This week’s column for 24Hrs Vancouver: Changing the rules doesn’t make LNG ‘clean’ energy

Yes, yes, yes, I know I’ve teased you with hints of the post on the BC NDP, and a couple other gems, but I’ve come down sick with a nasty head cold and cough that makes me feel like my brain is cotton.  Thankfully,I managed to get this weeks column done just as I was starting to get sick, but that’s going to be it for a day or two until this passes.

This week, Brent and I debate this question” Are LNG profits worth the trade-offs in B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions targets?

I say no, but this is a tricky question to debate  because as the narrative gets pushed along that burning LNG is dirty, so begins the push for Site C and other ‘clean’ projects – regardless if they could even be constructed in time to run any LNG plants on Clarks timeline. Therein lies the real danger of these debates.

 

The BC Liberals, under the leadership of former premier Gordon Campbell, passed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act in 2007, requiring the province reduce emissions by at least 33% by 2020.

A lofty goal, and one the province has adhered to. Now Premier Christy Clark and her liquefied natural gas dreams could change all that.

Clark has found herself under fire from critics over her claims that B.C.’s proposed LNG facilities will be the cleanest in the world. In fact, she has gone as far as saying they will do the world a “favour,” a comment predicated on her theory that exported B.C. LNG could replace the use of coal in China, thereby reducing world air pollution.

Like all things that seem too good to be true, her claims of B.C. having the cleanest LNG facilities in the world one day are as premature and foolhardy as her assertions about related job creation and profits.

The Clark government knows that natural gas would most likely be needed to power the proposed LNG plants. Knowing this, the Clean Energy Act was changed in 2012 — meaning from that point on any natural gas burned to fuel LNG plants was to be considered “clean energy.” In fact, it is anything but clean.

Read Brent Stafford’s column

 

READ the rest of this weeks column, and vote for whom you think should win this weeks debate here: http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2013/11/24/changing-the-rules-doesnt-make-lng-clean-energy

6 thoughts on “This week’s column for 24Hrs Vancouver: Changing the rules doesn’t make LNG ‘clean’ energy

  1. Hugh

    Exporting LNG from BC makes no sense to me. If BC has abundant natural gas, we ought to use it here in BC. Cars, trucks, buses and trains can all be converted to run on natural gas. Doing that would reduce our reliance on gasoline and diesel, much of which (I believe) is sourced from the Alberta oil sands.

    Producing the LNG would require the burning of lots of natural gas, which means lots of emissions. It would also use of a lot of power from BC Hydro. Wasting precious, clean, renewable hydro power to produce LNG is insane. LNG export would necessitate Site C, which would flood agricultural land and cost BC Hydro over $8 billion. This is when BC Hydro is already carrying a huge debt load.

    There is also the additional emissions from the ships which would transport the LNG from BC across the Pacific Ocean to Asia. Then there is the issue of fracking, where huge amounts of fresh water is polluted in the process of extracting the natural gas.

    The idea that we would be “doing the world a favour” by exporting LNG is highly offensive.

    Like

  2. Hugh

    Also, Brent mentions 130,000 new jobs from LNG. Sound like BS. How many people would actually work in an LNG plant?

    How about all the jobs created if we start converting vehicles to natural gas in BC?

    Like

  3. Eliza Olson

    Laila, you asked for ideas, comments in 24hours for topics. This would be a good time to do an article about non-profits and their benefits to the community and the economy. You may even wish to check out Imagine Canada and some of their reports about non-profits.

    So many people think that non-profits can run on air. The best reply I have ever heard was one to a donor who said that she didn’t want any of her money going to administration. The representative for this organization replied, “we can do that but the doctors and nurses will have to operate in the dark!”

    Did you know that environmental organizations and arts organizations only receive about 2-3% of all donations!

    Just some thoughts.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s