Federal government touts climate ‘crisis’ without sufficient supporting evidence

Canada is, we are told, in a climate crisis. “Climate action can’t wait,” said Prime Minister Trudeau. “Together, we will beat this crisis while creating a green economy and new middle-class jobs for Canadians.” In a Guardian article, federal Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said “the science is clear” that the “climate crisis is the biggest single threat we face as a global community.” And of course, the government’s new “Raising the Bar” campaign is very alarming, particularly the stuff about droughts and floods.

But have we seen significant increases in weather extremes? Is the strength of evidence sufficient to justify the panic-mongering language of a “climate crisis?” In a nutshell, no.

Let’s start with drought. The vaunted UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) asserted “medium confidence” that increased drought has been observed across the globe. And in the Royal Society, one of oldest scientific academies on Earth, an international research team dug into the data only to find that in the “vast majority of the world, trends in meteorological drought duration and magnitude are not statistically significant, with the exception of some small regions of Africa and South America, which is also where data uncertainty is greater” concluding that “trends in meteorological drought severity in the last few decades are not observed globally based on precipitation data, and very few areas are showing changes in the severity of meteorological droughts.” Finally, according to the International Energy Agency, drought severity in Canada from 2000 to 2020 was only slightly above the global average.

Well, but what about floods?

Canada has plenty of those. The IPCC report finds it “likely” that heavy precipitation events (a major cause of flooding) have increased globally, at least over land areas with good data. The report has less confidence in places such as Africa and South America where we’re reminded the people are at higher risk from climate change because they’re poorer and less likely to adapt. But a 2017 report of the United States Global Climate Research Project found that while “detectable changes in some classes of flood frequency have occurred in parts of the United States” there’s no “significant connection of increased riverine flooding to human-induced climate change, and the timing of any emergence of a future detectable anthropogenic change in flooding is unclear.” Further, a recent UN report found with “high confidence” that “streamflow trends since 1950 are not statistically significant in most of the world’s largest rivers, while flood frequency and extreme streamflow have increased in some regions.” Does that sounds like a crisis?

The Trudeau government’s climate rhetoric has steadily ratcheted up over years, and settled on the panic-inducing language of “crisis.” We must follow government’s energy-diet, live smaller, less prosperous lives in less space, with less travel, and less, well, everything. Of course, the crisis rhetoric allows for no doubts, being absolutist in its claims that we are—right now—experiencing major increases in natural disasters fuelled by human-sourced greenhouse gas emissions.

But clearly, the scientific literature on extreme weather does not support this rhetoric. The actual data on extreme weather is scant, fragmented, contradictory and in all ways uncertain. It’s certainly not rigorous enough to justify the kind of exaggerated certainty Ottawa asserts nor the induction of climate panic.

Author:

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#Climate"Crisis"#FraserInstitute #KennethGreen

Up Next

Unrealistic EV mandate requires equivalent of 10 new mega hydro dams

Don't Miss

Furey a major contrast with Trudeau on affordability

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

‘The electric story is over’

Business / 7 hours ago

Some Of The Wackiest Things Featured In Rand Paul’s New Report Alleging $1,639,135,969,608 In Gov’t Waste

Alberta / 14 hours ago

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Energy

‘The electric story is over’

Published on December 24, 2025

Todayville

From Resource Works

By Stewart Muir

Every episode of Power Struggle offers a different doorway into the global energy system. But every so often I speak with someone who doesn’t merely interpret the data — he dismantles the illusions around it. Energy economist Dr. Anas F. Alhajji is one of those rare voices.

For anyone who follows world oil markets, Anas requires little introduction. He is one of the most widely referenced analysts in global energy economics, managing partner at Energy Outlook Advisors, and a commentator whose views often diverge from the political narratives that dominate Western media. Our conversation, fast-paced and data-driven, reinforced a point I’ve been making for years: many assumptions about the energy transition are overdue for a hard reset.

And if you think the transition is unfolding as advertised, Anas has a simple message: look again.

Peak oil demand — or peak illusion?

We began with the recurring claim, made most notably by the International Energy Agency, that global oil demand is nearing a terminal peak. Anas has long challenged this analysis, but his breakdown was especially stark.

“In May 2025, they said they are revising up global oil demand… They’ve been wrong for 18 straight years. By how much? Two or three years. The total is about 350 million barrels.”

He added an even sharper example.

“In August, they revised up Mexico’s oil demand by a hundred thousand barrels a day — since 2020. With all of this, who is going to believe the IEA?”

If we are going to debate “peak oil demand,” Anas argued, we must start with accurate numbers. And reality, as he laid out, tells a very different story.

Oil demand is higher — not lower

The most striking fact he brought to the table was where global demand sits today.

“Current world demand for oil is 107 million barrels a day.”

That figure sits eight million barrels above 2019 levels, despite rapid growth in electric vehicle sales. And here is where the assumptions collide with the data.

“Right now we have about 55 million EVs… 35 million are in China. The replacement in terms of oil is only 1.3 million barrels a day. That’s it.”

EVs are increasing, yes — but the global vehicle fleet is expanding even faster, and so is mobility demand. A century’s worth of built energy systems does not pivot overnight.

Hybrids now dominate

This brought Anas to the point that may surprise the most people.

“The trend right now is very clear. We are going hybrid. Hybrid. The electric story is over.”

He emphasized that this is not ideological — it is practical. Hybrids outperform EVs on cost, convenience and grid impacts, and consumers are voting with their wallets.

“Hybrid sales have been going through the roof. And this is going to continue… The media reports EV sales all the time. But what matters is the number of EVs on the road.”

This distinction matters. Monthly sales data can create a false sense of momentum. What counts for emissions, infrastructure planning and oil displacement is the stock of vehicles actually in use.

Three ‘scams’ in EV sales reporting

Anas went further, arguing that even sales data does not always reflect real-world adoption. He described what he called three “scams” that inflate EV sales figures globally. He shared one example on air:

“There are many tens of thousands of them in parking lots that are not being sold… A manufacturer calls an official, says: I have 2,000 cars. I will sell them to you. You issue the license plates, you issue the insurance, you get all the subsidies, we split it. But the cars are still in the parking lot.”

On paper, these are “sales.” In reality, they are inventory.

The broader point is that EV market statistics need scrutiny — and policymakers who rely on headline numbers may be basing major decisions on flawed data.

Why Canada still needs another pipeline

We then turned to Canada’s current debates about pipelines and whether the country still needs more tidewater access. Anas answered without hesitation.

“I can tell you without any reservation, we do need another pipeline, another Canadian pipeline to tidewater.”

His rationale was blunt.

“Energy demand globally is increasing at a very high rate in a way that we have never seen before.”

For Canada, this is about competitiveness. Without access to global markets, Canadian oil is priced at a discount — a problem solved only by pipelines reaching the coast.

On LNG: “Canada should go at full speed”

Anas was even more emphatic when discussing natural gas.

“That’s where Canada basically should go at full speed.”

He criticized the idea of a long-term LNG surplus.

“All those ideas about a surplus in LNG… it is nonsense.”

Asian LNG demand is projected to grow sharply, and Canada’s low-emissions LNG — powered by hydro — gives the country a unique competitive advantage.

Why voices like Anas matter

What I value most about conversations like this is the grounding they give us. In energy, narratives and evidence are drifting apart. You may not agree with every assertion, but you can’t dismiss the data. Whether discussing EVs, oil demand, LNG or Canada’s infrastructure, Anas reminds us that aspirations only matter when they intersect with reality.

This episode of Power Struggle is exactly the kind of dialogue we need: sober, data-based, and challenging enough to re-examine assumptions.

You can listen to the full conversation wherever you get your podcasts. If it unsettles a few comfortable stories — that’s the point.

Watch the video on Power Struggle

Power Struggle on social media:

Resource Works News

Alberta

A Christmas wish list for health-care reform

Published on December 23, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Nadeem Esmail and Mackenzie Moir

It’s an exciting time in Canadian health-care policy. But even the slew of new reforms in Alberta only go part of the way to using all the policy tools employed by high performing universal health-care systems.

For 2026, for the sake of Canadian patients, let’s hope Alberta stays the path on changes to how hospitals are paid and allowing some private purchases of health care, and that other provinces start to catch up.

While Alberta’s new reforms were welcome news this year, it’s clear Canada’s health-care system continued to struggle. Canadians were reminded by our annual comparison of health care systems that they pay for one of the developed world’s most expensive universal health-care systems, yet have some of the fewest physicians and hospital beds, while waiting in some of the longest queues.

And speaking of queues, wait times across Canada for non-emergency care reached the second-highest level ever measured at 28.6 weeks from general practitioner referral to actual treatment. That’s more than triple the wait of the early 1990s despite decades of government promises and spending commitments. Other work found that at least 23,746 patients died while waiting for care, and nearly 1.3 million Canadians left our overcrowded emergency rooms without being treated.

At least one province has shown a genuine willingness to do something about these problems.

The Smith government in Alberta announced early in the year that it would move towards paying hospitals per-patient treated as opposed to a fixed annual budget, a policy approach that Quebec has been working on for years. Albertans will also soon be able purchase, at least in a limited way, some diagnostic and surgical services for themselves, which is again already possible in Quebec. Alberta has also gone a step further by allowing physicians to work in both public and private settings.

While controversial in Canada, these approaches simply mirror what is being done in all of the developed world’s top-performing universal health-care systems. Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland all pay their hospitals per patient treated, and allow patients the opportunity to purchase care privately if they wish. They all also have better and faster universally accessible health care than Canada’s provinces provide, while spending a little more (Switzerland) or less (Australia, Germany, the Netherlands) than we do.

While these reforms are clearly a step in the right direction, there’s more to be done.

Even if we include Alberta’s reforms, these countries still do some very important things differently.

Critically, all of these countries expect patients to pay a small amount for their universally accessible services. The reasoning is straightforward: we all spend our own money more carefully than we spend someone else’s, and patients will make more informed decisions about when and where it’s best to access the health-care system when they have to pay a little out of pocket.

The evidence around this policy is clear—with appropriate safeguards to protect the very ill and exemptions for lower-income and other vulnerable populations, the demand for outpatient healthcare services falls, reducing delays and freeing up resources for others.

Charging patients even small amounts for care would of course violate the Canada Health Act, but it would also emulate the approach of 100 per cent of the developed world’s top-performing health-care systems. In this case, violating outdated federal policy means better universal health care for Canadians.

These top-performing countries also see the private sector and innovative entrepreneurs as partners in delivering universal health care. A relationship that is far different from the limited individual contracts some provinces have with private clinics and surgical centres to provide care in Canada. In these other countries, even full-service hospitals are operated by private providers. Importantly, partnering with innovative private providers, even hospitals, to deliver universal health care does not violate the Canada Health Act.

So, while Alberta has made strides this past year moving towards the well-established higher performance policy approach followed elsewhere, the Smith government remains at least a couple steps short of truly adopting a more Australian or European approach for health care. And other provinces have yet to even get to where Alberta will soon be.

Let’s hope in 2026 that Alberta keeps moving towards a truly world class universal health-care experience for patients, and that the other provinces catch up.