CALGARY Canada is on the verge of sending its first liquefied natural gas (LNG) cargoes to Asia, a move that is both celebrated and met with skepticism regarding its potential impact on global emissions reductions. During an interview at the Global Energy Show in Calgary, Shell Canada country chair Stastia West emphasized the importance of cleaner energy, expressing optimism about LNG’s role in promoting global environmental health.
Shell, in partnership with four Asian companies, is developing LNG Canada in Kitimat, B.C., which is the first facility dedicated to exporting Canadian gas in a liquefied state across the Pacific. Alongside this project, several other LNG initiatives are either underway or in the planning stages on the British Columbia coast.
Alberta Premier Danielle Smith has advocated that Canadian oil and gas exports could act as an "antidote" in the face of current geopolitical instability. She stated that exporting more natural gas would support nations in their transition from higher-emission energy sources like coal. Smith referenced a Fraser Institute study that suggests a potential doubling of Canadian natural gas production and subsequent exports to Asia could lead to annual emissions reductions of up to 630 million tonnes. This figure, she pointed out, represents nearly 90 percent of Canada’s total greenhouse gas emissions annually.
The Fraser Institute study's authors, Elmira Aliakbari and Julio Mejía, argued that the ability of Canada to reduce emissions globally should be considered within its climate policy framework. They advocated for a shift in focus from domestic emissions reductions to enhancing Canada’s capacity to achieve worldwide greenhouse gas reductions through expanded LNG exports.
Despite these assertions, some experts present a more nuanced perspective. Kent Fellows, an assistant professor of economics at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, acknowledged that while there could be some emissions reductions if Canadian LNG displaces coal abroad, the overall impact is uncertain. He noted that a significant portion of Canadian exports might replace other sources of natural gas, such as those from Russia and the Middle East, which could neutralize any potential benefits. Fellows stressed that LNG is more energy-intensive compared to pipeline transportation, due to the need for liquefaction and maritime transport.
In China’s energy landscape, there exists a strong demand for all energy types. Rather than exclusively displacing coal, it is likely that LNG will simply contribute to an already diverse energy mix. Fellows remarked that considerations of emissions must be broader than a binary "coal vs. gas" framework.
A senior analyst with Investors for Paris Compliance expressed skepticism regarding developing countries, such as India, transitioning from locally sourced coal to imported Canadian gas. Michael Sambasivam pointed out the cost limitations, stating that Canadian gas is significantly more expensive, and suggested that substantial subsidies would be needed to incentivize such a switch. Furthermore, he remarked on the considerable infrastructural investment that would be necessary to accommodate LNG, including the construction of import terminals and the retrofitting of power plants.
Sambasivam also emphasized that LNG's real competition lies with renewable energy sources. If any emissions reductions were to occur due to a switch from coal to gas, he argued that it would be problematic for a Canadian company to claim credit for those reductions, as both parties involved would likely seek to account for the emissions savings.
The issue of emissions also raises ethical questions. Devyani Singh, an investigative researcher at Stand.earth, criticized the notion that LNG is a clean energy alternative. She highlighted the considerable climate impacts associated with the production, liquefaction, and transportation of natural gas, particularly the methane leaks that occur during these processes, which significantly contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.
In light of these discussions, Singh believes that characterizing LNG as a transitional or bridge fuel is misleading, arguing instead that the current moment requires a decisive shift away from such fuels. She insisted that we are currently in a climate crisis that necessitates urgent action beyond transitional solutions, reinforcing the need for a more serious commitment to renewable energy sources.
This evolving dialogue surrounding LNG illustrates the complexities of energy transitions in a global context where economic, environmental, and infrastructural considerations are deeply interwoven.
