Here is the logic behind why Canadians who are concerned about global warming and our environmental future should support the intelligent and responsible construction of pipelines, and increased extraction and distribution of Canadian LNG, particularly to Asian markets, and why doing so is, in fact, critical to achieving global emission reduction targets:
First: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/carbon-emissions-by-country-2022/
This shows carbon emissions by country. Canada represents 1.5% of global emissions. China, by contrast, represents 30.9%, 20x more.
Second: https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_cesd_202311_06_e_44369.html
Canada’s targets are a 40% reduction by 2030. We are currently on track to achieve a 34% reduction.
This shortfall likely will lead to increased pressure to cancel projects related to LNG production and export. This is a critical mistake.
It is interesting that in a world of carbon offsets, where Shopify plants trees each time you place an order, that we continue to see and measure our emissions targets only from a national lens, seemingly oblivious to the interconnected nature of reality. Observe:
A full 50% reduction in Canadian emissions results in a fraction of a percent of global emissions reduction – a full 0.75%.
A 5% reduction in China’s emissions represents a 1.5% reduction to global emissions – a full Canada’s worth.
First of all, viewing the targets only focusing on Canada leads us to aim too low. We should be aiming to enable multiple Canada’s worth of reductions.
Second of all, it penalizes the Canadian economy, middle class and social welfare net, while also encourages continued global reliance on coal, due to the lack of readily available, cost-effective alternatives.
Third: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-asias-biggest-sources-of-electricity-by-country/
Asia is going to be using half the world’s power by 2025, with a third of it being consumed by China.
More than half of Asia’s power (52%) comes from coal. That means, in 2025, fully a quarter of the world’s electricity is going to be generated by coal-fired plants in Asia.
China has been investing in renewables in a faster and larger scale than anyone, with now over 50% of their total capacity potentially coming from renewables(including nuclear). But, this is a theoretical figure that does not reflect shifting weather conditions, and, in fact China actually got 56.2% of its power from coal in 2022. (https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/chinas-installed-non-fossil-fuel-electricity-capacity-exceeds-50-total-2023-06-12/)
Current LNG is 50-60% more efficient vs current coal technology.
“Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide (CO2) than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy”
(https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/natural-gas/natural-gas-and-the-environment.php#:~:text=Burning%20natural%20gas%20for%20energy,an%20equal%20amount%20of%20energy)
So, how much coal-dependence do we need to offset before Canada is fully carbon neutral?
56% of China’s power comes from coal. To keep it simple, let’s say call it half. LNG is at least 50% better for the environment than coal. China has 20x Canada’s emissions. A 10% conversion of China’s total power from coal to LNG, representing a conversion of 20% of their coal capacity, creates a 5% reduction in reduction in their emissions, which equals 1 Canada worth of pollutants – not even taking into account the more caustic nature of the emissions from coal vs LNG.
Now, that is not a small amount of work to achieve. However, the market is larger than just China. It’s all of Asia, or at least India, and the pacific-coast Asian nations. With half of Asian power coming from coal, there are many, many countries who will be or should be converting plants over the next decade, who will require a reliable source of LNG.
And they will get it. One way or another the demand will be filled. The other major player in LNG in Asia that comes to mind is Russia. Their environmental standards for industry are lacking, compared to Canada’s. (https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/russian-federation/policies-action/#:~:text=In%20June%202021%2C%20Russia%20adopted,report%20their%20emissions%20from%202024.)
There are no enforced quotas, unambitious targets, and they are at step one – getting companies to report their emissions levels. I suppose in fairness, this website also gives Canada a highly insufficient rating, particularly because of our oil and gas extraction – the assessment seems to suffer the same nation-based myopia I am decrying here, but, it at least notes that our policies have led to a downward trend in emissions, whereas Russian emissions are increasing.
Now, before we jump into the economic implications of this, will take one second to point out that Russia, compared to Canada is an aggressor state, having started multiple military engagements with various bordering countries. If the gas has to come out of the ground to service the needs that people have – and people NEED reliable energy production – then I would rather have it come from a country with better environmental protections, and with less likelihood to use the proceeds to fund war in the world.
That aside though, LNG sells for significantly more – like 2.5 to 8 times more, depending on the country – in Asian markets than it does in Canada: https://www.canadianenergycentre.ca/reliable-cleaner-and-cheaper-canadas-lng-opportunity-in-the-asia-pacific-natural-gas-market
Also, prices in Europe are significantly higher, and we lack the infrastructure to provide supply:
“Simply put, despite producing 16.1 billion cubic feet of natural gas each day, Canada does not have any LNG export facilities—an astonishing fact for such a resource-rich country. According to Natural Resources Canada, 18 LNG export facility projects have been proposed in Canada since 2011 (specifically, 13 in British Columbia, two in Quebec and three in Nova Scotia). One export facility in B.C. is under construction. For comparison, between 2014 and 2020, the U.S. built seven LNG export facilities and approved 20 more (five are currently under construction).” No surprise that the Fraser Institute blames Canada’s arduous regulatory process, but, you can’t hand-wave away the above stats either. We are actively avoiding this, and pushing higher prices to other suppliers.
Instead of enriching Middle Eastern monarchs with questionable human rights policies, we should be embracing this opportunity to ease global emissions, enrich our nation, enabling it to build needed infrastructure, and provide opportunity to the middle and working classes, who would greatly benefit from the roll out of well-paying, steady jobs in industry.
This is a great article: https://boereport.com/2022/11/08/column-mexico-is-leapfrogging-canada-in-the-lng-export-race-by-pulling-gas-from-the-pool-canada-exports-into-why-are-not-good-at-these-things/
As of March 2022, Mexico had 12 LNG export projects in early stages, with 5 under construction. What this article points out is that the pipelines exist to move Canadian natural gas down to Mexico, through Mexican ports, for export. It also points out that this would cause the Canadian government and economy to miss out on the lion’s share of the economic benefits of exporting the gas.
Here’s another from the same source that highlights just what a boon to Canadian health & general infrastructure the export taxes would provide:
Now, prices in Japan have dropped from last year’s high, but are still ~6x Canadian prices per the earlier article. So, instead of 100,000 nurses per month that he claims you could hire may only be 50,000. Instead of a new mega hospital per month with funds to spare, that hospital may take 5 weeks to pay for.
Huge amounts of critical infrastructure that we need built, from high speed trains to water purification and delivery, to hospitals, are waiting to be paid for by this simple and sensible action. Hell, maybe we could also get a solid public option, $10/day assisted living for seniors, just like we got for the daycares. Because old age costs are going to be killer for all of us.
To sum up, exporting Canadian LNG to global markets will improve our long term environmental prospects, and also our immediate needs as a country. This is probably one of the single best opportunities our country has, and we should take it.
Further reading:
https://www.progressivepolicy.org/publication/the-climate-case-for-expanding-us-natural-gas-exports/ says China’s coal footprint is larger than thought due to poor environmental controls of methane gas, and further highlights the potential for environmental improvents by switching to LNG (written from a US perspective)
And
https://thetyee.ca/News/2023/03/16/BC-LNG-Green/
Here’s an article that disagrees with my premise. Though, their expert does say LNG would be a net decrease over the next 100 years, they say in the first 20 it would lead to an increase, by claiming LNG proponents have not properly factored in the upstream environmental impacts of LNG production into the environmental comparison vs using Chinese coal. …And then fails to consider any of those same upstream impacts that comes from coal mining and production. He also fails to consider potential near-term advances in transport technology ( https://www.zdnet.com/article/an-oil-supertanker-powered-by-solar-and-wind/)
He also makes the point that LNG may not offset only coal based emissions, saying the country is as energy hungry as it gets. But, fact is access to increased supply of LNG would allow them to consider mothballing their older, less efficient plants, and it would make no economic or environmental sense for them to keep the old coal plants but get rid of the new ones or windmills.
The climate activist thinks having LNG facilities that will last 50 years or more is a bad idea and that we’d be better to run coal for “a couple more years before replacing it with renewable energy” I mean, I’m not sure how he thinks that’s going to work, but I appreciate his optimism on a speedy rollout of new tech. At a minimum he must mean ‘at least 2 more decades’ and, as we learned before from China, having the capacity doesn’t guarantee the output. We’ll get there eventually through one method or another, but a realistic plan spans several decades, and starts with phasing out coal, which is the number one contributor. In 50 years, maybe the world will be in a place where we can also wean ourselves off of LNG, but that certainly isn’t going to happen in the 2020s, nor in the 2030s. Too much of the world lives in conditions that are not like Canada. Just look at the riots in Sri Lanka and the Netherlands. People’s food and energy security comes before their environmental concerns 100 out of 100 times. It has been so long since most of us have experienced either that it’s easy to forget.
This is a GLOBAL warming problem. Not a Canadian warming problem.
Cheers!