Climate Change 2026

Climate Change 2026

What a difference a little time makes in letting truth find its way to the surface. The once-dominant ideology that sought to reshape society to avert climate catastrophe has collapsed. The doom cloud of the myth makers has evaporated. I note the change in themes at the World Economic Forum in Davos 2026, the talkfest that in the past was dominated by ‘climate change language’. The groupthink consensus has been abandoned by its former strongest proponents.

For example, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn’t mention climate change after putting it front and center in preceding years.

Prime Minister Mark Carney once called for “a global net zero commitment” to solve climate change, which he saw as “an existential threat.”  It was a theme in his book, "Values: Building a Better World for All. "Now Carney admits that the architecture of collective problem-solving long supported by World Economic Forum elites, and including United Nations-organized climate change summits, has been diminished. He is now talking about making Canada into an energy superpower, but has not yet found a formula to deliver on it.

In the USA, Democratic Party leaders have stopped using climate change as a central theme, shifting focus to affordability, low energy prices, and economic relief. Newly elected New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani campaigned on rising grocery bills, housing costs, and rarely discussed climate change.

This global shift is not all down to the election of President Trump. Voters had grown tired of constant climate alarmism; consequently, climate advocacy voices have dialled back their rhetoric. Shouting about doomsday is failing to deliver political gains. Personal costs in view of actual climate variances did not add up.

Other issues have become more important to voters, and people in the global north are reading and watching climate change news less because they have tuned out the exaggerated message. The media has less to say these days, as many have started challenging the climate sermons with real data. The old mantras developed a credibility problem. 

It also came to light that many strong advocacies were actually fronts for promoting their own business interests, seeking to capitalize on environmental enterprises such as industrial carbon capture, solar- and tidal-powered corporations, wind generation industries, and varied motor vehicle energy systems.

Additionally, millions have been given to protest groups and opponents of developing Canada's oil exports, mainly to keep the USA oil industry dominant and reduce global competition. Americans were able to buy Canada's oil at a discount because Canada lacked the export capacity to reach the world market. The environmental movement was misused to benefit market control and advantage, and had nothing to do with climate change.  

Now, when political people say the words ‘climate change,’ voters get bad vibes and are irritated by the irrelevance to their lives. People have heard the loud climate change message for so long that they feel manipulated, and also feel discounted for their real concerns.

This course correction means that the media lefties are catching up with the public, who say climate change ranks low even when compared with other environmental concerns. A Pew Research Center global survey from August found that many high-income countries have seen a mass reduction in concerns around climate change as a threat. This recalibration even extends to advocacy groups who have retreated from confrontational doomerism. Many no longer believe the message they hear, and they push back.

It appears that common sense is arising, because the failed alarmist approach increasingly had to rely on misrepresentations. For example, there is the false claim that extreme weather events, driven by climate change, have dramatically worsened our situation. This is simply untrue. Deaths from climate-related disasters, including storms, floods, droughts and fires, have declined sharply over the past fifty years, with the last decade seeing some of the lowest numbers on record, despite global population quadrupling. In the 1920s, the global death toll was near half a million per year on average. Last year, it was less than ten thousand, a reduction of more than 97%.

This progress results from better warning technology, stronger infrastructure, improved disaster response and overall societal wealth that enables such protections. Adaptation through innovation has proved far more effective than fear-driven restrictions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, despite its many faults and questionable assertions, still says that ‘adaptation’ is the priority, before laws, regulations, and taxes, as the way to respond. This demonstrates that responsible, practical steps are making a real difference. 

Responsible people need to be shown and helped not to pollute the planet with toxic, non-biodegradable chemicals and products. Whether from industrial processes or simply municipal garbage, pragmatic adaptation and management should be paramount. A direct focus on what is within the reasonable control of the average citizen should be the primary environmental stewardship goal. While some may worry about policy shifts, an emphasis on personal responsibility can empower individuals to contribute meaningfully without relying solely on government action, reinforcing humankind's role in tending and defending our garden earth.

Moreover, the advance signals from the White House have been long standing, and now have been realized. The Trump administration has rescinded a legal bedrock that has authorized emissions controls in the U.S. since the Obama era, by withdrawing the ‘endangerment finding’ of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The finding has been the legal basis for American climate action rules since 2009.

The EPA and other U.S. agencies have regulated greenhouse gases in everything from industrial facilities to vehicles. Without ‘the finding’, the rules would not be permissible and would become of no effect. The rules became the foundation for the ‘green new scam’, President Donald Trump said during an announcement of the repeal. The administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency Lee Zeldin said that the repeal as the greatest act of deregulation in the history of the United States. Environmental groups and others blasted the decision, and vowed to fight it in court, including California’s governor. National and international environmental conversations have changed.