Climate change is an existential crisis, and it was allowed to get to this point via decades of disinformation.
Yes... and yes and no: It was allowed to get to this point because of lobbying and bribery from the fossil fuel, automotive, airline, construction and agriculture industries, and because of the tough choices that mostly pretty spineless politicians would have had to make otherwise, and while the decades of outrageous misinformation presumably helped ease any qualms of the contrarian far-right quarter of the population in all likelihood it was probably not really necessary for them. The actually feasible route to meaningful action would have been a sufficiently overwhelming public outcry and political organization from
the rest of the population, and that was dealt with by the more subtle propaganda aimed at the center-right and at the folk who think that being between the far-right and center-right makes them 'centrists': Endless series of paper promises and commitments to renewables without ever actually keeping fossil fuels in the ground, for example, or advocacy for biofuels and electric cars rather than meaningfully reducing energy consumption, or merely offshoring industrial emissions to supplier countries like China through deliberate loopholes in the meaningless Kyoto Protocol, or promotion of so-called 'carbon offsets' and other accounting tricks, or above all a striking media silence relative to the actual scale of the issue.
Even trying to deal with the outrageous misinformation seems like trying to get the toothpaste back in the tube at this point; but perhaps more to the point, even on the off chance that it would make some tiny difference to the number of people outright hostile to climate science, it's really not going to make a dent in all the propaganda used to encourage complacency or
merely personal action from people who are simply indifferent and even most who are bit environmentally conscious. In the absence of political leadership, it's those latter groups whose serious engagement on the issue was required twenty or thirty years ago and is required even more now, but Pinterest's corporate virtue-signalling isn't going to make the slightest improvement there... and may even do harm.
Meanwhile, as I suggested, it's a very worrying development in terms of exchange of information generally; soft censorship on a broad socio-political subject with none of the mitigating circumstances which arguably justified similar measures on Covid and election misinformation.
