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
2016 image provided by Misti Leon, left, sits with her mom, Juliana Leon. Misti Leon is suing several oil and gas companies in one of the first wrongful-death claims in the U.S. seeking to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for its role in the changing climate.
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Jason Isaac
They twist yesterday’s weather into tomorrow’s crisis, peddle apocalyptic forecasts that fizzle, and swap “global warming” for “climate change” whenever the narrative demands. They sound the alarm on a so-called climate emergency — again and again.
Now, the Left has plunged to a new low: weaponizing the courts with a lawsuit in Washington State that marks a brazen, desperate escalation. This isn’t just legal maneuvering—it’s the exploitation of personal tragedy in service of an unpopular anti-energy climate crusade.
Consider the case at the center of a new legal circus: Juliana Leon, 65, tragically died of hyperthermia during a 100-mile drive in a car with broken air conditioning, as a brutal heat wave pushed temperatures to 108 degrees Fahrenheit.
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!
The lawsuit leaps from this heartbreaking event to a sweeping claim: that a single hot day is the direct result of global warming.
The lawsuit preposterously links a very specific hot weather event to theorized global warming. Buckle up—their logic is about to take a wild ride.
Some activist scientists have further speculated that what may be a gradual long-term trend of slight warming thought to be both cyclical and natural, might be possibly exacerbated by the release of greenhouse gases. Some of these releases are the result of volcanic activity while some comes from human activities, including the burning of oil, natural gas and coal.
Grabbing onto that last, unproven thread, the plaintiffs have zeroed in on a handful of energy giants—BP, Chevron, Conoco, Exxon, Phillips 66, Shell, and the Olympic Pipe Company—accusing them of causing Leon’s death. Apparently, these few companies are to blame for the entire planet’s climate, while other oil giants, coal companies, and the billions of consumers who actually use these fuels get a free pass.
Meanwhile, “climate journalists” in the legacy media have ignored key details that will surely surface in court. Leon made her journey in a car with no air conditioning, despite forecasts warning of dangerous heat. She was returning from a doctor’s visit, having just been cleared to eat solid food after recent bariatric surgery.
But let’s be clear: this lawsuit isn’t about truth, justice, or even common sense. It’s lawfare, plain and simple.
Environmental extremists are using the courts to hijack national energy policy, aiming to force through a radical agenda they could never pass in Congress. A courtroom win would mean higher energy prices for everyone, the potential bankruptcy of energy companies, or their takeover by the so-called green industrial complex. For the trial lawyers, these cases are gold mines, with contingency fees that could reach hundreds of millions.
This particular lawsuit was reportedly pitched to Leon’s daughter by the left-leaning Center for Climate Integrity, a group bankrolled by billionaire British national Christopher Hohn through his Children’s Investment Fund Foundation and by the Rockefeller Foundation. It’s yet another meritless claim in the endless list of climate lawsuits that are increasingly being tossed out of courts across the country.
Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania judge threw out a climate nuisance suit against oil producers brought by Bucks County, citing lack of jurisdiction. In New York, Supreme Court Justice Anar Patel dismissed a massive climate lawsuit by New York City, pointing out the city couldn’t claim both public awareness and deception by oil companies in the same breath.
But the Washington State case goes even further, threatening to set a dangerous precedent: if it moves forward, energy companies could face limitless liability for any weather-related injury. Worse, it would give unwarranted credibility to the idea — floated by a leftwing activist before the U.S. Senate — that energy executives could be prosecuted for homicide, a notion that Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz rightly called “moonbeam, wacky theory.”
The courts must keep rejecting these absurd lawfare stunts. More importantly, America’s energy policy should be set by Congress—elected and accountable—not by a single judge in a municipal courtroom.
Jason Isaac is the founder and CEO of the American Energy Institute. He previously served four terms in the Texas House of Representatives.
From the Canadian Energy Centre
By Cody Ciona
‘Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests’
Billions of investment in new data centres is still expected in Alberta despite the province’s electric system operator placing a temporary limit on new large-load grid connections, said Carson Kearl, lead data centre analyst for Enverus Intelligence Research.
Kearl cited NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang’s estimate from earlier this year that building a one-gigawatt data centre costs between US$60 billion and US$80 billion.
That implies the Alberta Electric System Operator (AESO)’s 1.2 gigawatt temporary limit would still allow for up to C$130 billion of investment.
“It’s got the potential to be extremely impactful to the Alberta power sector and economy,” Kearl said.
Importantly, data centre operators can potentially get around the temporary limit by ‘bringing their own power’ rather than drawing electricity from the existing grid.
In Alberta’s deregulated electricity market – the only one in Canada – large energy consumers like data centres can build the power supply they need by entering project agreements directly with electricity producers.
According to the AESO, there are 30 proposed data centre projects across the province.
The total requested power load for these projects is more than 16 gigawatts, roughly four gigawatts more than Alberta’s demand record in January 2024 during a severe cold snap.
For comparison, Edmonton’s load is around 1.4 gigawatts, the AESO said.
“Alberta has never seen this level and volume of load connection requests,” CEO Aaron Engen said in a statement.
“Because connecting all large loads seeking access would impair grid reliability, we established a limit that preserves system integrity while enabling timely data centre development in Alberta.”
As data centre projects come to the province, so do jobs and other economic benefits.
“You have all of the construction staff associated; electricians, engineers, plumbers, and HVAC people for all the cooling tech that are continuously working on a multi-year time horizon. In the construction phase there’s a lot of spend, and that is just generally good for the ecosystem,” said Kearl.
Investment in local power infrastructure also has long-term job implications for maintenance and upgrades, he said.
“Alberta is a really exciting place when it comes to building data centers,” said Beacon AI CEO Josh Schertzer on a recent ARC Energy Ideas podcast.
“It has really great access to natural gas, it does have some excess grid capacity that can be used in the short term, it’s got a great workforce, and it’s very business-friendly.”
The unaltered reproduction of this content is free of charge with attribution to the Canadian Energy Centre.
Most Canadians say retaliatory tariffs on American goods contribute to raising the price of essential goods at home
Women and girls beauty pageant urges dismissal of transgender human rights complaint
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
Sweeping Boston Indictment Points to Vast Chinese Narco-Smuggling and Illegal Alien Labor Plot via Mexican Border
-
Business1 day ago
Mark Carney’s Fiscal Fantasy Will Bankrupt Canada
-
Alberta24 hours ago
Temporary Alberta grid limit unlikely to dampen data centre investment, analyst says
-
Opinion1 day agoCharity Campaigns vs. Charity Donations
-
Frontier Centre for Public Policy2 days agoCanada’s New Border Bill Spies On You, Not The Bad Guys
-
Daily Caller19 hours ago‘Strange Confluence Of Variables’: Mike Benz Wants Transparency Task Force To Investigate What Happened in Butler, PA
-
Uncategorized2 days agoCNN’s Shock Climate Polling Data Reinforces Trump’s Energy Agenda
-
Opinion1 day agoPreston Manning: Three Wise Men from the East, Again
-
COVID-191 day agoTrump DOJ dismisses charges against doctor who issued fake COVID passports