The environmental case for Canadian LNG

Canada’s new prime minister has made some encouraging pronouncements recently about making Canada an energy superpower – a pledge repeated by King Charles in Tuesday’s throne speech.

Canada’s new prime minister has made some encouraging pronouncements recently about making Canada an energy superpower — a pledge repeated by King Charles in Tuesday’s throne speech.

Mark Carney, through the King, made the clarion call to make Canada “the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”

But how can Canada increase oil and gas production and exports while adhering to its green ambitions of net zero by 2050?

Two reports out last week — one from the Fraser Institute, the other from the Pembina Institute — help make a case for the net environmental benefits of a Canadian LNG export industry.

The Fraser Institute’s Exporting Canadian LNG to the World cites three B.C.-specific GHG life cycle models of coal-to-gas switching to conclude that, if LNG exports from B.C. replaced coal power in China, greenhouse gas emissions there could be reduced 34% to 62%.

If Canada were to double its current natural gas production and export it to Asia, “global GHG emissions could be reduced by up to 630 million tonnes annually,” the report asserts.

Canada’s total GHG emissions in 2023 was 694 million tonnes, according to Environment Canada. So, according to the Fraser Institute’s math, the equivalent of Canada’s total GHG emissions could be almost entirely erased, simply by exporting LNG to China to displace coal.

There’s a couple of flies in this ointment, which I’ll get to shortly, but the argument that there would be net environmental benefits to Canadian LNG exports still holds up, I think.

Coal accounts for about 45% of global emissions from fuel combustion, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

Switching from coal to natural gas in thermal power generation can result in a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

But natural gas isn’t just a cleaner fuel, it’s also a critical feed stock — for which there is no real substitute — for an array of industrial and petrochemical processes, including fertilizer production. Like it or not, there will be a demand for natural gas for decades to come, and Canada is demonstrating that it can produce it with much lower emissions intensity than almost anyone else.

That natural gas can reduce emissions when it displaces coal is not theoretical — there’s proof. In the U.S., a 32% decrease in CO2 emissions between 2005 and 2019 in the power sector was attributed largely to coal-to-gas fuel switching, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA).

“Lower CO2 emissions have largely been a result of a shift from coal to natural gas in the electricity generation mix,” the EIA concludes.

Now for the flies in the ointment.

First, while there could indeed be sizable global emissions reductions if Canadian LNG displaced coal power in China, India and other parts of Asia, we couldn’t claim those reductions under the current Paris Agreement model.

(Nota bene: Donald Trump is once again withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, and the U.S. — now the world’s biggest LNG exporter — has no compunction over gobbling up as much LNG market share as it can.)

Canada and China are both signatories to the Paris Agreement. Each country produces its own climate action plans — nationally determined contributions — and can only count emissions reductions within its own national borders.

We can’t claim Chinese emissions reductions for our own, even if it were the result of Canadian LNG imports.

There has been talk of Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs) that would allow Canada to be credited for emissions reduced in China from coal displacement through LNG. I don’t know why China, having achieved emissions reductions through coal-to-gas fuel switching, would surrender those reductions to Canada.

Achieving some win-win ITMO agreement would take some fancy bargaining, and perhaps Mark Carney is up to this task. He knows a thing or two about these sorts of things, having served as the UN’s special envoy on climate action and finance.

But even if ITMOs are not possible for Canadian LNG exports, there are still compelling economic and environmental arguments for Canada to act on its strengths — abundant resources, high demand for those resources, and comparatively high environmental standards.

Anti-fossil fuel activists will, of course, continue to trot out the canard that LNG is as bad, if not worse, than coal, because of the methane associated with upstream natural gas production.

It’s true that methane is the Achilles heel of natural gas and LNG. Because of its high global warming potential, even small amounts of methane — leakage rates of 2% or more — can begin to negate natural gas’s lower CO2 intensity.

Fortunately, methane leakage can be addressed through better plumbing, best practices, regulations, and better monitoring, and as the Pembina Institute points out, B.C.’s natural gas sector has leading the way here.

According to the BC Energy Regulator, measurements completed in 2021 estimate the methane intensity of B.C. natural gas production at just 0.38% to 0.48%, which is well below the 1.1% to 1.8% ceiling set for methane intensity in oil and gas production.

The result of this work on methane abatement is that B.C. has met its methane reduction targets for oil and gas two years ahead of schedule, according to the Pembina Institute.

Between 2014 and 2023, B.C. natural gas production grew 67 per cent, while methane emissions from oil and gas production fell by 51 per cent, the Pembina Institute notes in its report, Raising the Bar.

“B.C.’s success offers yet more evidence that methane emissions can be tackled without impeding the oil and gas industry’s operations,” Amanda Bryant, senior analyst for Pembina Institute, says in a press release accompanying the report.

“If anything, given the number of countries now considering new import standards that will privilege low-emissions energy products, stringent methane regulations – backed by transparent, best-in-class measurement data – are going to be key in bolstering the global competitiveness of our oil and gas sector.”

It must be added that, in addition to lower methane intensities, natural gas and LNG produced in B.C. also has lower CO2 intensities, thanks to electrification of the upstream and of some of the planned LNG plants. China, India, Japan, South Korea and other Asia Pacific nations will continue to buy natural gas and LNG from someone for years to come.

Shouldn’t that someone be Canada?

Related Topics:#CanadianLNG #MarkCarney EnvironmentalCaseForLNG ExportingCanadianLNG NelsonBennett ResourceWorks.ca

Up Next

Trudeau Government Unlawfully Halted CSIS Foreign Operation, Endangering Officers and Damaging Canada’s Standing With Allies, Review Finds

Don't Miss

Majority of Canadians want feds to focus on illegal gun smuggling not gun buyback program

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Globally, 2025 had one of the lowest annual death rates from extreme weather in history

Addictions / 19 hours ago

Coffee, Nicotine, and the Politics of Acceptable Addiction

Business / 22 hours ago

Federal funds FROZEN after massive fraud uncovered: Trump cuts off Minnesota child care money

Alberta

The Canadian Energy Centre’s biggest stories of 2025

Published on December 30, 2025

Todayville

From the Canadian Energy Centre

Canada’s energy landscape changed significantly in 2025, with mounting U.S. economic pressures reinforcing the central role oil and gas can play in safeguarding the country’s independence.

Here are the Canadian Energy Centre’s top five most-viewed stories of the year.

5. Alberta’s massive oil and gas reserves keep growing – here’s why

The Northern Lights, aurora borealis, make an appearance over pumpjacks near Cremona, Alta., Thursday, Oct. 10, 2024. CP Images photo

Analysis commissioned this spring by the Alberta Energy Regulator increased the province’s natural gas reserves by more than 400 per cent, bumping Canada into the global top 10.

Even with record production, Alberta’s oil reserves – already fourth in the world – also increased by seven billion barrels.

According to McDaniel & Associates, which conducted the report, these reserves are likely to become increasingly important as global demand continues to rise and there is limited production growth from other sources, including the United States.

4. Canada’s pipeline builders ready to get to work

Photo courtesy Coastal GasLink

Canada could be on the cusp of a “golden age” for building major energy projects, said Kevin O’Donnell, executive director of the Mississauga, Ont.-based Pipe Line Contractors Association of Canada.

That eagerness is shared by the Edmonton-based Progressive Contractors Association of Canada (PCA), which launched a “Let’s Get Building” advocacy campaign urging all Canadian politicians to focus on getting major projects built.

“The sooner these nation-building projects get underway, the sooner Canadians reap the rewards through new trading partnerships, good jobs and a more stable economy,” said PCA chief executive Paul de Jong.

3. New Canadian oil and gas pipelines a $38 billion missed opportunity, says Montreal Economic Institute

Steel pipe in storage for the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion in 2022. Photo courtesy Trans Mountain Corporation

In March, a report by the Montreal Economic Institute (MEI) underscored the economic opportunity of Canada building new pipeline export capacity.

MEI found that if the proposed Energy East and Gazoduq/GNL Quebec projects had been built, Canada would have been able to export $38 billion worth of oil and gas to non-U.S. destinations in 2024.

“We would be able to have more prosperity for Canada, more revenue for governments because they collect royalties that go to government programs,” said MEI senior policy analyst Gabriel Giguère.

“I believe everybody’s winning with these kinds of infrastructure projects.”

2. Keyera ‘Canadianizes’ natural gas liquids with $5.15 billion acquisition

Keyera Corp.’s natural gas liquids facilities in Fort Saskatchewan, Alta. Photo courtesy Keyera Corp.

In June, Keyera Corp. announced a $5.15 billion deal to acquire the majority of Plains American Pipelines LLP’s Canadian natural gas liquids (NGL) business, creating a cross-Canada NGL corridor that includes a storage hub in Sarnia, Ontario.

The acquisition will connect NGLs from the growing Montney and Duvernay plays in Alberta and B.C. to markets in central Canada and the eastern U.S. seaboard.

“Having a Canadian source for natural gas would be our preference,” said Sarnia mayor Mike Bradley.

“We see Keyera’s acquisition as strengthening our region as an energy hub.”

1. Explained: Why Canadian oil is so important to the United States

Enbridge’s Cheecham Terminal near Fort McMurray, Alberta is a key oil storage hub that moves light and heavy crude along the Enbridge network. Photo courtesy Enbridge

The United States has become the world’s largest oil producer, but its reliance on oil imports from Canada has never been higher.

Many refineries in the United States are specifically designed to process heavy oil, primarily in the U.S. Midwest and U.S. Gulf Coast.

According to the Alberta Petroleum Marketing Commission, the top five U.S. refineries running the most Alberta crude are:

Marathon Petroleum, Robinson, Illinois (100% Alberta crude)
Exxon Mobil, Joliet, Illinois (96% Alberta crude)
CHS Inc., Laurel, Montana (95% Alberta crude)
Phillips 66, Billings, Montana (92% Alberta crude)
Citgo, Lemont, Illinois (78% Alberta crude)

Energy

Rulings could affect energy prices everywhere: Climate activists v. the energy industry in 2026

Published on December 29, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Andrew Rice

Anti-oil and gas advocates across the country have pursued litigation in recent years attempting to force the fossil fuel industry to pay for decades of financial damages the advocates claim were caused by climate change.

Several cases have been dismissed while others advanced through court systems, with some being considered before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2026. Critics of the litigation call it “woke lawfare” and an attempt to force progressive political policies via the judicial system.

Critics also argue the lawsuits threaten U.S. energy independence and, depending on outcomes, will have sweeping impacts on every American.

Here are some of those cases.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana

On Jan. 12, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, vs. Chevron USA Inc. The case questions to what extent a state court can litigate against an oil company for its production of oil even if it obtained federal permits to produce the oil.

The litigation challenges activities of the oil companies dating back to World War II in some cases. Chevron argued the lawsuit was flawed, claiming that the activities in question were permitted, legal, and often conducted under federal direction – particularly those tied to national security during World War II.

A Plaquemines Parish jury in April ordered Chevron to pay $744 million in damages for its role in the degradation of the state’s coastal wetlands. Environmental activists celebrated the verdict. It was the first of 42 lawsuits filed since 2013 by parishes across coastal Louisiana to go to trial.

The Trump administration’s Justice Department stepped in on Chevron’s side, urging the Supreme Court to move the case from state court to federal court.

Business groups and energy advocates warned the verdict will drive jobs and investment out of Louisiana. The Louisiana Association of Business and Industry called the decision “shortsighted,” saying it would “brand Louisiana as a state that will extort the most recognizable companies on earth for billions of dollars, decades later.”

O.H. Skinner, executive director of Alliance for Consumers, told the Center Square the case seeks to score large settlements from the energy industry and stop oil production.

“The case arises from a broader campaign of woke lawfare in which activists and municipal governments seek to use courtrooms to determine what companies are allowed to produce and what consumers can buy,” Skinner said.

Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder

The nation’s highest court is still deciding whether it will hear arguments in Suncor Energy Inc. v. Boulder; a case to decide whether state and local governments can use nuisance laws to sue energy companies for activities that may cause climate change.

The case, originating in Colorado, centers around a City of Boulder and Boulder County lawsuit in state court against Suncor Energy claiming it misled the public in its activities that the local governments claim led to climate change effects.

Lawyers for Suncor Energy argue that allowing a case like this one to play out goes against protections in the Clean Air Act that prevent lawsuits from occurring against emitters from across state lines.

“Public nuisance can’t be used for global problems. It can be used for local problems,” Skinner told The Center Square. “That’s what it’s supposed to be used for.”

However, Skinner said many organizations that are pursuing climate change litigation are seeking to bankrupt energy companies with large monetary settlements. He said litigants will likely attempt to drain energy companies of their resources and use the funds to advocate certain ideological causes.

“These are highly ideological dark-money-funded, multi-faceted legal campaigns to bankrupt an entire industry and confiscate it for ideological reasons,” Skinner said.

City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco

Similarly, in 2020, City and County of Honolulu v. Sunoco was one of the first examples of public nuisance lawsuits pursued in a state court. The city and county of Honolulu filed a lawsuit in 2020 accusing oil and gas companies, including Sunoco, Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and Shell, of misleading the public for decades about the dangers of climate change induced by burning fossil fuels.

The companies asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in the case, but the court, without ruling on the merits, declined to do so in January.

While the case is based in Hawaii, Skinner said litigants there hope it will have far-reaching effects across the country.

“They’re not trying to stop behavior just in those states,” Skinner said. ”The thing that really freaks me out is how people in regular, everyday, real America are going to potentially be affected.”

The People of the State of California v. Exxon Mobil Corporation

Going a step further than Boulder and Honolulu, California Democrat Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a complaint against ExxonMobil in 2024 for what he says are its contributions to “the deluge of plastic pollution” affecting the state.

Exxon countersued, alleging “Bonta and the US Proxies – the former for political gain and the latter pawns for the Foreign Interests – have engaged in a deliberate smear campaign against ExxonMobil, falsely claiming that ExxonMobil’s effective and innovative advanced recycling technology is a ‘false promise’ and ‘not based on truth.,” American Tort Reform Foundation reported.

One of the foreign interests is IEJF, an Australian nonprofit that’s connected to an Australian mining conmpany “that competes with ExxonMobil in the low carbon solutions and energy transition markets, ATRF reported.

Skinner said the litigants in this case are attempting to significantly reduce plastic use throughout the state of California and potentially beyond.

“That’ll make your average person’s life dramatically harder, and it’ll make a lot of things a lot more expensive, and it’ll make having kids, like, brutal,” Skinner said.

Leon v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

Aside from monetary settlements, petitioners in this case also are seeking wrongful death claims against energy companies for their contributions to climate change. The case stems from a woman in Washington state who said her mother died from heat-related illness due to the exacerbated effects of climate change.

She is suing energy companies for their alleged creation of conditions over a period of decades that led to increased temperatures on the day her mother died.

Skinner told The Center Square this case is one of the more blatant examples of ideology affecting the way a litigant pursues cases.

“I think they care because a death is worth a lot of money,” Skinner said. “The climate homicide cases are one of the more far-fetched legal theories I’ve ever seen, because you’re leveling this incredibly staggering charge.”

Climate cases will continue to move through the court system, with one to be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in early 2026.

Skinner is urging the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts to rule in favor of energy companies across the country.

“We want the energy companies to win, not because they are perfect actors, but because the alternative is that our lives are governed day in and day out by woke trial lawyers, woke [nongovernmental organizations] and local governments,” Skinner said.