What a difference a single year makes. The once-dominant push to radically reshape society to avert climate catastrophe has collapsed. Look at Davos -- the talkfest long dominated by climate advocacy. That consensus has been abandoned by its once strongest proponents.
Emblematic of the shift: European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen didn’t mention the climate transition once in her 2026 Davos talk -- after putting it front and centre in preceding years.
But it's not just the Europeans. Canadian premier Mark Carney once called for“a global net zero commitment” to solve climate change which he saw as “an existential threat.” Now, he 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.” At home, he’s pledging to make Canada into an “energy superpower.”
In the US, even Democratic politicians have stopped leading with climate change as a central issue, shifting focus to affordability, low energy prices, and immediate economic relief instead. Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist winner of the New York City mayoral election, campaigned on rising grocery bills and housing costs, and barely discussed climate change.
This global shift is not all down to the election of Donald Trump. Voters themselves have become sick and tired of constant climate alarmism, meaning many climate advocacy voices have had to dial back their rhetoric. Shouting about doomsday is failing to deliver political gains.
Other issues have become much more important, and people are reading and watching climate change news less across all Global North. The media itself has less to say: According to a Washington Post analysis, 2025 saw the fewest media mentions of climate change since March 2022.
Political strategists are even advising against talking about “climate change” altogether because “when leaders say the words ‘climate change,’ voters get bad vibes.”
This course correction means that the media and leftwing politicians are catching up with the public, who say climate change ranks low even compared to other environmental concerns. A Pew Research Center global survey from last August found a reduction over the past few years across all high-income countries seeing climate change as a major threat.
This recalibration even extends to advocacy groups and observers, who have retreated from confrontational doomerism.
This retreat is good for sensible policy, because the failed alarmist approach relied on a series of persistent misrepresentations. Take the claim that extreme events, because of climate change, have dramatically made us worse off. This is simply untrue.
Deaths from climate-related disasters such as storms, floods, droughts, and fire have declined sharply over the past century, with the last decade seeing some of the lowest numbers ever, 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 over 97%.
This progress results from better warnings, stronger infrastructure, improved disaster response, and overall societal wealth that enables such protections. Adaptation through innovation has proven far more effective than fear-driven restrictions.
Another big fib is the idea that China is rapidly going green. The reality is that China is massively reliant on fossil fuels just like everyone else. Half a century ago, China got 40% of its energy from renewables -- when it relied on wood and dung because people were poor. As Chinese people have become massively wealthier, fossil fuels peaked at producing 92% of the country’s energy in 2011 -- and that figure has only ebbed slightly, to 87% in 2023, the last year for which there is data.
Ambitious commitments at successive climate summits to redirect enormous financial flows toward poor countries for green projects have proven illusory. Activists and politicians demanded urgent, economy-wide transformations, insisting that only massive shifts could avert disaster.
They mobilized calls for trillions to flow from taxpayers and conventional industries into renewables. Those grand visions have faltered, and private capital has all but withdrawn amid high risks and uncertain returns. What was presented as an inevitable tidal wave of sustainable finance now appears more like a passing blip.
Europe provides the starkest warning of idealism clashing with reality. Germany's vaunted energy transition has been a textbook case of climate scares driving poor but immensely costly decisions. Now, Chancellor Friedrich Merz confesses that Germany has achieved “the most expensive energy transition in the entire world.”
A large part of the cost comes from prematurely shutting down nuclear plants that were reliable, low-carbon, and already fully paid for. Instead, policy-makers increased reliance on coal and gas, drove up emissions and saw electricity prices skyrocket. Merz now admits “it was a serious strategic mistake to exit nuclear energy.”
The transition from exaggeration to muted realism among the leaders at Davos is at least some progress. This reflects recognition that exaggerated fear tactics have led to public disconnection, bad policies, and political backlash.
Now we need to focus on what works. For now, we should deliver cheap, secure energy to boost prosperity while we innovate for a greener future.
Bjorn Lomborg is President of the Copenhagen Consensus, Visiting Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, and author of "False Alarm" and "Best Things First".
