Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) has long been promoted as a cleaner fuel that can be a bridge between the phaseout of fossil fuels and the dawn of renewable energy to mitigate climate change. The industry argues that Canadian gas, when exported to coal-burning countries, will replace their coal, which is a dirty, carbon-intensive fuel. They advocate for the industry to receive carbon credits for lowering worldwide carbon emissions. According to the industry, LNG is also a major driver of the Canadian economy, providing good jobs.
Before scrutinizing industry propaganda, it is important to know what Liquified Natural Gas is. So-called natural gas is mostly methane, a potent greenhouse gas. When burned, methane produces CO2; however, when it gets into the atmosphere unburned, through leaks, it is much worse than CO2. In fact, over a 20-year time frame, the greenhouse effect of methane is 84 times more potent than CO2.
Most of Canada’s gas comes from hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.” The process involves pumping mud, water and chemicals deep into sedimentary rocks to create enough pressure to release the gas. To transport gas overseas, it’s liquified to -160 degrees C, then loaded onto tankers and shipped markets in the U.S. and Asia. Once the LNG arrives, the process is reversed and the gas is reheated for use. A massive amount of energy is required to cool, ship and heat the gas, with about 15 percent of the gas wasted along the way. When emissions from production, leaks, waste, and use are combined, LNG’s climate footprint becomes larger than coal.
Myths and Facts about LNG
Myth
LNG is a low-carbon fuel that significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Fact
While it burns cleaner than coal and oil at the point of combustion, when we include emissions from extraction, transportation, and leaks, LNG’s climate impacts are worse than coal.
Myth
LNG facilities provide considerable long-term jobs and ensure local economic prosperity.
Fact
Most jobs are temporary construction roles; long-term operational jobs are far fewer, and often go to specialized workers from outside the local area. The industry also receives massive government subsidies, and cost overruns are common. For example, the Canada LNG Phase 1 terminal in Kitmat, British Columbia started with an estimate of $5 billion; after 10 years of work, costs have ballooned to $40 billion. Most of Canada’s gas sector is owned by five foreign companies: Shell (Britain) , Petro China (China), Petronas (Malaysia), Mitsubishi (Japan), and KOGAS (Korea). The profits go to executives and shareholders in the investing countries instead of local economies.
Myth
Canada’s LNG is an ethical, low emissions, safe, and sustainable source of energy.
Facts
The LNG industry often just reports emissions from extraction and burning. Fugitive emissions from flares and pipeline leaks are not accounted for, and the industry has a history of under-reporting methane leaks. Leaks of 1-3% are typical across the LNG sector, and the advantage of LNG over coal breaks down when leaks are greater than 1%.
Industry scientists misrepresent the warming potential of fracked gas by talking about its effect over 100 years. This is deceptive, because methane’s warming effects are much higher in the first 20 years – about 84 times more than CO2. (This also means that reducing methane emissions can reverse the negative impacts of global warming in a shorter time frame than reducing CO2.)
Transporting natural gas through pipelines and in massive tankers is not completely safe either. While non-explosive in its liquid form, fires and explosions have occurred at the terminal sites, highlighting inherent risks. In addition, an LNG spill can cause flash freezing due to extreme cold, hurting marine life.
Myth
Since LNG provides jobs on Indigenous lands, it will contribute to Indigenous peoples’ economic prosperity and lead to reconciliation.
Facts
Although some Indigenous communities have embraced fossil fuel projects and the promise of jobs, most have been opposed. Indigenous people’s livelihood is threatened when pipelines cross sensitive habitats, and massive tankers pose a risk to marine ecosystems.
Toxic chemicals and emissions from LNG contribute to higher rates of respiratory illness, asthma, childhood leukemia, heart disease, and birth defects. The Canadian Association for the Environment (CAPE) has gathered health data in Indigenous communities and has petitioned the government to stop supporting LNG. One physician, Dr. Ulrike Meyer from Dawson Creek, BC remarked “It’s unconscionable for the federal government to greenlight LNG Canada Phase 2 without regard for the devastating health impacts on our communities.”
Myth
Since LNG is a safer alternative to coal, it can act as a bridge fuel to renewable sources of energy.
Fact
This argument may have made some sense twenty years ago when renewable energy was sporadic and very expensive and the climate crisis seemed distant. But today, renewables are cheaper and more abundant, storage batteries are available, and the climate crisis demands urgent action. It is shortsighted for our government to still be throwing money at LNG, a climate-wrecking fossil fuel.
The International Energy Agency, which was promoting LNG a decade ago, has warned recently that the demand for oil and gas will peak between 2028 and 2032, and then start to decline rapidly. New pipelines and export terminals take over a decade to build.
Stephen Legault from Alberta Energy Transition states aptly, “How about we make money building the future rather than throwing cash into the money pit of stranded investments and declining industrial sectors?”
Main sources
Environmental Defence
Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment
Canadian Association of Nurses for the Environment
