SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Scientists Say Canada's Proposed LNG Port Threatens Paris Climate Accord
The British Columbia project 'will emit at least 11.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year, not including downstream emissions when the gas is burned in Asia'
May 30, 2016
Ninety climate change experts from around the world urged Canadian government officials to "take urgent action" and reject a proposed, "unjustified" liquid natural gas (LNG) export terminal to be built on the British Columbia coast, joining with fierce local Indigenous opposition to the controversial project.
"The carbon emissions of the proposed PNW LNG terminal and associated upstream natural gas development would be 'high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.'"
In an open letter (pdf) dated Thursday, the scientists warned "that the B.C. project would belch out emissions rivaling a large plant in Alberta'soil sands," the Globe and Mail reported Monday.
The export terminal, known as the Pacific Northwest LNG (PNW LNG) project, "poses serious risks" to the Canada's climate change commitments--particularly those made at last year's Paris accord, the scientists argue:
The challenges to BC and Canada's efforts to reduce GHG emissions will be exacerbated because of two issues: 1) the international agreement on climate change reached in Paris will require Canada to increase its ambition to reduce GHG emissions over time (and this requirement is embedded within the Vancouver Declaration signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers on March 3); and 2) the methane emissions from upstream gas included in the draft Environmental Assessment report likely underestimate the true contribution of emissions from the project.
Point by point, the letter writers critique proponents' arguments in favor of the PNW LNG project. The experts note that:
- GHG emissions from the project are likely underestimated.
- There is inadequate climate policy to reduce impacts for the project.
- There is no evidence that LNG from the project will replace coal in Asia.
On this last point, the scientists also note that "LNG will also likely displace nuclear power, renewables, and natural gas from other sources in many importing countries. There are many locations where LNG consumption would be additional to coal consumption, instead of replacing it. Importantly, GHG emissions from fracking, transport, liquefaction, and regasification significantly reduce LNG's GHG benefits over coal."
Moreover, the letter continues:
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has found that the carbon emissions of the proposed PNW LNG terminal and associated upstream natural gas development would be "high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent." Their research finds the project will emit at least 11.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year, not including downstream emissions when the gas is burned in Asia.
Finally, the scientists put forth an argument seemingly applicable to many fossil fuel projects being debated in North America today:
"Honoring the commitment Canada made in Paris to limit global warming to well below 2.0 degrees above pre-industrial levels will require a massive effort to reduce emissions," the letter concludes. "We must begin by rejecting plans that would increase GHG emissions and lock us in fossil fuel extraction for decades to come."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Ninety climate change experts from around the world urged Canadian government officials to "take urgent action" and reject a proposed, "unjustified" liquid natural gas (LNG) export terminal to be built on the British Columbia coast, joining with fierce local Indigenous opposition to the controversial project.
"The carbon emissions of the proposed PNW LNG terminal and associated upstream natural gas development would be 'high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.'"
In an open letter (pdf) dated Thursday, the scientists warned "that the B.C. project would belch out emissions rivaling a large plant in Alberta'soil sands," the Globe and Mail reported Monday.
The export terminal, known as the Pacific Northwest LNG (PNW LNG) project, "poses serious risks" to the Canada's climate change commitments--particularly those made at last year's Paris accord, the scientists argue:
The challenges to BC and Canada's efforts to reduce GHG emissions will be exacerbated because of two issues: 1) the international agreement on climate change reached in Paris will require Canada to increase its ambition to reduce GHG emissions over time (and this requirement is embedded within the Vancouver Declaration signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers on March 3); and 2) the methane emissions from upstream gas included in the draft Environmental Assessment report likely underestimate the true contribution of emissions from the project.
Point by point, the letter writers critique proponents' arguments in favor of the PNW LNG project. The experts note that:
- GHG emissions from the project are likely underestimated.
- There is inadequate climate policy to reduce impacts for the project.
- There is no evidence that LNG from the project will replace coal in Asia.
On this last point, the scientists also note that "LNG will also likely displace nuclear power, renewables, and natural gas from other sources in many importing countries. There are many locations where LNG consumption would be additional to coal consumption, instead of replacing it. Importantly, GHG emissions from fracking, transport, liquefaction, and regasification significantly reduce LNG's GHG benefits over coal."
Moreover, the letter continues:
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has found that the carbon emissions of the proposed PNW LNG terminal and associated upstream natural gas development would be "high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent." Their research finds the project will emit at least 11.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year, not including downstream emissions when the gas is burned in Asia.
Finally, the scientists put forth an argument seemingly applicable to many fossil fuel projects being debated in North America today:
"Honoring the commitment Canada made in Paris to limit global warming to well below 2.0 degrees above pre-industrial levels will require a massive effort to reduce emissions," the letter concludes. "We must begin by rejecting plans that would increase GHG emissions and lock us in fossil fuel extraction for decades to come."
Ninety climate change experts from around the world urged Canadian government officials to "take urgent action" and reject a proposed, "unjustified" liquid natural gas (LNG) export terminal to be built on the British Columbia coast, joining with fierce local Indigenous opposition to the controversial project.
"The carbon emissions of the proposed PNW LNG terminal and associated upstream natural gas development would be 'high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent.'"
In an open letter (pdf) dated Thursday, the scientists warned "that the B.C. project would belch out emissions rivaling a large plant in Alberta'soil sands," the Globe and Mail reported Monday.
The export terminal, known as the Pacific Northwest LNG (PNW LNG) project, "poses serious risks" to the Canada's climate change commitments--particularly those made at last year's Paris accord, the scientists argue:
The challenges to BC and Canada's efforts to reduce GHG emissions will be exacerbated because of two issues: 1) the international agreement on climate change reached in Paris will require Canada to increase its ambition to reduce GHG emissions over time (and this requirement is embedded within the Vancouver Declaration signed by the Prime Minister and the premiers on March 3); and 2) the methane emissions from upstream gas included in the draft Environmental Assessment report likely underestimate the true contribution of emissions from the project.
Point by point, the letter writers critique proponents' arguments in favor of the PNW LNG project. The experts note that:
- GHG emissions from the project are likely underestimated.
- There is inadequate climate policy to reduce impacts for the project.
- There is no evidence that LNG from the project will replace coal in Asia.
On this last point, the scientists also note that "LNG will also likely displace nuclear power, renewables, and natural gas from other sources in many importing countries. There are many locations where LNG consumption would be additional to coal consumption, instead of replacing it. Importantly, GHG emissions from fracking, transport, liquefaction, and regasification significantly reduce LNG's GHG benefits over coal."
Moreover, the letter continues:
The Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency has found that the carbon emissions of the proposed PNW LNG terminal and associated upstream natural gas development would be "high in magnitude, continuous, irreversible and global in extent." Their research finds the project will emit at least 11.5 million tonnes of CO2 per year, not including downstream emissions when the gas is burned in Asia.
Finally, the scientists put forth an argument seemingly applicable to many fossil fuel projects being debated in North America today:
"Honoring the commitment Canada made in Paris to limit global warming to well below 2.0 degrees above pre-industrial levels will require a massive effort to reduce emissions," the letter concludes. "We must begin by rejecting plans that would increase GHG emissions and lock us in fossil fuel extraction for decades to come."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.