The Alberta premier has aggressively promoted the idea of Alberta receiving credits under Article 6 of the 2015 Paris Agreement for \u201cavoided emissions.\u201d That is, if LNG made with Alberta natural gas that has less than a three per cent methane leakage rate (the threshold for emissions equivalence with power plants burning coal) and the liquefaction process is electrified, and that LNG is used by another country to displace coal for power generation, then Alberta could receive credits that would offset greenhouse emissions that are the highest in the country by far.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In a letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Smith actually argued that if enough Canadian LNG is sold to Asian countries, Canada could earn credits to offset its entire 700 megatonnes per year of emissions. As I argued in this column, <\/span>Danielle Smith has an oil and gas marketing plan, not a climate plan<\/span><\/a>, the UCP \u201cclimate plan\u201d is a joke. The Conservatives and the Alberta oil and gas industry are committed to the hydrocarbon status quo. They see the energy transition as an opportunity to sell more oil and gas, completely ignoring the existential threat to the provincial hydrocarbon industry and the opportunities to attract capital to build clean energy industries within Alberta.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cAbsolutely, under certain conditions,\u201d Wilkinson told<\/a> Don Braid of the Calgary Herald June 21 after a meeting with his provincial counterparts. \u201cIt has to replace coal, we\u2019ve got to verify that, and also account for the domestic issue of reducing emissions\u2026As soon as you do that, you can make it fit in Canada\u2019s carbon reduction plan, and you can have a net benefit of reducing emissions globally.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Beyond the strategic blunder represented by doubling down on Alberta’s oil and gas status quo, there are serious problems with the entire scheme.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Carbon management consultant Geoff Stiles explained in an exclusive <\/span>Energi Media op-ed<\/span><\/a> that Article 6 is actually hostile to avoided emissions and the complex, arcane accounting mechanism in the agreement has already frustrated other countries. Economist Clark Williams-Derry, of the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, <\/span>argues<\/span> that BC LNG capital costs are almost twice that of US Gulf Coast plants and cheap natural gas doesn\u2019t offset the West Coast disadvantage (see interview below). A study by Simon Fraser University professor Andy Hira <\/span>found<\/span><\/a> that the subsidies required to electrify BC LNG plants combined with the significant increase in emissions would be a disaster for British Columbia.<\/span><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/energi.media\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/Jonathan-Wilkinson-e1688053606283.jpeg\")