Clearcut logging and climate change: Problems and solutions

Dangers of clearcut logging

Photo: Eli Pivnick

Clearcut logging near Lumby in 2023.

Climate change is accelerating.

For the last 15 years, due to the increasingly unhealthy state of our forests, forest greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been approximately equal to all other reported GHGs in B.C. In fact, in the last three worst fire seasons, forest GHGs have far exceeded all our other emissions, based on the B.C. government’s own data.

In the past, B.C. forests stored carbon, on balance. Something needs to change and that something is clearcut logging.

Clearcut logging involves the removal of a mature stand of trees, which would otherwise sequester large amounts of carbon every year. Afterward logging, the amount of carbon sequestration is severely reduced for decades. Clearcut logging destroys understory plants and compacts the soil, killing much of the soil bacteria and fungi. That means the forest soil that the new tree growth will depend on will be severely depleted. As a result, tree growth is slower and trees are less healthy.

Clearcut logging also dries out the land. There are no old, decaying logs left. Those logs are not only important food and shelter for many animals, plants and the soil flora, they act like sponges to hold moisture and reduce drying of the land. After clear cutting, there are no trees to hold back moisture, so snow melt and precipitation run off more quickly, causing both floods and landslides in the spring.

There is also no shade, so the ground temperature is much higher, which increases evaporation, and dries out the land causing droughts and fire vulnerability.

In recent years, the B.C. government was successfully sued by landowners because of landslides and flooding due to reckless logging practices. Long standing guidelines from the Ministry of Forests are no more than between 20% and 30% of forested land should be logged within a 60-year to 80-year time span to maintain a healthy hydrological cycle. That guideline is not the law and has been routinely ignored by government ministries and the logging industry.

Clearcut logging is generally followed by tree planting of conifer species. That is still followed with herbicide spraying in B.C., although that practice is used less than in the past. Herbicide spraying kills broadleaf trees and shrubs.

A recent Canadian study by researchers in the Maritimes showed a more species-diverse forest in Canada can store more carbon than the kinds of forests left behind after clearcutting. Additionally, broadleaf trees (cottonwood, aspen, birch, alder and willow), because they are less flammable than conifers and hold more moisture, can slow, and even stop, wildfires.

Salvage logging after insect infestation or forest fires is another form of clear cut logging. After such damage, there is still a functioning forest ecosystem. That is because the soil is not compacted and because not all trees are damaged. Even dead trees are important. The surviving trees are valuable because they may have characteristics that make them less susceptible to insects or fire and can help restore the ecosystem.

Not only do some animals, birds and insects thrive in damaged forests but the forests will recover faster if left alone. Witness the massive production of edible morels in the spring after a fire in the forest. I visited the fire-damaged forest in West Kelowna in 2024, the spring after the fire. I found a mule deer buck grazing on new green growth, a gopher snake curled up in a hollow at the base of a burned tree and several woodpeckers looking for grubs in tree trunks.

If clearcut logging is so detrimental, why is it used so extensively?

In a word, profit. Logging is much faster with no, or few, trees in the way that must be left behind. That also means bigger machines can be used. Because of both of those factors, labour costs are lower. Fewer jobs and faster work means more profit.

The number of jobs in the forest industry has declined by approximately 55 000 in the last 20 years. That has been due to increased mechanization as well as a decrease in tree quality and quantity due to forest mismanagement.

Instead of clear cutting, we can selectively log, where individual trees are cut but the forest is left intact. This is still practiced today in B.C. in some woodlots and community forests.

Smaller machinery or, in some cases, horses are used to drag out the logs. Making use of small trees where forests could be thinned to make them healthier and more fire resistant is another opportunity. If the woody debris, left over after every logging operation was turned into biochar instead of burning it, the carbon would be fixed and could be used to increase soil fertility.

There are many possibilities to improve the health of our forests once clear cutting is taken off the logging menu.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

The argument against a liquid natural gas facility in Kelowna

Saying no to LNG

Photo: Google Maps

FortisBC's proposed LNG storage site (outlined in red) at 1569 Spall Road, Kelowna

FortisBC has requested permission from the B.C. Utilities Commission to build a small-scale liquefied natural gas storage and send-out facility at 1569 Spall Road in Kelowna, and then truck LNG up from the coast.

The facility, called the “Okanagan Capacity Mitigation Project,” is FortisBC’s response to an expected shortfall of natural gas in the Okanagan by the winter of 2026-27.

FortisBC’s rationale for the plant is the facility will be used on the coldest days of the year to ensure sufficient energy can be provided to customers who rely on gas to heat their homes and businesses, assuming demand in the region will increase due to continued population growth.

FortisBC’s application follows the BCUC’s rejection, in December 2023, of the “Okanagan Capacity Upgrade Project,” an approximately 30-kilometre, $320 million gas pipeline expansion. In the BCUC’s words, "Accordingly, we deny the granting of a CPCN (Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity) for the OCU project at this time because we find it is not necessary for the public convenience and does not conserve the public interest."

The commission did not accept FortisBC’s premise gas demand will grow because government policy supports electrification, there are more efficient building standards and heat pump sales have outpaced sales of gas furnaces in North America since 2022.

The commission also did not accept FortisBC’s argument of needing to deal with peak demand, stating that community climate action plans are not currently anticipated to impact peak demand for gas in areas served by the OCU project.

No LNG production will take place at the Kelowna facility and the tanks are expected to be empty for much of the year. The Kelowna facility’s LNG will be produced at FortisBC’s Tilbury LNG facility in Delta and loaded into tankers there. Each fall, up to 30 LNG tanker truckloads will be transported to fill six prefabricated 190-cubic-metre tanks in preparation for the winter months. In Kelowna, the LNG will be vaporized and injected into the distribution system only on the coldest days of the year to meet peak energy demand.

The proposal should not be approved, on the basis it undermines crucial climate action, entails significant and needless health and financial risks and is unnecessary because better alternatives exist.

Building new natural gas infrastructure also works against the City of Kelowna's emissions reduction goals. Kelowna’s reliance on natural gas contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. Okanagan municipalities, including Kelowna, Vernon and Penticton, have created climate action plans that meet the targets of B.C. and Canadian governments. The more recent Vernon and Penticton plans are explicit in recognizing the need to reduce natural gas use in buildings.

B.C. has committed to 100% zero carbon new construction by 2030. Currently, 30 local B.C. governments (several in the Okanagan), UBC and the Tsleil-Waututh First Nation have voluntarily adopted steps of the Zero Carbon Step Code for new construction. In addition, many existing homes are being retrofitted to use electricity for space and water heating, cooling and cooking and this trend will only increase with time. Electrification is an efficient, safe alternative that reduces emissions.

"Natural" gas is methane, which is more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in warming the climate. The additional handling required to liquify, transport and regasify LNG results in more methane leaks and higher energy consumption. In many cases, the carbon footprint of LNG is so high, using it is actually worse for the environment than using coal.

Most gas in Fortis's system is fracked gas from B.C.’s northeast. Fracking negatively affects the health of people and wildlife and the process permanently contaminates large volumes of water. Gas appliances have been implicated in exposing people to respiratory disease-triggering pollutants.

The Okanagan’s population is predicted to increase but it will account for no, or very low, carbon growth. Instead of building an LNG facility, FortisBC could meet the possible energy shortfall by working with the City of Kelowna and Fortis Electric to promote electrification of homes and businesses. For every gas use in a home, there is an electric option that is more effective, efficient and healthier.

Cold climate heat pumps work efficiently in our climate and cost the same, or less, to install than gas heating systems. It’s an obvious choice for new construction and for furnaces that need replacing. In addition, a heat pump works as an air conditioner.

LNG is not flammable but is it dangerous to have an LNG storage facility on a busy road near residences and businesses, especially in a fire-prone area?

FortisBC submitted the application for the OCMP to the B.C. Utilities Commission July 30, 2024 and is now awaiting the commission’s decision. If approved, construction is expected to begin in 2026.

FortisBC’s Okanagan Capacity Mitigation Project is counter to our climate commitments, expensive, unnecessary, dangerous and should not be approved.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Where is B.C. going with its climate policy ?

Climate change action in BC

Photo: Wilderness Committee

LNG Canada Phase I in Kitimat under construction.

Last year was the hottest year on record, according to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Hundreds of climate scientists from the International Panel on Climate Change now foresee global temperatures rising at least 2.5 C above industrial levels with catastrophic consequences according to a recent report in The Guardian. Yet B.C., which calls itself a leader on climate, has seen emissions soar 26% from 1990 to 2021 (the last year for which we have complete statistics).

Meanwhile, the U.K. has seen its emissions drop 53% below 1990 levels. All the other G7 nations have also seen a drop in emissions since 1990. Within Canada, the only provinces with a worst record than B.C. are Alberta and Saskatchewan. And the six eastern provinces have all seen a drop in emissions since 1990.

For years, B.C. has tried to have it both ways, investing heavily in energy efficiency and expanding the province’s electrical system with new wind, solar and high voltage transmission lines. But at the same time, the government is promoting new LNG projects which entail more methane (natural gas) extraction through fracking.

The B.C. government claims all new projects after LNG Canada will be carbon-neutral because they will be supplied with electricity. This is wishful thinking. Expanding electricity production itself is not carbon-neutral when you consider the construction phase. Fracking is also fossil fuel-intensive. During extraction, transport to the LNG facility and shipping off-shore not only are fossil fuels used, especially methane, but methane escapes.

Several recent studies show methane to be worse than coal in greenhouse gas emissions over 20 years when methane leakage is taken into account.

The B.C. government assured us the province could build the first phase of LNG Canada and Woodfibre LNG and stay within Clean BC’s emissions targets. However, the province is again not on track to meet these targets for 2025 (and has never met its targets) because LNG Canada is due to come online this year—and that’s only with the pollution from this single facility.

Woodfibre LNG is under construction and there are three more LNG proposals—Tilbury Phase 2, Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG, as well as the second phase of LNG Canada. If all four additional facilities are built, they will exceed the province’s sectoral target for the oil and gas industry more than threefold. Two have all the permits they need for construction, and the other two are moving through the process as if B.C.’s climate commitments did not exist.

According to Clean Energy Canada, if all six LNG projects were to be built, their operational and upstream emissions alone would make up 40% of the province’s 2030 emissions target (that is even assuming all facilities are electrified, which in itself would require the electricity of 8.4 Site C dams).

And that’s just B.C.’s emissions. The emissions from combusting the exported fuel at its destination—which is accounted for in the importing countries’ greenhouse gas inventories—would be 10 times greater. In addition, the assumption that LNG can reduce emissions by displacing coal is highly uncertain, with some studies suggesting it could actually have a negative overall impact on emissions. Furthermore, any expansion or reliance on LNG risks undermining public and private-sector investments in renewable energy and locking in fossil-fuel-related infrastructure.

Put simply, LNG expansion is inconsistent with a province that aims to achieve net zero.

There is also a question of market demand. LNG markets are expected to be over-supplied by the end of the decade, just as B.C.’s proposed LNG projects would be coming on-stream. On top of that, LNG from B.C. is expected to be more expensive compared to many other jurisdictions, further undermining its business case.

To add insult to injury for B.C. residents, LNG Canada, owned entirely by foreign companies, was offered $6 billion over 40 years in tax and regulatory relief.

Recently LNG projects were offered an exemption from 65% or more of the carbon tax.

B.C. has some decisions to make, among them, this spring the government must decide whether to greenlight the Ksi Lisims LNG project, as well as the reconfigured Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline to feed it.

Both projects are highly contested by First Nations and environmental groups, even though the Ksi Lisims is partly owned by the Nisga’a First Nation. However, many of its members are against the project.

Perhaps, B.C. should have a look at the actions of the province of Quebec. After 12 years of struggle against fracking by environmental groups, Bill 21 was approved by the National Assembly and will soon become law. That law will put an end to all new exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the province.

Quebec is definitely moving into the new era beyond fossil fuels. B.C. should do the same.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

Is RNG a climate solution or another obstacle to progress ?

Renewable natural gas

Photo: Pixabay

My colleague in this column, Janet Parkins, recently wrote about renewable natural gas and its problematic nature as a strategy for FortisBC to make it fossil natural gas more climate friendly.

Since then, there have been letters of support as well as a rebuttal from FortisBC. I thought it would be worthwhile to have another look at this controversial issue.

According to the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration, global temperatures continue to rise. The last 10 years have been the hottest 10 years since records began being kept in 1880, and last year was the hottest yet.

The main cause is our burning of fossil fuels—coal, methane and oil. The International Energy Agency, made up of 44 countries representing 75% of world global energy demand, stated clearly last year that our only hope to avoid the worst consequences of climate change is to stop developing new sources of fossil fuels and transition rapidly off them.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has repeatedly said the same thing. Emissions due to burning methane made up 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions in 2022.

In his Jan. 10 rebuttal letter, Jason Wolfe, director of energy solutions at FortisBC, discussed the minutiae of why a small amount of RNG (which is produced through biological processes but is nonetheless methane) added to fossil methane reduces its impact on climate change.

It was classic “greenwashing.” Greenwashing refers to promoting the idea that corporate practices or products which are damaging to human health and/or the environment (and the production and burning of methane is both) are actually beneficial. By promoting RNG, FortisBC takes attention away from the facts.

I am not the only one who believes RNG promotion is greenwashing. The non-profit, Stand.earth, along with two B.C. residents, initiated a law suit against FortisBC last year, claiming Fortis’ advertising of methane as a climate friendly source of home heating, and adding 10,000 new methane customers per year, threatens climate progress.

They point out it will be difficult to meet Clean BC’s climate goals without eliminating methane heating from buildings. Also, more than 90% of Fortis’ methane comes from fracking in northern B.C., which has its own set of problems, including extensive water and air pollution and deleterious effects on human and wildlife health.

The Canadian Climate Institute pointed out in 2024 that home heating, along with the oil and gas sector are among the few sectors in Canada whose emissions have not decreased and, in fact, are up 8.8% from 2005 to 2022. The province of Quebec is taking this seriously and is banning all methane heating in residential and commercial buildings by 2040.

While trying to create an image for itself as a company that is trying to do the right thing for the climate, FortisBC is actually trying to stop municipalities, through lobbying, law suits and testifying at public meetings, from bringing in bylaws to limit or exclude new methane hook-ups. It has also asked the B.C. Utilities Commission to allow the expansion of methane pipelines in this province.

It is debatable whether adding a small amount of RNG makes any difference to the negative impact of using methane as a fuel. RNG is still methane, which is a greenhouse gas more than 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. It still leaks into the atmosphere during production, transport and use and is still harmful to human health when used, for instance, in gas stoves.

RNG is also more expensive to produce than fossil methane, one of the reasons why FortisBC, this month, increased prices for B.C. methane customers as it increased RNG in its methane supply from 1% to 2%.

According to Fortis, the average customer will pay an extra $14.25 per month this year. Fresh Energy, a climate policy analysis group in Minnesota, estimated in 2021 that RNG costs three to 18 times more to produce than fossil methane. RNG will never be more than the 15% that FortisBC is promising for 2030 and probably a lot less because of a lack of supply, according to the same group.

Even Fortis itself recognizes RNG is not a long-term solution. In its own 2022 report, it emphasizes other biofuels including syngas from wood, hydrogen from fossil methane, and eventually, electricity. There are more climate-friendly uses of wood waste (biochar) and electricity (heat pumps), while producing hydrogen from fossil methane is just prolonging our use of methane.

FortisBC could follow the example of Puget Sound Energy, a gas and electric utility in Washington state. It has launched a 10,000-household electrification pilot project to help relieve pressure on overtaxed areas of its methane infrastructure, rather than expanding it.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.