This article supplied by Troy Media.

By Science and Technology Desk

New study finds billions more trees than expected, making boreal forests a bigger carbon sink than we thought

Canada’s boreal forests may be far more resilient to climate change than previously believed, with new research showing they contain billions more trees than past estimates, potentially boosting Canada’s natural defences in the fight against global warming.

Spanning from Yukon to Newfoundland, the boreal forest is one of the largest intact ecosystems in the world. It plays a crucial role in absorbing carbon dioxide, protecting biodiversity and supporting Indigenous and rural communities.

A new University of Alberta study provided the most accurate estimate to date of how many trees populate the boreal region, reducing long-standing uncertainties in forest carbon modelling and management.

The result: 277 billion trees across the boreal zone, including 30 billion in Alberta—31 per cent more than estimated in a major 2015 global study.

“Our research provides by far the most accurate and credible answer to the question of how many trees are in our boreal forests,” said study lead Fangliang He, a forest ecologist and Canada Research Chair in Biodiversity and Landscape Modelling.

“Knowing that there are 31 per cent more trees than previously estimated suggests our boreal forests have greater capacity to mitigate climate change.”
Tree counts like this help scientists and policymakers understand how much carbon forests can absorb and store, critical for estimating how large a role boreal ecosystems can play in national emissions strategies.

To improve on the earlier global estimate, He’s team compiled data from a record 4,367 tree plots across Canada and Alaska, compared with just 346 used in the 2015 study.

“This provides a large set of data with extensive geographic coverage in North America,” He said.

To measure trees 10 centimetres or larger in diameter—the same threshold used in the 2015 analysis—He and his team used an artificial intelligence algorithm to develop competition-based models that included tree height, a key indicator of forest competition. The use of AI allowed the researchers to detect patterns that traditional methods might miss.

“These innovative models represent a major advance in improving the accuracy of estimating tree count.”

The researchers also projected future tree density under a range of climate scenarios to see how the boreal forest might respond to a warming planet. The findings were surprising: under increasingly warmer conditions, tree density in the boreal forest would rise overall by at least 11 per cent by 2050.

“This result suggests that boreal forests might be more resilient to climate change than we thought,” He said.

The study, he added, underscores the need for better data and forecasting tools to support forest management and climate policy.

While the federal government has pledged to plant two billion trees by 2030, He said that effort is nowhere near enough.

“That number only accounts for 0.83 per cent of our estimated total number of 240 billion boreal trees in Canada, speaking to the mitigation challenge through tree-planting,” he said.

At current planting rates, he said, it would take centuries to match the natural regeneration and density needed to make a measurable impact.

“Protection of natural forests is the best nature-based solution.”

The study contributes to a growing body of research using artificial intelligence to model complex ecological systems, and could influence Canada’s future forestry and climate strategies.

Science and Technology Desk

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country

A crisis too perfect to be true was amplified with Trudeau’s hot mic and Bob Rae’s Arctic map, planting the seeds of fear at just the right time.

The evidence is now clear. In the 2025 Canadian federal election, the Trudeau Liberals—under new leader Mark Carney—knowingly amplified a far-fetched threat of American annexation to frame the race as a battle for national survival. Voters were told that Donald Trump wanted to “break and own” Canada. What they weren’t told was that Carney had privately reassured Trump that his heated stump speech rhetoric was just for show.

If it weren’t so chilling, it might read as farce—poorly acted political theatre at the highest level.

A few events, in retrospect, appear as the keystones of what may have been a coordinated, disinformation-driven campaign. A campaign, with the benefit of hindsight, that dovetailed precisely with Chinese intelligence narratives.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, days before stepping down and apparently ‘feathering a pass’ to Mark Carney—a hockey metaphor that never surfaced in the subsequent ‘elbows up’ campaign—appeared at a Toronto business summit and, conveniently, was caught on a “hot mic.” He warned, in casual tones, that Donald Trump “very much” wanted Canada’s resources, and that “absorbing our country” was “a real thing.” The timing was surgical.

Equally suspicious was Canada’s UN Ambassador and long-time Liberal heavyweight Bob Rae posting a distorted Arctic map on X, showing Canada and Greenland fully swallowed by a U.S. flag. His caption: “Theft by force.”

The narrative had been cast: the United States was preparing to take Canada. The Liberals would defend the nation. And anyone who doubted that premise was complicit in national surrender.

It began with an offhand comment at Mar-a-Lago in late 2024—Trump joking that if Canada couldn’t meet its defense commitments, perhaps it should become the 51st state. By January, the joke had mutated into a real threat: Trump threatened 25% tariffs on Canadian goods and linked them to Canada’s failure to secure its borders. The Liberals seized on the moment.

Then came the hot mic leak.

In February, Prime Minister Trudeau, in a supposedly closed-door session, was caught warning that Trump’s “annexation” ambitions were “a real thing.” The remark was conveniently on-message, almost too perfectly timed as Carney prepared to take the reins. By March, with Trump’s tariffs in force and sovereignty rhetoric rising, B.C. Premier David Eby declared Trump was “campaigning against Canada’s independence.”

On March 15, Bob Rae posted his now-infamous map depicting Canada fully absorbed into the U.S. It wasn’t just visual. His accompanying tweet read:

“To emphasize, this is not about borders, or fentanyl. This is about a colossal land, water and resource grab. The tariffs are intended to weaken so this theft can take place. We’re not talking ‘purchase’ or ‘buying’. We’re talking theft by force. Fighting back will be hard, but it is the fight of our lives.”

Rae, a senior diplomat, had crossed the line into domestic campaign messaging. And it aligned perfectly with the pitch Carney was about to make.

Carney, newly installed as prime minister, wasted no time launching the “Elbows Up” campaign—framing the Liberals as the last line of defense against American imperialism. At every rally, Trump was the villain. Carney told Canadians, “We are in a fight for our country.”

Apparently, Beijing was too.

On April 7, 2025, the Security and Intelligence Threats to Elections (SITE) Task Force reported that Chinese state-affiliated accounts on WeChat had launched a coordinated “information operation” targeting the Canadian election. These accounts consistently amplified narratives portraying Carney as a principled defender of Canadian sovereignty against Trump’s alleged annexation ambitions. The operation, linked to the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, was assessed to have likely influenced Chinese-Canadian communities in key ridings—potentially swaying votes.

Meanwhile, just days after Carney’s incendiary rhetoric began, he engaged in a private call with President Trump. According to CBC reporting, Trump once again raised the 51st-state concept. Carney made no mention of it in the official government readout. Only after CBC brought the issue to light did he publicly acknowledge that the annexation idea had, in fact, been raised.

Notably, this disclosure appeared to give new momentum to the Liberal campaign’s annexation narrative—despite indications that Trump had begun moderating his tone. What CBC’s report did not include, however—if one accepts as credible a subsequent account from National Post columnist John Ivison—was arguably more consequential. Ivison reported that during the same call, Carney assured Trump that the anti-Trump messaging was a strategic necessity, not a personal indictment, and further characterized Trump as a “transformational” leader. In public, Carney framed Trump as a direct threat to Canadian sovereignty. In private, according to this reporting, he extended praise.

The contrast was cemented after the vote.

On April 28, the Liberals secured a strong minority government. Carney celebrated by declaring, “Donald Trump wants to break us, so that America can own us.” But less than a week later, standing beside Trump in the Oval Office, Carney dropped the defiance. He called Trump “transformational,” credited him for tackling fentanyl, and pledged Canada would be a good partner. By mid-May, he confirmed Canada was in talks to join Trump’s “Golden Dome” missile shield.

Notably, the region invoked by Bob Rae’s tweet—the Arctic and Canadian North—sits squarely within the strategic focus of that same U.S. missile defense system. On May 21, China’s foreign ministry lashed out at the Golden Dome project, calling it a threat and urging Washington to abandon it. The Liberal campaign had warned Canadians of U.S. ambitions to seize Canadian land and militarize the Arctic—yet Carney now aligns with the very policy China condemns most. The contradiction is stark, and telling.

The question isn’t whether Trump’s actions posed a real challenge to Canada. His tariffs and rhetoric were aggressive and unprecedented. The question is whether the Carney Liberals exaggerated that threat, weaponized fear, and manipulated public sentiment to win an election—only to reverse course immediately after.

If that’s the case, then a more unsettling question follows: can Mark Carney’s pledges—either to Donald Trump or to the Canadian people—be trusted going forward?

The Canadian people were told they were voting to protect sovereignty. In reality, they voted for a narrative. The real strategy—only visible now—was to create a crisis, stoke national anxiety, and cast Carney as a saviour.

Canada faces real threats: hostile state networks, aggressive election interference from Beijing, economic sabotage, and intellectual property theft. The take-down of Nortel by Huawei still resonates globally as a cautionary tale. Fentanyl trafficking from Canadian soil is rising. At the same time, there is growing consensus that Canada must finally unleash its vast natural resources to strengthen its geopolitical position. What matters now is not whether Mark Carney can win votes—but whether he can govern.

He campaigned on the word build. But we can’t become a superpower on a foundation of disillusionment and trickery.

A cohesive, powerful, unified Canada must be built on clarity. Only fools build on foundations of shifting sand.