Don’t they read the science? Or do they simply choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit their short-term, market-oriented agenda?
Dr. Trevor Hancock
27 April 2026
701 words
I understand why the fossil fuel industry pursues growth in the extraction and consumption of fossil fuels. It’s all about making money and damn the consequences. But how can any responsible political leader at this point push for more fossil fuel extraction and use.
Don’t they read the science? Or do they read the science but don’t understand it? Or don’t believe it? Or do they simply choose to ignore it because it doesn’t fit their short-term, market-oriented agenda?
On the assumption that they don’t read the science, and for the benefit of readers who may not be right up to speed, here is what the latest science tells us.
First, our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to increase. The International Energy Agency reported that total energy-related CO2 emissions reached a new high in 2025. Unsurprisingly, this was matched by a “record atmospheric CO2 concentrations of about 427 parts-per-million (ppm) . . . around 50% above pre-industrial levels.”
Troublingly, “emissions rose more strongly in advanced economies than in emerging market and developing economies for the first time in nearly 30 years.” Moreover, natural gas was the largest contributor to the increase in these emissions in 2025. A commentary in One Earth by several leading Earth scientists notes emissions of two other potent greenhouse gases continue to increase, adding that “Looking ahead, the outlook for emissions remains deeply concerning.”
Second, as a direct result, global temperatures remain troublingly high. The World Meteorological Organization recently reported that “2025 was one of the three warmest years on record” (following the top two years of 2023 and 2024) and that “the past 11 years have been the 11 warmest on record”, while “ocean heating continues unabated.”
The implications are profound. The One Earth commentary states “Earth’s climate is now departing from the stable conditions that supported human civilization for millennia” and asks “Are we now at risk of crossing planetary tipping points and triggering a hothouse Earth trajectory?” While recognising that “Science doesn’t have a precise answer”, their answer is “we may be approaching a perilous threshold, with rapidly dwindling opportunities to prevent dangerous and unmanageable climate outcomes”
They note that of sixteen important climate tipping elements “Tipping may already be underway or could occur soon for the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, boreal permafrost, mountain glaciers, and parts of the Amazon rainforest.” Moreover, there is a real danger that one tipping point can trigger another, resulting in a cascade of climate tipping events. This “could raise global temperatures, accelerate sea-level rise, release vast stores of carbon, and destabilize ecosystems.”
One of those planetary tipping points is the likelihood that the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), which we know as the Gulf Stream, might shut down. Were that to happen, not only would it result in a much colder Europe that would threaten continued agriculture, it would “shift tropical rain belts and dry parts of the Amazon.”
Another important impact is on global food supplies. In April the Food and Agriculture Organization and the World Meteorological Organization reported that higher temperatures are pushing food systems to the brink. This results from a combination of stressed livestock, falling yields of crops, including staples such as maize and wheat, and ocean heatwaves killing fish. Moreover, high temperatures make it hard for farmers to work safely outdoors in many hot regions.
Given the growing likelihood of some or all of these events, which would have dire consequences for today’s children and youth, a prudent approach would be to apply the precautionary principle. This principle, which is really just a wordy version of the common sense view that it is better to err on the side of caution, is that lack of scientific certainty must not be used as a reason to ignore or postpone preventive or remedial action when there are other good reasons to do so.
But our political leaders are showing anything but common sense and precaution as they pursue greater extraction, use and export of fossil fuels. Their policies are making Canada into not so much a conventional energy superpower as a conventional energy super-idiot. Its time they woke up to the threats created by their foolish and dangerous policies.
© Trevor Hancock, 2026
Dr. Trevor Hancock is a retired professor and senior scholar at the
University of Victoria’s School of Public Health and Social Policy
Dr. Trevor Hancock - Healthy people, healthy communities, a healthy planet 