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
From the Fraser Institute
Two recent events exemplify the fundamental irrationality that is Canada’s electric vehicle (EV) policy.
First, the Carney government re-committed to Justin Trudeau’s EV transition mandate that by 2035 all (that’s 100 per cent) of new car sales in Canada consist of “zero emission vehicles” including battery EVs, plug-in hybrid EVs and fuel-cell powered vehicles (which are virtually non-existent in today’s market). This policy has been a foolish idea since inception. The mass of car-buyers in Canada showed little desire to buy them in 2022, when the government announced the plan, and they still don’t want them.
Second, President Trump’s “Big Beautiful” budget bill has slashed taxpayer subsidies for buying new and used EVs, ended federal support for EV charging stations, and limited the ability of states to use fuel standards to force EVs onto the sales lot. Of course, Canada should not craft policy to simply match U.S. policy, but in light of policy changes south of the border Canadian policymakers would be wise to give their own EV policies a rethink.
And in this case, a rethink—that is, scrapping Ottawa’s mandate—would only benefit most Canadians. Indeed, most Canadians disapprove of the mandate; most do not want to buy EVs; most can’t afford to buy EVs (which are more expensive than traditional internal combustion vehicles and more expensive to insure and repair); and if they do manage to swing the cost of an EV, most will likely find it difficult to find public charging stations.
Also, consider this. Globally, the mining sector likely lacks the ability to keep up with the supply of metals needed to produce EVs and satisfy government mandates like we have in Canada, potentially further driving up production costs and ultimately sticker prices.
Finally, if you’re worried about losing the climate and environmental benefits of an EV transition, you should, well, not worry that much. The benefits of vehicle electrification for climate/environmental risk reduction have been oversold. In some circumstances EVs can help reduce GHG emissions—in others, they can make them worse. It depends on the fuel used to generate electricity used to charge them. And EVs have environmental negatives of their own—their fancy tires cause a lot of fine particulate pollution, one of the more harmful types of air pollution that can affect our health. And when they burst into flames (which they do with disturbing regularity) they spew toxic metals and plastics into the air with abandon.
So, to sum up in point form. Prime Minister Carney’s government has re-upped its commitment to the Trudeau-era 2035 EV mandate even while Canadians have shown for years that most don’t want to buy them. EVs don’t provide meaningful environmental benefits. They represent the worst of public policy (picking winning or losing technologies in mass markets). They are unjust (tax-robbing people who can’t afford them to subsidize those who can). And taxpayer-funded “investments” in EVs and EV-battery technology will likely be wasted in light of the diminishing U.S. market for Canadian EV tech.
If ever there was a policy so justifiably axed on its failed merits, it’s Ottawa’s EV mandate. Hopefully, the pragmatists we’ve heard much about since Carney’s election victory will acknowledge EV reality.
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By Audrey Streb
President Donald Trump issued an executive order calling for the end of green energy subsidies by strengthening provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Monday night, citing national security concerns and unnecessary costs to taxpayers.
The order argues that a heavy reliance on green energy subsidies compromise the reliability of the power grid and undermines energy independence. Trump called for the U.S. to “rapidly eliminate” federal green energy subsidies and to “build upon and strengthen” the repeal of wind and solar tax credits remaining in the reconciliation law in the order, directing the Treasury Department to enforce the phase-out of tax credits.
“For too long, the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable energy sources like wind and solar,” the order states. “Reliance on so-called ‘green’ subsidies threatens national security by making the United States dependent on supply chains controlled by foreign adversaries.”
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!
Former President Joe Biden established massive green energy subsidies under his signature 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which did not receive a single Republican vote.
The reconciliation package did not immediately terminate Biden-era federal subsidies for green energy technology, phasing them out over time instead, though some policy experts argued that drawn-out timelines could lead to an indefinite continuation of subsidies. Trump’s executive order alludes to potential loopholes in the bill, calling for a review by Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent to ensure that green energy projects that have a “beginning of construction” tax credit deadline are not “circumvented.”
Additionally, the executive order directs the U.S. to end taxpayer support for green energy supply chains that are controlled by foreign adversaries, alluding to China’s supply chain dominance for solar and wind. Trump also specifically highlighted costs to taxpayers, market distortions and environmental impacts of subsidized green energy development in explaining the policy.
Ahead of the reconciliation bill becoming law, Trump told Republicans that “we’ve got all the cards, and we are going to use them.” Several House Republicans noted that the president said he would use executive authority to enhance the bill and strictly enforce phase-outs, which helped persuade some conservatives to back the bill.
RFK Jr. says Hep B vaccine is linked to 1,135% higher autism rate
Alberta Independence Seekers Take First Step: Citizen Initiative Application Approved, Notice of Initiative Petition Issued
RFK Jr. Unloads Disturbing Vaccine Secrets on Tucker—And Surprises Everyone on Trump
National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in 324 Defendants Charged in Connection with Over $14.6 Billion in Alleged Fraud
-
Crime2 days agoEyebrows Raise as Karoline Leavitt Answers Tough Questions About Epstein
-
Alberta2 days agoCOWBOY UP! Pierre Poilievre Promises to Fight for Oil and Gas, a Stronger Military and the Interests of Western Canada
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta and Ontario sign agreements to drive oil and gas pipelines, energy corridors, and repeal investment blocking federal policies
-
Crime1 day ago“This is a total fucking disaster”
-
International2 days agoChicago suburb purchases childhood home of Pope Leo XIV
-
Fraser Institute1 day agoBefore Trudeau average annual immigration was 617,800. Under Trudeau number skyrocketted to 1.4 million annually
-
Daily Caller2 days agoBlackouts Coming If America Continues With Biden-Era Green Frenzy, Trump Admin Warns
-
MAiD1 day agoCanada’s euthanasia regime is already killing the disabled. It’s about to get worse