Three Musts If BC Wants to Ship Gas to Asia

How to minimize climate harm from British Columbia's liquefied natural gas aspirations.

By Matt Horne, 17 Dec 2012, TheTyee.ca


Artist's rendition of proposed LNG plant in Kitimat, B.C. Source: Apache Canada.





If the province closed this loophole, the carbon tax would apply to upwards of 87 per cent of the emissions from extracting and processing natural gas -- up from the current 63 per cent.

— M.H.

The greenhouse gas pollution produced by the wells, pipelines, processing plants and liquefaction facilities needed to fulfil British Columbia's liquefied natural gas (LNG) aspirations will make it impossible for the province to meet its climate change commitments. Yet, the province says it still intends to "maintain leadership on climate change and clean energy."

Having trouble squaring that circle? You wouldn't be alone.



In an ideal world, B.C.'s political leaders would decide that exporting LNG is not in the province or planet's interests. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world and, as is so often the case with climate change, we try to make the best of a bad situation. There are ways to minimize the impacts from LNG development but, for that to happen, the current conversation about "climate leadership" needs a serious reality check.

1. Limit the emissions in BC as much as possible

How many plants actually get built is anybody's guess. Let's assume the province exports about half the LNG it hopes to -- a volume of LNG (20 million tonnes) that is equivalent to the initial phases of the Petronas (8 million tonnes) and Shell (12 million tonnes) proposals. Based on current policies in B.C., the emissions from extracting, processing, transporting and liquefying the gas would produce 17 million tonnes of emissions per year -- enough to consume 44 per cent of the province's total targeted emissions for 2020.


One option that has seen some public discussion is using renewable energy to power the liquefaction plants. First Nation communities have been debating this issue, while Minister Coleman recently said it would be up to the proponents to decide -- which would very likely lead to a heavy reliance on gas.



If we did all of this, the increase in emissions in B.C. would still make the province's climate targets unachievable, but the jump in emissions would be cut nearly in half.

2. Invest the value of the carbon in climate solutions


For argument sake, let's say proponents were put on notice that the carbon tax will increase to $70 per tonne by 2020 and that it will apply to all of the emissions from the LNG plants, pipelines, processing plants and wells that can be accurately measured (see sidebar). This is easily plausible by the end of the decade. For example, Norway's carbon tax will be $71 per tonne for offshore oil and gas producers in 2013 and Australia's carbon tax already applies a similar level of coverage.

Under this scenario, annual carbon tax revenue from the LNG development would be between $608 million and $1.1 billion depending on how much was done to limit emissions increases. Added up over 20 years of operation, that's between $3.3 and $9.7 billion more than if the carbon tax stays at the status quo $30 per tonne -- a hefty chunk of change that could be invested in climate solutions.


Revenue from a $70 per tonne carbon tax would be between $608 million and $1.1 billion depending on how much was done to limit emissions increases (based on 20 million tonnes of LNG per year).


3. Take responsibility for exported emissions




Is the bar still too low?

Limiting the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, maximizing the value from the remaining emissions, and taking responsibility for the exported emissions would lessen the climate blow of B.C.'s LNG aspirations. While each may seem like a tall order, it is important to remember that combined they may still fall far short of what is needed to help prevent dangerous climate change.


The analysis cited in this op-ed is available here.  [Tyee]

Read more: Energy, Environment,



  • Verify facts, debunk rumours
  • Add context and background
  • Spot typos and logical fallacies
  • Highlight reporting blind spots
  • Ignore trolls
  • Treat all with respect and curiosity
  • Connect with each other

Do not:

  • Use sexist, classist, racist or homophobic language
  • Libel or defame
  • Bully or troll
  • Troll patrol. Instead, flag suspect activity.
comments powered by Disqus