A new report commissioned by the David Suzuki Foundation declared producing LNG in Canada and shipping it abroad will increase the likelihood of missed emissions targets and exacerbate the climate crisis, even if it replaces coal..“In light of the overwhelming evidence, fracked methane gas should not be granted a special privilege in the energy transition. It remains a fossil fuel with unacceptable climate impacts, and its continued production will delay and impede the transition to emissions-free sources of clean energy,” foundation senior climate policy adviser Tom Green said..Burning Bridge: Debunking LNG as a Climate Solution, written by Daniel Horen Greenford, opposes claims LNG is a bridge fuel. The press release claims “despite a full-court marketing and lobbying press from industry, LNG is neither a bridge fuel nor a climate solution.”.The report claims due to the Paris Agreement Canadian LNG will likely become superfluous, and the capital investment in Canadian LNG terminals could become major stranded assets..“There is no way to guarantee gas exported as LNG will displace coal, since it could equally add to existing energy supply to meet rising demand or displace renewables. Both outcomes mean a net increase in global emissions and a hit to climate action,” Green said..The report predicts LNG will return to pre–Ukraine invasion prices after the war is over, making Canadian firms uncompetitive late entrants and less likely to secure contracts. The report likens maximizing B.C. gas exports as short-term thinking with long-term negative consequences, alleging the billions of dollars sunk into gas pipelines and LNG terminals may never be recovered..“Drilling and fracking more gas wells, expanding the network of pipelines, building more LNG terminals and increasing the number of trans-Pacific LNG cargo voyages are dangerous distractions from the direct route to a carbon-free energy system,” reads the Suzuki Foundation Press release..“Canadian LNG is not part of a credible energy transition, regardless of any marginal improvements in emissions intensity gained through terminal electrification. A growing body of research, including this report, shows the need for an immediate transition away from gas that does not allow for expanded LNG export capacity.”.Environmentalists opposed LNG as a bridge fuel for at least five years and were refuted just as long ago. In 2018, Forbes contributor Robert Rapier wrote the US and UK dropped their carbon emissions dramatically since 2000, as natural gas production doubled to replace coal..“At the same time China, by contrast, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by a whopping 6.8 billion metric tons per year, primarily a result of ~170% increases in both oil and coal consumption,” wrote Rapier..“Thus, those who wish to debate whether natural gas should be a bridge between a coal-fired past and a renewable future are missing the point. It is already serving as that bridge.”.A recent report by the Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found China built about two coal-fired power plants every week. That's is four times as many coal-fired power plants in 2022 as the year before, and six times as much as the rest of the world. .In a March 2 report by National Public Radio in the US, analysts said last year’s heat wave in China dried up rivers and hydroelectric power sources and the nation is looking for affordable ways to provide base-level energy supplies.
A new report commissioned by the David Suzuki Foundation declared producing LNG in Canada and shipping it abroad will increase the likelihood of missed emissions targets and exacerbate the climate crisis, even if it replaces coal..“In light of the overwhelming evidence, fracked methane gas should not be granted a special privilege in the energy transition. It remains a fossil fuel with unacceptable climate impacts, and its continued production will delay and impede the transition to emissions-free sources of clean energy,” foundation senior climate policy adviser Tom Green said..Burning Bridge: Debunking LNG as a Climate Solution, written by Daniel Horen Greenford, opposes claims LNG is a bridge fuel. The press release claims “despite a full-court marketing and lobbying press from industry, LNG is neither a bridge fuel nor a climate solution.”.The report claims due to the Paris Agreement Canadian LNG will likely become superfluous, and the capital investment in Canadian LNG terminals could become major stranded assets..“There is no way to guarantee gas exported as LNG will displace coal, since it could equally add to existing energy supply to meet rising demand or displace renewables. Both outcomes mean a net increase in global emissions and a hit to climate action,” Green said..The report predicts LNG will return to pre–Ukraine invasion prices after the war is over, making Canadian firms uncompetitive late entrants and less likely to secure contracts. The report likens maximizing B.C. gas exports as short-term thinking with long-term negative consequences, alleging the billions of dollars sunk into gas pipelines and LNG terminals may never be recovered..“Drilling and fracking more gas wells, expanding the network of pipelines, building more LNG terminals and increasing the number of trans-Pacific LNG cargo voyages are dangerous distractions from the direct route to a carbon-free energy system,” reads the Suzuki Foundation Press release..“Canadian LNG is not part of a credible energy transition, regardless of any marginal improvements in emissions intensity gained through terminal electrification. A growing body of research, including this report, shows the need for an immediate transition away from gas that does not allow for expanded LNG export capacity.”.Environmentalists opposed LNG as a bridge fuel for at least five years and were refuted just as long ago. In 2018, Forbes contributor Robert Rapier wrote the US and UK dropped their carbon emissions dramatically since 2000, as natural gas production doubled to replace coal..“At the same time China, by contrast, increased its carbon dioxide emissions by a whopping 6.8 billion metric tons per year, primarily a result of ~170% increases in both oil and coal consumption,” wrote Rapier..“Thus, those who wish to debate whether natural gas should be a bridge between a coal-fired past and a renewable future are missing the point. It is already serving as that bridge.”.A recent report by the Global Energy Monitor and the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air found China built about two coal-fired power plants every week. That's is four times as many coal-fired power plants in 2022 as the year before, and six times as much as the rest of the world. .In a March 2 report by National Public Radio in the US, analysts said last year’s heat wave in China dried up rivers and hydroelectric power sources and the nation is looking for affordable ways to provide base-level energy supplies.
