Home | About | Donate

Scientists Say Canada's Proposed LNG Port Threatens Paris Climate Accord



Props to climate scientists worldwide, who are finally stepping forward into public policy fights.

Wish the scientific community as a whole would have been more forthright earlier, a few decades earlier.

There've always been a few scientists who took strong public policy positions. i read Barry Commoner's book The Closing Circle in 1972, with strong public policy positions, including a chapter about the serious threats from climate change caused by human activity especially burning fossil fuels. And of course Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring was published a full decade before Commoner's book.

But the scientific community as a whole should have played a stronger role, with strong positions about addressing the ways in which the human economy destabilizes the Earth's ecology.


One of the most cockamamie schemes conceived of. A plant like this has an insatiable appetite for more gas. This leads to more fracking. This leads to entire local economies based upon gas exports and fracking.

It then becomes something that can not be shut off or curtailed. More fracking and more consumption will always be called for using the threat that jobs will be lost.

If billions in investment needed it far better to invest in A green and sustainable economy that will not devour all.


I know the loony isn't doing so well against the greenback, but aren't the mega coal export terminals in nearby Prince Rupert and near Vancouver enough of a carbon footprint already ?


Every other word out of the BC premier's (Christy Clark's) mouth is "LNG." She touts its supposed benefits ad nauseam - the bringer of all good things. The word "frack" has never crossed her lips. As a result, most British Columbians do not even associate her plans with that nasty fracking they've heard so much about in the US and elsewhere.


A note on that. A past Premier of BC whom Premier Crissy Clark a contempary off and who adopted many of the same policies claimed BC would lower GHG emissions by 33 percent by the year 2020.

At the same time the export of coal was climbing rapidly. Coal plants that burned coal to generate electricty were phased out even as coal over and above that amount shipped to places like China to burn in plants to generate electricity

When making their calculations is to GHGS being emitted, they do not count that extra being emitted in China due to BC Coal and pat themselves on the back for being "environmentally responsible"

It another great con.


The LNG project will just wait until Obama's TPP and TTIP give the green light to BC being forced to give in and allow it to proceed.


British Columbia has what some consider the model for taxing carbon, and it has been very effective. Is BC government salivating on its share of the over $30 per tonne tax on the 11.5 million tonnes per year or is BC fighting the terminal as one would think, because the province took such effective measures to curb its carbon footprint. How does all this square? Are the people of BC just plain screwed?

See The Carbon Tax Center.


If they EXPORT the Coal and gas aborad and it burned elsewhere, there no carbon tax levied.


Thanks for clearing that up. So, it was the latter, British Columbians of all persuasions get screwed.


Yes and one reason I can not support any political party not founded on the premises of Environmentalism. Too many pay it lip service just to garner those votes , implement policies that give the appearance they care , while they do things like increase exports of coal elsewhere.


Canadians have historically been known as "hewers of wood, bearers of water," and have never moved beyond the removal and sale of raw resources in any appreciable way. That was one thing in colonial times. It has now reached its apex of utterly despoiling Canada's, and the world's, environment, with no real benefit to Canadian society.


One has to really respect these scientist that are willing to speak out against this project that has so many risks attached to it. They do so for the good of us all, possibly risking their employment. They say, "Importantly, GHG emissions from fracking, transport, liquefaction, and re-gasification significantly reduce LNG's GHG benefits over coal."

Un-liquified natural gas can be used in Canada domestically with a lower carbon footprint. No fracking and liquefaction required. Vehicles can be converted to natural gas thereby cutting CO2 emissions and helping Canada meet its intended greenhouse gas emission targets. Natural gas should be the fossil fuel of choice to bridge us over to the post-fossil fuel future.


As soon as long range batteries are perfected, BC should see an increase in electric cars, considering all the hydroelectric power produced there.