and warning systems are protecting health and saving lives globally. But the pace and scale of emissions reduction remains entirely out of step with the pace and scale of the harm.”

Fossil fuel expansion and funding gaps raise the risk

The report finds that progress on the transition away from fossil fuels is continuing to fall short. Fossil fuel production plans are increasingly misaligned with the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal, with the world's 100 largest oil and gas companies now planning to produce 150% more fossil fuels by 2040 than is compatible with keeping warming to 1.5°C, up from 138% in 2025 [see page 261 in the appendix].

Production plans persist despite rising fossil fuel costs, which are straining public finances. In response to energy price spikes, global net fossil fuel subsidies reached record levels in 2022–2024, and ten countries spent more on them in 2024 than on their health systems. Net subsidies have doubled since 2016, with countries allocating a cumulative US$6.20 trillion to them since the Paris Agreement was introduced.

Despite the critical need to move away from fossil fuels to protect health and lives, vested interests continue to obstruct progress. The report details how lobbying and disinformation by fossil fuel interests and their political allies continue to weaken support for climate action, despite growing scientific evidence linking climate change and health. The report also finds that national governments, international organisations, and the private sector are now less engaged with health and climate change, reversing previous progress.

Adaptation funding is falling far short of what's needed: the health adaptation needs quantified so far by developing countries (as classified by UNFCCC) put the minimum cost at US$3.3 billion a year, based on data from only 48 of the 79 countries that have completed these estimates. Yet only around a third of this declared need, US$1.1 billion, was committed in 2024. This substantial financing gap is reflected in countries’ ability to translate adaptation priorities into action, with finance and human resourcing identified as the top barriers to implementation of Health National Adaptation Plans. Shrinking foreign aid budgets, including cuts to Overseas Development Assistance, risk widening this gap and placing the heaviest burden on the most vulnerable countries.

A call to declare a global health emergency

A decade after the Paris Agreement, the report's authors are calling for climate change to be formally declared a global health emergency, for a new WHO instrument to enable a coordinated global response, and for governments to put health at the centre of every climate decision, from emissions targets to climate funding. Priorities include urgent, fair cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, sustained investment in science, and climate finance for health delivered as grants rather than loans, so that countries can adapt without taking on more debt [see detail on the six priority recommendations in Panel 1].

“This report is a stark warning that climate change is a health emergency. What's missing is not evidence, but the political will to act on it,” said Helen Clark, former Prime Minister of New Zealand and Chair of the Board of the Lancet Countdown. “Governments must double down on their climate action commitments and rebuild momentum for international co-operation. This must go hand in hand with rapid emissions reductions and significantly greater support for adaptation, particularly for the communities least responsible for climate change and most vulnerable to its impacts.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

The Lancet Countdown was established in partnership with Wellcome, which continues to provide core financial support.

It is led by University College London (UCL) and works with more than 300 researchers from more than 100 institutions worldwide to track the evolving links between climate change and health, in strategic collaboration with the World Health Organization.

A full list of the report’s authors, their institutions, and declarations of interest is provided in the paper.

The labels have been added to this press release as part of a project run by the Academy of Medical Sciences seeking to improve the communication of evidence. For more information, please see: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AMS-press-release-labelling-system-GUIDANCE.pdf. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact The Lancet press office: pressoffice@lancet.com

If you wish to provide a link for your readers, please use the following, which will go live when the embargo lifts: https://www.thelancet.com/countdown-health-climat

Journal

The Lancet

DOI

10.1016/S0140-6736(26)01779-4

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Subject of Research

People

Article Title

The 2026 Report of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change

Article Publication Date

27-Oct-2026

COI Statement

SA is affiliated with the international finance organisation, Asian Development Bank (ADB), Manila, Philippines. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of ADB, its Board of Governors, or the Governments they represent. PJB, EC, GG-S, IH, MMH, JJH, JI, YP-S, MRo, MSa, MW, HW, and LW were compensated for their time while drafting and developing The Lancet Countdown’s report via The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change Wellcome Trust grant (grant number 304972/Z/23/Z). PJB received support for travel from the Wellcome Trust via The Lancet Countdown: Tracking Progress on Health and Climate Change grant (grant number 304972/Z/23/Z) and for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)–Wellcome Trust co-sponsored Expert Meeting on Climate Change and Health. PCo was compensated for their time by the University of Sydney. CD acknowledges funding from the European Commission via the European Research Council (ERC) Starting Grant FLORA (grant number 101212897), from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche via the Pref-Alim project, and by the European Commission Horizon Europe programme via the GREENGROCER project (grant number 101182025); and has received support from the American Geophysical Union editors fund to attend the European Geosciences Union conference in 2025 and 2026. ND, RH, and MRo were supported by the European Commission’s Horizon Europe Programme via the CATALYSE project (grant number 101057131, with UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) reference number 10041512). ME acknowledges funding from the Commonwealth Fund; and acknowledges fees received from the National Health Service in England for personal consulting. GG-S acknowledges funding from the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) UK for the Global Health Research Group on Diet and Activity (NIHR133205 with sub-award contract number G109900-SJ1/171 with University of Cambridge). JG and AJP were supported by the Bezos Earth Fund via grant funding for attribution science. RH was supported by the European Commission’s Horizon 2020 programme via the FirEUrisk project (grant number 101003890). JJH acknowledges a grant from National Institutes of Health; a grant from the National Institute of Standards and Technologies; a grant from the Wellcome Trust; a grant from the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria; a grant from Gates Ventures; and a grant from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. JJH also acknowledges a license to his institution (no payments to him) from the Community Heat and Resilience Tool; acknowledges fees received from McNaul, Ebel, Nawrot & Helgren, PLLC, for a legal consultation; acknowledges honoraria from Columbia University, Harvard University, and the University of Arizona for lectures; has received support from Academy Health; and is a Board member of the Seattle Parks Foundation. OJ acknowledges funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council Ideas via an investigator grant; and holds a patent for Environmental Measurement Unit. WM was provided access to data for free by Dimensions.ai (Digital Science) as part of their scientometric researcher programme. KMi acknowledges funding from the American Academy of Sleep Medicine. JCM was supported by the Wellcome Trust via the DESTINY project (grant number 313586/Z/24/Z) and the PATHFINDER2 project (project number 227165/Z/23/Z); and acknowledges funding from the Quadrature Climate Foundation via the “State of Carbon Dioxide Removal” project, from the European Research Council/Horizon Europe programme via the GENIE project (grant number 951542), from the Wellcome Trust via the “What Works Climate Solutions” project (grant number 334512/Z/25/Z) and the DEST project, from the German Ministry for Research and Education via the ARIADNE project (grant number 03SFK5J0), and from the European Commission’s Horizon Europe programme via the CAPABLE project (grant number 101056891). MM-L was sponsored by the University of São Paulo and the Universal Scientific Education and Research Network (USERN) to present a summary of the 2025 Lancet Countdown Report in Brazil. CR acknowledges funding from Karl Storz Endoscopy (UK); has received royalties from Up to Date; and has received fees from the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change and Surgical Innovations. MRo acknowledges investments in the fossil fuel industry through her employer’s (University College London) pension scheme, Universities Superannuation Scheme. MRo, JCS, and MW were supported by the European Commission’s Horizon Europe programme via the IDAlert project (grant number 101057554, with UKRI reference number 10056533). RNS acknowledges funding from the Massachusetts General Hospital Fund; acknowledges honoraria from the Wellcome Trust, the University of Michigan, the Mayo Clinic, the Academy of Behavioral Medicine Research, the University of Oregon, Cambridge College, the Cleveland Clinic Foundation, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); received support for travel from the Wellcome Trust, the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, the International Society of Behavioral Medicine, the University of Oregon, and the Cleveland Clinic Foundation; and acknowledges participation and involvement in The National Academies Climate Crossroads Advisory Committee, The National Academy of Medicine Grand Challenge Steering Committee, and the AHRQ Study Section. CSc acknowledges support from the World Health Organization. JCS was supported by the European Commission’s Horizon Europe programme via the BEPREP project (grant number 101060568). JDSh acknowledges funding from the Commonwealth Fund and the ECRI; has received royalties from Up to Date; has received fees from the Institute for Healthcare Improvement; has received honoraria for lectures delivered at the University of Southern Carolina, the University of British Columbia, and the George Washington University, as well as for the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society and Project Echo and the Endocrine Society; has received support for travel and accommodations from the American Society of Anaesthesiologists, the International Society for Quality Improvement and the National University of Singapore; and is the Chair of the Committee on Environmental Health for the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Chair of the Sustainability Committee for the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (all unpaid). MSo was supported by the European Commission via Horizon Europe funded project healthRiskAdapt (grant number 101157458) and by the Research Council of Finland VFSP-WASE (grant number 359421). MSp acknowledges funding from the Wellcome Trust (Career Development Award number 225318/Z/22/Z) and the European Commission’s Horizon Europe Programme via the CATALYSE project (grant number 101057131), the BrightSpace project (grant number 101060075), and the ACT4CAP project (grant number 101134874). GS acknowledges funding from the MacArthur Foundation, the HT Foundation, the KR Foundation, and Climate Social Science Network; acknowledges fees received from a law firm, with an non-disclosure agreement in place precluding them from identifying the firm’s name; has received honoraria for lectures from the Oxford Climate Journalism Network; has received support for travel from the UC Davis Storer Lectureship in the Life Sciences award; and acknowledges unpaid academic advisory board memberships in the Cambridge 1·5˚C-Aligned Corporate Bond Index working group, Finance for Environmental and Social Systemic Change, the University of Cambridge, and Campus Climate Network. FT was compensated for their time by the University of Sydney; and acknowledges funding from the University of Sydney (USYD) via a USYD Horizon Fellowship. JT was supported by the European Commission via the ATMOPOLIS project (grant number 101238690). AU was supported by the Research Council of Finland via the Atmosphere and Climate Competence Center (ACCC) project (grant number 359342), the Finnish Foreign Ministry via the IBA-ILMA Project (grant number 13798–23), and the European Commission’s Horizon Europe programme via the CAMEO project (grant number 101082125). JTWW received funding from the University of Sydney via a Faculty of Medicine and Health Completion Scholarship and from the Deeble Institute via a Deeble Institute Research Scholarship; and has received travel grants from Wiser Healthcare to attend the Preventing Overdiagnosis Conference in Oxford, UK (2025), and from Healthy Environments and Lives to attend the Health Services Research Conference in Wellington, NZ (2026). All other authors declare no competing interests.

‘Hybrid weapon of war’: Why climate disinformation could be a growing public health threat

By Liam Gilliver

Published on 26 October 2026 - EURONEWS

“Climate disinformation is not only a problem of false rumours and mistruths; it is also a problem of power, incentives and accountability.”

WHO member states are being urged to recognise climate disinformation as a public health threat as vested interests attempt to “sow doubt and confusion”.

Health and civil society organisations have called on 194 countries to make information integrity a core part of climate and health policy, preparedness and response.

It follows the EU-backed landmark declaration to crack down on fake news and conspiracy theories that was launched at the COP30 summit in Belém last year.

A new report, ‘Protecting Health in the Age of Climate Disinformation’, is said to be the first instance of the health community addressing how climate disinformation harms human health around the world – from undermining emergency warnings and public-health guidance to delaying policies on air pollution, clean energy and fossil fuels.

The report, produced by the WHO Civil Society Working Group on Climate and Health, argues that a “healthier information environment” is not a communications luxury but a “condition for climate justice, public health and the right to a healthy future”.

What is climate disinformation?

Climate disinformation refers to the intentional spread of false or misleading information about climate change and climate action.

This includes the complete denial of global warming as well as conspiracy theories.

It differs from climate misinformation, which is defined as false or out-of-context information that someone is presenting as fact.

While misinformation does not carry the same level of intent as disinformation, it can result in equally dangerous consequences.

How climate disinformation is impacting public health

The report highlights several case studies where climate disinformation has interacted with existing inequalities and power structures.

For example, after the 2023 Maui wildfires, false claims circulated online that residents who applied for disaster assistance could have their land or property seized by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Fact-checkers established this was false, but the rumour had potential to deter survivors from seeking aid at precisely the moment they needed housing support, financial assistance, medical care and recovery services.

“In a disaster setting, misinformation is not just confusing,” the report reads. “It can directly obstruct access to life-saving and stabilising support.”

In Europe, clean air policies such as low-emission zones – designed to reduce people’s exposure to harmful traffic-related pollution – are often targeted by misleading narratives.

The debate around London’s Ultra Low Emissions Zone (ULEZ), which imposes a charge for vehicles that do not meet emissions standards, has included concerns about affordability and implementation, particularly for low-income households, workers, small businesses, and people who depend on older vehicles.

But the report states that these concerns have also been “amplified and distorted” by misinformation, politicised attacks on air quality evidence, fake social media claims, and in some cases even violent backlash against ULEZ infrastructure

“The backlash against ULEZ shows how disinformation can turn a public health intervention into a culture-war issue,” the report states.

“Instead of focusing debate on how to reduce pollution while protecting those least able to bear transition costs, misinformation can shift attention toward fear, mistrust, and false claims. This risks weakening public support for policies that protect lungs, hearts, pregnancies, children, and communities most exposed to polluted air.”

Other case studies in the report highlight the interests and power structures that “enable disinformation to flourish”, including fossil fuel greenwashing and conflicts of interest.

Dr Jeni Miller, Executive Director of the Global Climate and Health Alliance, and co-chair of the WHO Civil Society Working Group on Climate and Health, says governments must integrate tools for mis- and disinformation response into how they prepare and communicate heat, wildfire, flood, storm, drought and infectious disease scenarios.

“Climate disinformation is not only a problem of false rumours and mistruths; it is also a problem of power, incentives and accountability,” Miller adds.

“WHO, its member states, health institutions and the health community must go beyond simply providing better information and messaging – they must establish robust conflict-of-interest safeguards against fossil fuel greenwashing, and against those who wield climate disinformation as a hybrid weapon of war.”

Dr Laura Jung, Chair of the Working Group on Environment, World Medical Association, argues that the public health impacts of climate disinformation can be “immediate”.

“Misleading information can for example discourage people from evacuating during wildfires or floods, undermine confidence in heat and air-pollution warnings, interfere with access to disaster assistance, and create confusion about health risks during emergencies,” she explains.

How to spot climate disinformation

As part of the efforts to address the issue of fake news, the European Commission’s Directorate-General for climate action recently launched a campaign called #ClimateFactsMatter.

It aims to “empower people” to see through climate disinformation and reveals the main techniques used to mislead the public.

The campaign urges members of the public to always check the source of an article they’re reading, fact-check ‘expert’ comments, look out for loaded, emotional language, and fact-check stories claiming to have a ‘quick solution’ to climate change.

‘Profiteering from pain’: Investments of super-rich fuel climate crisis and capitalise on recovery

By Angela Symons

Published on 27 October 2026 EURONEWS

Climate pledges fall short as Oxfam exposes how the super-rich profit from disaster.

A new UN report makes it clear we can’t depend on current national climate pledges to keep global temperature rise within safe limits.

The latest plans would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by just six per cent by 2035, compared with 2019 levels.

This is down from last year’s projection of a 10 per cent cut, largely due the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement. It remains far short of 60 per cent scientists say is needed to limit warming to 1.5°C, the threshold to avoid catastrophic and irreversible climate impacts.

Combining the pledges of 154 countries, the report covers 71 per cent of global emissions. Even if every country fully implemented their obligatory plans under the Paris Agreement and also met conditional targets, emissions cuts would still amount to just nine per cent.

To keep warming within the Paris Agreement’s fallback limit of 2°C above pre-industrial levels, emissions would need to fall by 37 per cent by 2035.

Even if efforts to cut emissions succeed, the UN warned earlier this month that the world is on track for a temporary or potentially prolonged overshoot of the 1.5°C limit. The news prompted an EU warning that countries must prepare for a potential 3°C temperature rise by 2100.

Could private investors move the needle on global warming?

In a second report, also published on 27 October, the UN found that global climate finance is increasing but still falls far short of what is needed.

Global climate finance averaged $1.9 trillion (€1.7tn) a year in 2023-24, up 32 per cent from 2021-22. The increase was driven largely by private investment in low-emissions technologies, including renewables, as well as household spending on electric vehicles, solar power and heat pumps.

So with government efforts failing, could private investment make up the shortfall?

A separate report by the charity Oxfam, published ahead of the COP31 climate talks in Türkiye, argues that for the wealthiest investors the incentives often steer them in the wrong direction.

Not only are the super-rich fuelling the climate crisis through polluting activities, they’re also “profiteering from pain” – sometimes reaping a “double dividend”: first from the industries driving climate breakdown, then from the businesses involved in disaster preparation and recovery, says Oxfam.

How are the super-rich profiting from the climate crisis?

Oxfam’s new ‘Destroy and Rebuild Index’, within the report ‘Disaster Divide: How climate chaos deepens inequality and enriches the few’, looked at 217 companies, some in industries that drive climate breakdown and others in industries that prepare for or rebuild after climate disasters.

The companies in the index not only made an average profit of $1.8 billion (€1.6bn) in 2025 but paid out more than $1bn on average to shareholders, according to the charity. The global disaster recovery market is forecast to grow from $70bn (€63bn) to $92bn (€84bn) a year by 2029.

Oxfam says the investments of the world’s 1,000 richest billionaires were linked to 486 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent in 2025. If they were a country, they would rank as the world’s 19th biggest polluter. 71 per cent of those investments are in high-polluting sectors such as oil, gas and chemicals.

Emissions of the super-rich linked to millions of deaths

Oxfam says the wealthiest also contribute disproportionately to the emissions driving the crisis. The richest 0.1 per cent – around eight million people – emit more than the poorest 44 per cent of humanity combined, accounting for around 3.5 billion people.

Oxfam estimates that emissions from the richest one per cent have been responsible for around 20 per cent of global warming since 1990. A single year of their emissions will cause an estimated 1.9 million excess heat-related deaths over the following century, according to the report.

Calling climate disasters “inequality machines”, Oxfam points to research published in the journal Nature showing flood deaths are seven times higher in more unequal countries.

Yet the wealthy are best placed to shield themselves, from buying safer homes to hiring private firefighters. Rich households can also absorb higher food costs and insure their assets. Poorer people tend to live in more exposed areas and in lower-quality housing, with fewer savings to fall back on.

Oxfam is calling on governments to curb the emissions of the super-rich, including those linked to their investments, to make rich countries provide far more grant-based finance for adaptation, and to end profiteering from climate disasters.