On October 8, 2026, Global News posted a story titled “Climate-driven wildfires in Canada could cost future generations trillions: study”. Reporting on the Simon Fraser University study by Sian Kou-Giesbrecht et al. (2026), Global News said, “The study estimates that the worldwide price tag from wildfires could top $43 billion annually and $2.1 trillion cumulatively by the end of the century if global temperatures continue to warm between three and four degrees Celsius.”Fortunately, there are lots of good reasons to dismiss these claims out of hand. Here’s why.The research centres on three climate scenarios known as Shared Socioeconomic Pathways. These are identified as SSP1-2.6, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5. Throughout the paper, the authors wrote, “Anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change has no detectable influence on burned area or wildfire CO2 emissions in SSP1-2.6 … Climate change has no detectable influence on exposure in SSP1-2.6 … Anthropogenic climate change does not have a detectable influence on the cost of suppression in SSP1-2.6 … Anthropogenic climate change does not have a detectable influence on the societal cost of CO2 in SSP1-2.6…”Huh?So where do the billions and trillions of dollars of climate change impacts come from?Well, they come from the modelled high-emission scenarios of SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5.This paper was received for publication by Environmental Research: Climate, published by IOP Publishing, on April 24, 2026. Just over two weeks before that, on April 7, 2026, the international climate science modelling community had officially retired the high-emission scenarios of SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 as implausible.Longtime climate policy analyst Roger Pielke Jr. explained the importance of this in “RCP 8.5 is officially dead”..Yes, the world — especially taxpayers — has been plagued by the misuse of this family of climate scenarios, which are part of the work of van Vuuren et al. (2011). At the time, van Vuuren et al. specifically noted that their scenario work was intended for research purposes alone, not for setting public policy.But, as Pielke realized, green billionaires, activist climate scientists, and environmental groups co-opted these scenarios. They adopted the high-end scenario originally known as RCP8.5 — later SSP3-7.0 and SSP5-8.5 — as if it represented the “business-as-usual” case, when it was anything but!These scenarios incorporate unlikely assumptions, such as end-of-century coal use exceeding estimates of recoverable coal reserves with a corresponding rapid increase in coal to liquids, displacing petroleum (Roger Pielke Jr., “No, RCP8.5 did not become implausible”). They also amplified the future population of the world beyond what was demographically possible and far above credible projections (Climate at a Glance, “RCP8.5: The implausible ‘worst-case’ climate scenario”).As retired energy economist Robert Lyman wrote in his 2023 critique of RCP8.5 for the Friends of Science Society — where I am communications manager — “Whereas the United Nations projects world population to be about nine billion by 2100, the RCP 8.5 scenario assumed that it could be between twelve and fifteen billion. The population projections of the other RCPs are within the 90 percentile of the UN projections, while RCP8.5 is well outside it.”Lyman also noted that “under RCP8.5 world crude oil production in 2100 would have to be about four times that of 2015 to meet the assumed demand. That means that oil companies would have to find and produce roughly four trillion barrels of crude oil between now and 2100. As that is about twice the level of proven crude oil reserves now plus the current estimate of technically recoverable resource potential, it would represent a herculean task.”In other words, implausible! More implausible now with the ongoing global energy crisis!Then, climate scientists and activists began using the imagery of the RCP/SSP graphs as a kind of shorthand for “pathways” up to climate catastrophe, or down to safety to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of keeping the rise in global temperature below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, preferably 1.5 degrees Celsius.How would we accomplish such a victory?.Well, as Sian Kou-Giesbrecht, lead author of the paper cited in the Global News story, said, “We just need to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, hold global temperature rise to two degrees Celsius or ideally a lot lower and that’s really our only pathway.”Except that’s not true either! Not even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases to wildfire prevalence or intensity. In fact, in contrast to the claims that wildfires are worse, Ken Gregory, research director for the Friends of Science Society, wrote that the world is burning less.Curiously, two of the authors of the wildfire catastrophe paper by Kou-Giesbrecht et al. are Environment and Climate Change Canada scientists who have likely been aware of the significant controversy over the use and misuse of high-emissions scenarios for years. But they went ahead and used them anyway.Imagine how many people have been terrified by this Global News report and this distorted research. Imagine how many young people, already burdened by years of Greta Thunberg’s climate strikes and fearmongering, are now young adults being told that wildfires will further wreck their future not only with raging infernal destruction but also with untenable burdens of debt.None of it is true.The upshot of this climate change hysteria is that well-meaning, frightened citizens will advocate for or agree to billions of dollars being wasted on “climate action”, and nothing will be done to address the real problem.Wildfire is a thing. Every year.As a colleague who is deeply engaged in all things wildfire mentioned to me the other day, “Our governments seem to be interested in solutions to non-problems rather than practical solutions to real problems. What we end up with are designer solutions to non-issues.”Who can we hold accountable for this travesty of research and reporting that hasn’t been fact-checked?Wildfire season comes every year. We need to treat it like we treat winter and truly be prepared. Taking climate action will only suck scarce public funds away from real needs.There’s no climate emergency now that the implausible scenarios are off the table.Time to adjust our future spectacles, dump any policies based on the RCP8.5 family of climate scenarios, and take practical steps to mitigate and manage wildfire season.What can we do about the unquestioning media? Good question.
