Energy
Why Canada should get carbon credits for LNG exports

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute
By Jerome Gessaroli
Generating carbon credits from LNG exports is potentially a cost-effective way to reduce GHGs globally while helping to meet our carbon reduction goals
It stands to reason that Canada should get carbon credits for replacing dirty coal-fired energy sources in Asia with our cleaner natural gas, preventing the release of many megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions. But as the issue currently stands, we won’t.
However, there’s hope for reason.
A recent paper I wrote for the Macdonald-Laurier Institute sheds light on the confusion surrounding this matter. Based on the 2015 Paris Agreement, specifically Article 6, and the subsequently developed guidelines for the sharing of carbon reduction credits, liquid natural gas exports should be eligible to generate such credits for Canada — just not in a way envisioned by provincial leaders.
Former B.C. premier Christy Clark and successive premiers have argued since 2013 that LNG exports alone should be counted toward carbon credits for Canada and its provinces. Researchers estimate that if Asian countries replace coal with natural gas in their power plants, emissions would fall by 34 to 62 per cent.
However, each time this argument resurfaces, it faces criticism from various quarters.
The confusion over sharing carbon credits arises from the disconnect between the idea’s simplicity and its complex implementation.
Carbon credit eligibility is based on the principle that only emission reduction projects that would not have proceeded without access to carbon credits meet a so-called “additionality” criterion. While there are other criteria, the additionality criterion is the heart of credits sharing regime.
A straightforward LNG export contract with an Asian utility that substitutes gas for coal would probably not be eligible to generate any carbon credits for the Canadian side. While the deal does lower GHG emissions, those reductions are not “additional” and the deal would go ahead with or without the availability of emissions credits.
However, there is another scenario that would likely qualify to receive carbon credits. In this scenario, in addition to selling LNG, the Canadian company helps the Asian utility convert its coal-fuelled plant to a natural gas plant. In this case, the utility’s motivation is to avoid prematurely shuttering its power plant and losing its investment due to stricter emission standards.
On the Canadian side, support may involve providing technical services, financing or other assistance. While more costly for Canada, those extra expenses could be more than offset by the value of carbon credits transferred by the Asian side. Canada would win by accruing revenue from the sale of LNG, providing additional Canadian-based services, and receiving valuable carbon credits to help meet our emissions targets. This deal is “additional” – its feasibility is contingent on its eligibility for carbon credits.
Critics warn that selling LNG abroad will “lock in” fossil fuel use and delay the transition to renewables. The reality is that the average age of Asian coal-fuelled power plants is only 13 years (with a lifespan of up to 40 years) and that over 1,000 new coal plants have been announced, permitted or are currently under construction.
These are the facts, whether we like them or not. This reminds me of the quote often attributed to John Maynard Keynes, “As the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” What we can do is assist in switching some of these plants from burning coal to LNG, which will substantially reduce GHG emissions over the short and medium term; not to mention help energy workers keep their jobs.
Critics also assert that producing LNG in British Columbia creates emissions which could prevent the province from meeting its own emission reduction targets. Yet studies estimate that using just over half of LNG Canada’s annual Phase 1 production capacity to replace coal could reduce international GHG emissions by 14 to 34 Mt while increasing yearly emissions in B.C. by less than two megatonnes.
Creating the infrastructure to transfer carbon credits under the Paris Agreement is a complex and relatively new endeavour. Earning carbon credits is also a non-trivial task. It will require the federal government to initiate bilateral agreements and negotiate common policies and practices with any partnering country for calculating, verifying, allocating and transferring credits. Alberta and B.C. are already co-operating.
Generating carbon credits from LNG exports is potentially a cost-effective way to reduce GHGs globally while helping to meet our carbon reduction goals.
Jerome Gessaroli is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and leads The Sound Economic Policy Project at the British Columbia Institute of Technology
Energy
The IEA’s Peak Oil Fever Dream Looks To Be In Full Collapse

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright warned International Energy Agency (IEA) head Fatih Birol in July that he was considering cancelling America’s membership in and funding of its activities due to its increasingly political nature.
Specifically, Wright pointed to the agency’s modeling methods used to compile its various reports and projections, which the Secretary and many others believe have trended more into the realm of advocacy than fact-based analysis in recent years.
That trend has long been clear and is a direct result of an intentional shift in the IEA’s mission that evolved in the months during and following the COVID pandemic. In 2022, the agency’s board of governors reinforced this changed mission away from the analysis of real energy-related data and policies to one of producing reports to support and “guide countries as they build net-zero emission energy systems to comply with internationally agreed climate goals” consistent with the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
One step Birol and his team took to incorporate its new role as cheerleader for an energy transition that isn’t actually happening was to eliminate the “current policies” modeling scenario which had long formed the base case for its periodic projections. That sterile analysis of the facts on the ground was replaced it with a more aspirational set of assumptions based on the announced policy intentions of governments around the world. Using this new method based more on hope and dreams than facts on the ground unsurprisingly led the IEA to begin famously predicting a peak in global oil demand by 2029, something no one else sees coming.
Those projections have helped promote the belief among policymakers and investors that a high percentage of current oil company reserves would wind up becoming stranded assets, thus artificially – and many would contend falsely – deflating the value of their company stocks. This unfounded belief has also helped discourage banks from allocating capital to funding exploration for additional oil reserves that the world will almost certainly require in the decades to come.
Secretary Wright, in his role as leading energy policymaker for an administration more focused on dealing with the realities of America’s energy security needs than the fever dreams of the far-left climate alarm lobby, determined that investing millions of taxpayer dollars in IEA’s advocacy efforts each year was a poor use of his department’s budget. So, in an interview with Bloomberg in July, Wright said, “We will do one of two things: we will reform the way the IEA operates, or we will withdraw,” adding that his “strong preference is to reform it.”
Lo and behold, less than two months later, Javier Blas says in a September 10 Bloomberg op/ed headlined “The Myth of Peak Fossil Fuel Demand is Crumbling,” that the IEA will reincorporate its “current policies” scenario in its upcoming annual report. Blas notes that, “the annual report being prepared by the International Energy Agency… shows the alternative — decades more of robust fossil-fuel use, with oil and gas demand growing over the next 25 years — isn’t just possible but probable.”
On his X account, Blas posted a chart showing that, instead of projecting a “peak” of crude oil demand prior to 2030, IEA’s “current policies” scenario will be more in line with recent projections by both OPEC and ExxonMobil showing crude demand continuing to rise through the year 2050 and beyond.
Whether that is a concession to Secretary Wright’s concerns or to simple reality on the ground is not clear. Regardless, it is without question a clear about-face which hopefully signals a return by the IEA to its original mission to serve as a reliable analyst and producer of fact-based information about the global energy situation.
The global community has no shortage of well-funded advocates for the aspirational goals of the climate alarmist community. If this pending return to reality by the IEA in its upcoming annual report signals an end to its efforts to be included among that crowded field, that will be a win for everyone, regardless of the motivations behind it.
Energy
Trump Admin Torpedoing Biden’s Oil And Gas Crackdown

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Audrey Streb
The Trump administration is rolling back President Joe Biden’s restrictions on oil and gas, planning 21 lease sales in 2025 — a sharp contrast to Biden’s first year, which saw none.
The Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) have already held 11 lease sales under Trump generating over $110 million for Americans, and plan to host 10 more in 2025, the agency told the Daily Caller News Foundation. While the Biden administration imposed a sweeping offshore drilling ban and greenlit a record-low offshore oil and gas leasing schedule, the Trump administration is working to reopen development on federal lands and waters.
“President Donald Trump has revived American energy. While the Biden administration left our energy resources to waste at the cost of taxpayers, Americans can feel relief knowing that they now have an administration laser focused on unleashing our domestic energy sources, lowering costs, and securing a more affordable and reliable energy future,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum told the DCNF. “The number of new oil and gas lease sales simply speak for themselves.”
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has reported 3,608 new oil and gas permits in Trump’s second term thus far, compared to 2,528 permits during the Biden administration, according to the DOI. Trump and the DOI have approved 43% more federal drilling permits than his predecessors had at the same point in their presidencies, according to the agency.
The DOI has also opened more than 450,000 acres of federal land for potential energy development, and the DOI and BLM are set to approve more drilling permits than any other fiscal year in the past 15 years, the agency said.
On his first day back in the Oval Office, Trump signed an executive order to “unleash American energy” and declared a national energy emergency. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) further directed the DOI to open more domestic energy exploration opportunities, ordering the agency to “immediately resume onshore quarterly lease sales in specified states.”
Trump has emphasized bolstering conventional resources, which stands in contrast to Biden’s stifling of the oil and gas industry, as he froze liquified natural gas (LNG) exports, blocked the major Keystone XL pipeline and halted BLM lease approvals on his first day as president. Biden instead championed a green energy agenda, pushing for major wind and solar projects through billions in subsidies, loans and grants.
Notably, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) previously confirmed to the DCNF that the Biden administration failed to adequately review the environmental impacts of certain offshore wind projects before approving them. The Trump administration has cracked down on offshore wind, halting many major projects and reviewing several more, with Burgum arguing that the energy resource the Biden administration favored is “not reliable enough” at an event on Sept. 10.
Additionally, gasoline prices have been dropping nationally in recent months, with costs hitting four-year lows headed into summer and Labor Day weekend, according to GasBuddy and the American Automobile Association. The average retail price for gasoline is projected to keep dropping due to falling oil prices, according to data from the Energy Information Administration.
“[Oil] prices are not set by current supplies. They’re set by future expectations,” Diana Furchtgott-Roth, director of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, told the DCNF previously. “President Donald Trump is sending signals that the oil industry here is going to be very vibrant. He’s shrinking permitting time for fossil fuel projects, so expectations for fossil fuel supply in the United States are great.”
-
Crime2 days ago
Down the Charlie Kirk Murder Rabbit Hole
-
Business1 day ago
Carney Admits Deficit Will Top $61.9 Billion, Unveils New Housing Bureaucracy
-
Alberta18 hours ago
Alberta Education negotiations update: Minister Horner
-
Business2 days ago
It’s time to finally free the beer
-
Alberta19 hours ago
Break the Fences, Keep the Frontier
-
Opinion18 hours ago
RFK Jr. Reveals Unforgettable Details About Charlie Kirk in Emotional Tribute
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
What are data centers and why do they matter?
-
Business23 hours ago
Carney’s Ethics Test: Opposition MP’s To Challenge Prime Minister’s Financial Ties to China