To the Editor:<\/p>\n
Markham Hislop\u2019s article \u201cLiberals open door for ridiculous Alberta \u2018clean LNG for carbon credits\u2019 scheme\u201d is an excellent account of how the federal Liberals are pandering to Alberta\u2019s carbon daydreams. As someone involved in this area of work, I\u2019d like to make a few additional points, expanding on Markham\u2019s text.<\/p>\n
Using the concept of \u201cavoided emissions\u201d to justify generating carbon credits from the switch to LNG is a slippery slope and is unlikely to be accepted by those key UN bodies developing the ground rules for Article 6 of the Paris Agreement (which permits trade of credits between countries). That\u2019s because it assumes that project developers can accurately quantify baseline emissions over time, and recent criticisms of forestry projects using this concept have shown just how slippery that slope is.<\/p>\n
More importantly, to generate credits from fuel switches you need a methodology which explains how to do it. That\u2019s a big problem, as the methodologies supporting this kind of action are part of the now-defunct Clean Development Mechanism and have yet to be approved for use in Article 6. Even if that does happen, it will take several years for approval to be granted and details of the \u201cnew\u201d methodologies worked out.<\/p>\n
But technical issues aside, it\u2019s the ethics of the potential Alberta deal that I find most problematic. To support this project Canada would have to revise its Nationally Determined Contribution, making it clear that they intend to meet their own Paris emissions reduction targets in part by allowing the export\u2014and therefore the continued production–of LNG, a carbon-intensive fuel. If they did that, it would be a huge blow to Canada\u2019s international credibility. It doesn\u2019t really matter if it\u2019s technically feasible, or not. The idea has zero merit and is obviously intended only to please Alberta\u2019s cosy fossil fuel producers\u2019 club.<\/p>\n
Of course, Alberta isn\u2019t just using the fuel-switch argument; it\u2019s also promoting the idea that Canada\u2019s LNG is a \u201cgreen\u201d or \u201clow-carbon\u201d version of ordinary natural gas. This is pure chicanery. Switching to green electricity in the production of LNG does not eliminate the substantial carbon burden created by the pipelines that transport it to the coast and the massive ships that take it to market. Is it \u201cgreener\u201d than the equivalent LNG produced elsewhere? Maybe, but it\u2019s certainly not a serious option for countries wanting to meet their 2030 and 2050 Paris targets. Why not just convert electricity production to renewable sources in the first place? It\u2019s now cheaper and a lot simpler to do than it was even 10 years ago, and way cheaper than generating electricity from any fossil fuel.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m surprised most of all that this obviously silly idea has drawn the support of Minister Guilbeault, a venerable carbon warrior, who should understand that it\u2019s both impractical and ethically dubious. Pull up your socks, Minister, and tell Alberta that they need to begin curtailing gas and oil production, not expand it based on an obscure concept of how fossil fuels can be turned into carbon \u201cbenefits.\u201d<\/p>\n
Geoff Stiles<\/p>\n
Carbon Impact Consultants<\/p>\n
Ottawa<\/p>\n
14 July 2023<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"