LNG facilities B.C. will add significant new sources of climate pollution: report

LNG in British Columbia

Photo: BC government

Premier David Eby (right) tours an LNG facility in Kitimat.

A review of CleanBC, B.C.’s climate action plan, released in November 2025, acknowledged the province’s liquified natural gas ambitions, while creating job and economic benefit opportunities, will add significant new sources of climate pollution that stand to all but wipe out hard-fought gains in other sectors.

The report says the province’s focus on LNG also risks pulling huge amounts of clean energy, skilled labour and fiscal support from other industrial sectors, like critical minerals mining. Prospects for LNG also face significant uncertainty thanks to surging global supply and uncertain demand, while many of its anticipated customers pursue cleaner and more affordable options that would strengthen their energy security by reducing their reliance on imported fuels.

In October 2018, LNG Canada formally committed to Phase 1 of its Kitimat export terminal. Two additional LNG projects followed, Woodfibre LNG, in Howe Sound near Squamish in April 2022 and Cedar LNG, in Kitimat in June 2024.

The province’s Environmental Assessment Office has approved the proposed Ksi Lisims project, awaiting a final investment decision, as is LNG Canada Phase 2. Regulators continue to scrutinize FortisBC’s Tilbury Phase 2 LNG expansion.

Those proposed projects would increase gas production in northeast B.C.and pipeline capacity to transport the fuel to the coast. Local and regional economic benefits in the northeast and northwest of the province would arise from construction and operational jobs, as well as increased provincial revenues.

The likelihood and scale of economic benefits and public revenues are challenged by the volatility of gas prices and the magnitude of government support needed to ensure economic competitiveness.

Merran Smith and Dan Woynillowicz, the two climate policy experts who authored the independent review, said the collective emissions of the LNG terminals would add substantial carbon pollution that threatens to negate emission reductions in other sectors. If all six terminals become operational, LNG projects would add 13 megatonnes annually to B.C.’s emissions, in contrast to the province’s stated aim to lower its annual emissions by 21 megatonnes by 2030.

“The math of emissions associated with new LNG projects is inescapable. Emissions would go up in that sector at the same time that we’re making progress in reducing emissions in other sectors, and that means the sum total of that is emissions province-wide would not be going down to the same extent or could be actually going up,” said Woynillowicz.

Relative to LNG produced in other markets, B.C.’s facilities would produce lower-carbon fuel—thereby offering a net climate benefit. Keeping LNG sector climate pollution as low as possible requires electrification of nearly all aspects of their supply chains. Doing so for all of the proposed projects would consume staggering amounts of electricity.

A recent estimate of the electricity needed to fully electrify all proposed LNG terminals except LNG Canada Phase 1—and partly electrify upstream gas production—concludes the industry would need 40,000 GWh/year, roughly equivalent to the output of 7.5 Site C dams. That demand is expected to compete directly with the power needs of other priorities like critical minerals mining and the electrification of transportation and buildings.

There is economic uncertainty about the global LNG market and no evidence it will displace coal emissions in other countries. Smith and Woynillowicz point to an LNG supply glut, which is expected to persist through 2030 and could drive the commodity’s prices to their lowest since 2021.

“This uncertainty amplifies concerns about the opportunity costs of an aggressive LNG development push,” the review says.

Minister of Energy and Climate Solutions Adrian Dix defended B.C.’s LNG projects as an investment in “clean energy.” He said planned B.C. LNG projects would produce far fewer emissions compared to other producers in the U.S. and globally. Smith said there was no research to support the province’s claims that B.C. LNG will help lower global emissions by supplanting “dirtier” LNG in overseas markets.

“The report shows we have a government that has acted with one hand to reduce emissions from buildings, from transportation, from other industries, and then acts with the other hand to increase emissions by allowing a massive expansion of LNG production and fracking,” Jens Wieting, senior policy and science adviser for the Sierra Club said.

Melissa Lem, former president of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, said the government’s commitment to LNG drags down any potential environmental progress.

“A healthy and effective climate plan in BC cannot sidestep emissions from LNG. If we continue on the pathway of more fracked LNG, the effect of every positive climate measure will be in jeopardy,” she said.

Smith and Woynillowicz question the projected future economic benefits of LNG development and whether selling cleaner B.C.-made LNG to other countries actually replaces dirtier fuels.

“There needs to be a broader discussion about what the province’s economic future looks like,” Woynillowicz said.

B.C. needs to “recalibrate” its approach to climate action and have a serious conversation about how expanding LNG fits into the province’s goals of reducing emissions.

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

Meat consumption and its climate impact

Benefits of eating less meat

Photo: Canada’s Food Guide website

An example of Canada’s Food Guide recommendations.

According to University of Waterloo professor and author, Seth Wynes, the most impactful actions individuals can take to reduce their climate impact are, in order of importance:

1. Have fewer children

2. Live car-free

3. Reduce air travel

4. Adopt a plant-based diet

According to Madre Brava, an international climate action advocacy group, air travel and a plant-based diet are tied for third place for their climate impact. But, as the group points out, the importance of reducing meat consumption, especially if that meat is produced as part of the industrial meat industry, is vastly under-reported by media.

Why less meat? Animal agriculture world-wide, is responsible for about one third of greenhouse gases and the issues are numerous. For one, forests are very important for absorbing and storing carbon. Meat production is one of the primary drivers of deforestation, especially for beef production—not in B.C. but in many parts of the world. It has the biggest impact on climate. In fact, humans directly use three quarters of the ice-free land on the planet and most of that is for agriculture and the forest industry.

Cattle and other ruminants (including sheep and goats) produce a lot of methane. Methane, over 20 years, is 80 times worse than CO2 for its climate impact. Roughly a third of methane caused by humans is produced by cattle and methane is responsible for one-third of the warming of the planet to date. Add to that the enormous amount of arable land which is destined for animal feed (roughly 80% globally), and the substantial fossil fuel use for farm machinery, food processing and transportation.

Of course, not all livestock raising methods are equal. Where cattle are used in regenerative agricultural methods in grasslands, the impact can actually be positive for the climate over time. The soil can improve through managing grazing and other techniques and fossil fuel use reduced. There is now a push to raise insects (mainly crickets and black soldier flies) for animal feed. An acre of land, according to a US study, can produce 250-500 times as much insect protein as beef.

All meat sources are not the same. On average, cattle require 40 kilograms of protein in their diet to produce one kilogram of protein. For pigs, it is 12 kilograms and for poultry it is five kilograms. For dairy and eggs, it is only four kilograms.

Water requirements also vary. For cattle, 15,000 litres of water are needed per kilogram of meat. For pork, it is around 6,000 litres and for poultry it is around 4,000 litres. Consequently, the price of beef and beef’s climate impact is much worse than pork, which is worse than poultry, dairy or eggs.

Meat consumption, according to 2024 data from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, is much higher in industrialized and meat-producing countries, with the highest consumption being in the U.S. and Mongolia. Canada is not far behind.

Converting from a high meat diet to reduced meat, as recommended by Health Canada, will reduce the food-related GHGs that you are responsible for, by one-third. A vegetarian diet (including eggs and dairy) will reduce GHGs by two-thirds. It makes a substantial difference.

Would you like more reasons to reduce meat consumption? A vegetarian or reduced-meat diet will reduce your risks of heart disease, diabetes, dementia, high blood pressure, obesity and some cancers.

Michael Pollan, a University of California at Berkeley professor, has studied the health effects of diet extensively and has published several books on the subject. In The Omnivore’s Dilemma, he concludes with the following simple recommendation: “Eat food, mostly plants, not too much.”

By food he means the unprocessed stuff. In his abbreviated book, Food Rules, he summarizes his findings in a thoughtful yet humorous manner.

“Don’t eat anything your great-grandmother would not recognize as food.” Also: “Avoid food products with ingredients that a third-grader could not pronounce.” And: “Avoid foods that are pretending to be something they are not,” with margarine being the classic example.

My favourite rule though is: “Avoid food products that make health claims.”

This seems counter-intuitive until you realize that carrots, raspberries, peas, chicken, milk and eggs do not make any health claims. Only processed foods do.

Earlier, I mentioned the many benefits of reduced meat consumption are vastly under-reported in the media. Why might they be? At the annual global conference on climate change, there was a substantial presence of lobbyists for the meat industry.

In one document, the industry acknowledged the global meat sector had “a job to do” in making sure governments are positioned to push for what it described as “balanced, science-based outcomes” rather than what it characterized as “ideologically driven solutions”.

Do yourself a favour and eat less meat. Your body will thank you and so will the planet.

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

CleanBC review calls for renewal not retreat when it comes to program addressing impact of climate change

Clean energy leadership

Photo: BC government

The report urges the province to ‘go big’ on clean electricity.

CleanBC was launched in 2018 with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050.

An independent review of the program, led by two climate-policy experts and including feedback from people and communities throughout the province, including Indigenous partners, local governments, industry, non-profits and the Climate Solutions Council has now been released.

CleanBC is, for the most part, working. Its policies and programs are measurably reducing climate pollution (emissions have declined 20% below 2007 levels), while it is creating jobs, improving community health and lowering everyday costs for British Columbians.

Electric vehicle sales are on track, transportation fuels are cleaner, buildings are healthier, methane emissions are falling and industries are well-positioned. Also, in 2022, more residential heat pumps were imported than natural gas furnaces. Yet, despite those successes, B.C. will likely achieve only half of its 2030 target.

The report’s recommendations mostly focus on shifting B.C. toward further electrification and warn the province’s push to approve gas export terminals comes into direct conflict with its promise to advance a clean economy.

Electrification

The review’s top recommendation is to speed electrification for energy security, economic growth, carbon pollution reduction and long-term competitiveness.

Recommendations: Set electrification targets and track progress.

BC Hydro is on track to meet 2030 electricity demand by adding the following renewable resources:

• Site C - 5700 GWh/year

• 2024 Call for Power - 4,830 GWh/year

• Efficiency measures - 2,000 GWh/year

• Second clean power call - 5,000 GWh/year

• Additional calls are anticipated

Gas

Methane regulations are reducing climate pollution and continued methane emission reductions are necessary. Clarity is needed on renewable and low carbon gases (biomethane or renewable natural gas). Provincial sources supply 14% to 17% of demand. More than two-thirds of the remainder comes from the U.S., which recently withdrew from the Paris Agreement, effectively disallowing formal transfers of emission-reduction credits to Canada.

Transportation

Cleaner transportation choices are being made but targets are overly ambitious and should be reset. The higher cost of EVs, tariffs and import restrictions continue to hamper adoption. Both provincial and federal rebate programs have expired or have been cancelled.

Recommendation: Retain income-tested rebate programs at gradually decreasing levels.

Policies for active transportation and transit failed. According to Meran Smith, one of the review report’s authors: “The policies that aren’t working are mostly the policies that never got enacted.”

Recommendation: Sustainable funding for BC Transit, TransLink, transit and active transportation infrastructure.

The Low Carbon Fuel Standard expands clean fuel use, adding jet fuel in 2024.

Recommendation: Supply made-in-B.C. low-carbon liquid fuels for internal combustion vehicles, marine, rail and aviation.

Buildings

Cleaner heat and efficient buildings reduce costs and pollution. Heat pumps are three to five times more energy efficient than gas furnaces, and are continually improving, especially for colder climates. Roughly 13% of B.C.’s homes now use heat pumps.

The Energy Step Code increases new building efficiency and the Zero Carbon Step Code reduces carbon footprint. The ZCSC is affordable, effective, and achievable. The upper steps of the Energy Step Code are too costly.

Recommendation: Introduce affordability and regional flexibilities to both step codes while simplifying timelines and supporting early local government leadership.

The province plans to develop a Highest Efficiency Equipment Standard for existing building equipment, requiring cleaner end-of-life replacement.

Recommendation: Renew and expand predictable, accessible rebates, incentives and support programs (e.g. workforce training) for diverse building types, supporting affordable, clean and efficient heating and cooling equipment, including substantial new supports for lower-income households and multi-unit residential buildings.

Industry

The price on industrial carbon pollution is working and protecting competitiveness. B.C.’s industrial carbon price, the Output Based Pricing System, prices the portion of a given industrial facility’s emissions exceeding a specific limit.

Recommendations: Ensure there’s a trained and ready domestic workforce, support the B.C. Youth Climate Corps and recycle 100% of OBPS revenue into climate pollution reduction programs.

Partnerships

In 2022, the province launched the Local Governments Climate Action Program to provide funding and guidance to reduce climate pollution and build community resilience for local governments and modern treaty First Nations. It provides flexible funding, requires annual reporting and promotes knowledge-sharing between recipients.

Recommendation: Improved coordination and data sharing between Ministries, Crown corporations, and local governments.

CleanBC should be aligned with the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as required by Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act and continue to work toward reconciliation. Partnering with First Nations, B.C. can move faster, go further and build a climate-safe future rooted in rights, respect and responsibility.

British Columbians remain worried about the impacts of climate change, recognizing the threats to affordability, food security, health, and the economy. Government should focus on setting realistic targets and achieving better public communication, including the positives of climate action and combating misinformation.

“Looking ahead, British Columbians continue to expect leadership on climate and the clean energy transition from the provincial government,” the authors concluded.

“What’s needed is a renewal of CleanBC, not a retreat.”

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

Myth and the reality of annual allowable cut in BC forests

Forestry myth vs. reality

Photo: CTV

Eli Pivnick argues a new approach is needed to logging in B.C.

The annual allowable cut is the cornerstone for how the B.C. government manages logging on Crown forested lands.

It is a volume-based limit to the timber harvest. There are different kinds of forest tenure but they all are governed by an AAC set by B.C.’s chief forester. According to the Ministry of Forests website, “forest tenures require ongoing compliance with forest management plans, sustainable practices, and government reporting” and, “The process is heavily regulated and focuses on performance, investment, and community engagement, with major reviews occurring periodically.”

It sounds very disciplined, scientific and sustainable but the B.C. forest industry is logging much less than the AAC permits, as you can see from the accompanying graph.

In fact, in 2024, the timber harvest was only 60% of the AAC. Even at the low level (relative to the AAC), our forests are in crisis. According to former Liberal MLA, Mike Morris in his 2020 report, almost 50,000 jobs in forestry were lost between 1993 and 2016 and job losses continue.

Canfor, one of B.C.’s largest forestry companies, closed 10 of its 13 mills in the last decade. Fish and wildlife populations are also in serious decline. The spotted owl, also dependent on mature forests has been extirpated from B.C. forests.

As far back as 2007, the B.C. Conservation Data Centre listed 490 species on the provincial “red list” of species most at risk. The greatest threat to 86% of species currently listed at risk is loss of habitat due to human activities, mostly logging.

Photo: Contributed

B.C.'s annual allowable cut and the actual annual cut between 2000 and 2024 shows a decline in logging.

According to Younes Alila, a UBC hydrology professor, it takes 60 to 80 years of growth for trees to be effective in the hydrological cycle, holding back precipitation and shading the forest. Because of the extent of logging throughout B.C., he is able to demonstrate the risk of flooding, landslides and the associated droughts has greatly increased.

According to Charles Krebs at UBC and David Lindenmayer at the Australian National University, for the first 40 to 70 years of tree growth in western Northern America, forests are at elevated risk of wildfire. David Hughes, a former energy analyst at the Geological Survey of Canada, has shown the biggest greenhouse gas emitter in B.C. in years of large-scale wildfires are our forests.

So B.C. logging is contributing to fires which contribute to climate change, which is exacerbating the other effects of B.C. logging—namely the loss of biodiversity, floods, landslides and droughts.

It does not look like the AAC is as scientific and sustainable as the B.C. Ministry of Forests would have us believe.

Jennifer Houghton of the Boundary Forest Watershed Stewardship Society thinks she knows why. Tree farm licenses and some other forest tenures are usually given for a five-year period but are automatically renewed, effectively making them long-term rights. Therefore, companies include them as assets on their balance sheets.

In 2024, Canfor showed a value of $323 million for its forest tenures, while Interfor’s were valued at $158 million. A high AAC makes a forest tenure more valuable when the company sells it, as has been done recently, mostly to First Nations. Even when they don’t sell, a high AAC increases the value of the company, which is both important for shareholders and for the ability of the company to borrow money. As a result, companies can over-harvest until there is a shortage of fibre, the most common reason for mills to close.

Yet, they lobby the government to maintain an artificially high AAC, as well as to allow more cutting of old-growth forests and to get bailouts and subsidies. Most B.C. companies are owned, not by local communities, but are global assets of global investors. Those companies can, and do, exert extreme pressure on the B.C. government, which is an important reason why our forests are in crisis.

There are solutions. The BFWSS is calling for a New Forest Act. The act seeks to treat forests as critical public infrastructure (like roads, but for water, climate and fire protection) and shift management towards nature-directed stewardship, creating stable jobs in restoration and value-added products, rather than exporting raw logs.

Morris, as well as retired B.C. forestry consultant and author Herb Hammond, also see an ecological foundation for forest management as critical. Conservation North, a forest advocacy group in Prince George argues for a three-zone system—protection of all primary forests (never-logged even if they have burned or been insect infested) in one zone, restoration of degraded forests in a second and logging in a third.

What will not work is a new approach which only tinkers around the edges while not making any major reforms. But such appears to be the case with the Old Growth Strategic Review and its recommendations of 2020.

The ministry’s current proposal to allow more logging in protected areas and elsewhere under the false excuse of fire risk reduction will also make our situation worse.

Clearly radical change is needed and the forest industry will continue to resist that change.

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