Articles Menu
Briefing Note: LNG is a Bad Bet For B.C.
02/03/25
Feb. 2025
SUMMARY
Liquefied natural gas (LNG) has been widely promoted by governments and industry throughout B.C.
as a fix-all solution that will supposedly boost B.C.’s economy, support local jobs, get countries in Asia
off coal, reduce B.C.’s reliance on American energy exports, and lower B.C.’s emissions.
This briefing note explains why LNG is a false solution on all these fronts. It lays out environmental,
health, economic, and electrification concerns, and impacts to First Nations.
RECOMMENDATION
That the B.C. government does not permit or financially support any further expansion of LNG due
to:
- The cost to B.C. households in the form of higher gas and hydro bills;
- A weak economic case in large part due to a glut of LNG global supply now and in the future;
- The risks of stranded assets;
- The close ties of President Trump and his allies to LNG projects in B.C.; and
- A long list of major environmental, health and climate risks.
Environmental Concerns
LNG’s GHG footprint equals or exceeds that of coal.
● LNG is primarily composed of methane, which traps 105 times more heat than CO2 over a
10-year span, which is the natural lifespan of methane in the atmosphere.
● Fugitive methane emissions (leaks) all along the supply chain – from extraction, to
above official reported figures. Considering methane’s potency, even small leakages have
significant warming impacts.
● New peer-reviewed research now indicates that, when considering this full life-cycle analysis,
LNG has a carbon footprint that very often exceeds coal, sometimes by a considerable
margin.
● B.C. aims to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 21 megatons by 2030. If all of the above
projects proceed, B.C.’s domestic emissions will increase by 13 megatons, making that target
unattainable. More importantly, this does not count the downstream (“scope 3”) emissions
from B.C.’s LNG exports. When that LNG reaches its destination and is burned, the above
projects’ GHG emissions would be more than twice B.C.’s annual emissions. The downstream
GHG emissions from either LNG Canada Phase 2 or the proposed Ksi Lisims project would
– on their own – be equivalent to roughly half of B.C.’s total annual emissions.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is environmentally destructive.
● Natural gas is obtained through fracking. As of the end of 2023, fracking in B.C. had used 9.7
billion litres of water per year. Estimates show that number increasing to 16 billion. The
water used for fracking becomes so toxic that it cannot be reintroduced into the water cycle
and must be held indefinitely in tailing ponds.
● In addition to groundwater contamination caused from fracking, proposed LNG
infrastructure will cause massive damage to local watersheds and salmon runs. If built, the
Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline would cut through some of the healthiest intact
salmon watersheds left in B.C. which help feed thousands of families a year.
● Fracking leads to earthquakes. In 2024 alone, the Montney formation (covering northeastern
B.C. and northwestern Alberta) recorded 34 fracking-related earthquakes.
The proposed oil and gas emissions cap is a distraction and a form of greenwashing.
● There is no guarantee that an emissions cap would result in no new LNG plants being
constructed and a decline in gas production.
● The cap only addresses production emissions; the vast majority of emissions occur when
LNG reaches its intended market and is subsequently burned.
● Electrifying LNG production could in fact be worse for the climate than using gas because it
frees up gas that would otherwise be used for production and makes it available for export.
Health Concerns
● There is increasing evidence fracking exposure leads to birth defects, asthma, respiratory
illness, cardiovascular illness, childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia, and even death.
● In B.C.’s Peace Region, where residents live in close proximity to fracking operations, doctors
report staggering rates of glioblastoma and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis in the local
population.
● On account of its health and environmental risks, fracking bans or moratoria have been
enacted in Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, as well as
seven U.S. states and 11 countries.
● If high pressure natural gas ships began docking and transferring cargo in the Howe Sound -
English Bay area, and the Port of Richmond, this would present a massive health risk to local
residents.
Economic Concerns
In the context of the current Canada-US trade war, LNG investment puts MAGA billionaires first.
● LNG in B.C. is being advanced by American investors, many of whom are closely allied with
● Texas-based Western LNG is a key player behind Ksi Lisims and the Prince Rupert Gas
Transmission pipeline. Blackstone Inc., one of Western LNG's main investors, is run by
Republican CEO Steve Schwarzman, who donated more than $39 million to the 2024
presidential race in support of Trump’s agenda and is a close advisor to President Trump.
● B.C. should not be rewarding MAGA billionaires who are planning to take over BC LNG as
part of their strategy to control critical resources in Canada. A large majority (80%) of
Canadians oppose having American companies taking greater ownership of natural resource
projects in Canada.
Exporting LNG will raise domestic gas and BC Hydro prices, worsening affordability impacts for
British Columbians.
● When local ratepayers have to compete with big exporters for a finite supply of either gas or
electricity, the consequence is inevitably an increase in local gas and Hydro bills. Both the
time when British Columbians are already struggling to pay their bills, raising gas and
electricity costs is not the answer. FortisBC bills have already started going up since January
2025.
● In December, U.S. Department of Energy Secretary warned that “unfettered” LNG exports
will raise U.S. domestic gas prices by 30%.
Without substantial government subsidies, LNG projects can’t go ahead.
● LNG Canada has received $6.5 billion in subsidies: this includes $5.34 billion in provincial
subsidies, $275 million from the federal government, and a tariff exemption that will amount
to $1 billion. These costs will rise further if more projects proceed.
The economic case for LNG development is quickly weakening.
● It’s too late for Canada to jump on the LNG export train. Even optimistic timelines show
proposed projects not beginning operations until the end of the decade, when predicted
supply from current LNG producers is already expected to outpace demand. Trump’s recent
lifting of Biden’s pause on LNG exports means supply will be increasing further. The U.S.,
Russia, and Qatar have significant projects under construction or seeking approval; B.C.
simply cannot compete on cost against these other exporters. Qatar is by far the world’s
lowest-cost LNG producer, which is unlikely to change.
● Meanwhile, medium- and long-term natural gas demand forecasts are being consistently
revised downward, while global renewable energy generation capacity is increasing far
● Energy demand growth in key markets such as China is anticipated to slow relative to
previous forecasts, with imports falling in places like Japan and South Korea.
● Volatile LNG prices and construction delays are projected to continue reducing future
Evidence shows that LNG is not replacing coal in its target markets and is instead competing with –
and crowding out – renewable energy.
● Increasing evidence shows that new LNG facilities are diverting scarce financial and clean
decarbonization efforts. LNG is in fact crowding out investment in renewable energy, and
therefore not leading to a decrease in global emissions by replacing coal consumption.
● The 2024 U.S. Department of Energy report “shows a world in which additional U.S. LNG
exports displace more renewables than coal globally.”
● In 2024, the Ads Standards Council ruled that claims that B.C. LNG will reduce greenhouse
gases globally is false advertising.
● Switching from coal to gas power does little to change the overall trajectory of GHG
emissions since increased supply (even when displacing coal) creates a long-term
commitment to fossil fuel infrastructure, displaces investments in renewables and
incentivizes additional consumption of gas. Canadian LNG, as additional supply, is
superfluous and works against the needed energy transition. At the same time, renewables
have matured, becoming reliable and cost-competitive.
● LNG is not a “bridge fuel.” The climate crisis now requires that all jurisdictions leap straight to
renewables.
The precarious business case leads to snowballing economic risks and potential stranded assets.
● All fossil fuel investments, including LNG investments, are subject to risks as energy systems
change and the political terrain shifts. Unfavourable market conditions could create
significant losses for BC’s LNG projects, leading to stranded assets. LNG expansion puts
private investors, public taxpayers, Indigenous partners, workers, and local economies in an
economically precarious position.
● Increasing risks will likely lead to public expenditures and substantial government subsidies,
borne largely by taxpayers. The Site C dam (whose cost ballooned to $16 billion) has already
raised costs for BC Hydro consumers, worsening affordability concerns for British
Columbians.
Impacts to First Nations
● Indigenous consent issues associated with fossil fuel projects are complex. Economic
hardship experienced by many Indigenous communities makes the appeal of such projects
understandable. But in the context of poverty and unemployment, the degree to which
consent is genuinely freely given is an open question.
● Just because one nation supports a project does not mean surrounding nations do. While the
Nisga’a Nation government supports Ksi Lisims LNG, the neighbouring Lax Kw’alaams Nation
has never given their consent for the project (LNG tankers would pass through their
territory). Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs, whose salmon streams will be impacted, have also
not consented.
Electrification Concerns
Electrifying B.C.’s LNG facilities would not reduce overall atmospheric emissions.
● The rationale behind electrifying the cooling process is that the LNG can be labeled “clean”
since carbon emissions were not released during the cooling process. However, if the gas
used to convert natural gas into LNG is no longer needed for the cooling process, it will be
exported instead and burned elsewhere. In other words, in overall atmospheric terms, there
will be zero reduction in LNG’s carbon pollution. It might appear to be ‘clean’ on B.C.’s books,
as Premier Eby stated in a Bloomberg interview in 2024, but this is irrelevant, since the
urgent climate need is to reduce our global carbon pollution, with methane reductions being
most important.
There is no room in B.C.’s energy supply to electrify LNG.
● Electrifying gas production would require significant amounts of clean energy. If all proposed
LNG facilities were to be electrified, they would require the equivalent of 8.4 Site C dams’
worth of capacity. This clean energy will necessarily have to be diverted from decarbonizing
the rest of B.C.’s economy.
CONCLUSION
This briefing note provides evidence as to why LNG expansion is an unfavourable decision for B.C.
Expanding our export capacity will lock in reliance on fossil fuel infrastructure for decades to come,
render our climate targets unreachable, exacerbate the unnatural disasters already harming British
Columbians, raise domestic gas prices once exporting begins, and accentuate health issues due to
fossil gas extraction. The B.C. government should not permit or financially support any further
expansion of LNG.
Prepared by the BC Climate Emergency Campaign and allies. Last updated February 2025.
