There\u2019s no excuse to allow Pacific NorthWest LNG to proceed with substandard technology. The site is a mere 10 kilometres from the electricity grid. According to BC Hydro\u2019s resource options map, the site is surrounded by renewable energy opportunities.<\/p>\n
The second failing is the lack of a plan to improve the project\u2019s emissions performance over time. As proposed, the first phase of the project won\u2019t see any emissions-reduction improvements in its 30-plus years of operation, and there\u2019s no guarantee that the second phase will be any better than the first. In both cases, much better practices are possible. The first phase could rely increasingly on renewable electricity as it becomes available, and there\u2019s enough time for the second phase to rely entirely on electricity in the same way that\u00a0Woodfibre LNG<\/a>, near Squamish, is proposing to do. There are legitimate reasons (a considerable amount of electricity infrastructure would need to be built) why that level of performance isn\u2019t possible right now, but there\u2019s no good reason to lock in the limitations of today until mid-century.<\/p>\n Given the scale of the project (the export terminal would cost $12 billion to build), the environmental implications of these failings are significant. As proposed, the facility could emit up to 4.9 million tonnes of\u00a0carbon pollution<\/a>\u00a0per year. That\u2019s equivalent to over 1 million cars on the road (and this doesn\u2019t include the shale gas operations in northeastern BC that would feed the project). But if the first phase was built to the standard of LNG Canada and the second phase to the standard of Woodfibre LNG, the total emissions would be 2.3 million tonnes. That\u2019s still a major increase in carbon pollution when we need their levels to drop, but it\u2019s also materially better than what\u2019s currently on the table.<\/p>\n How could these failures be allowed to happen? Part of the problem stems from two policies implemented by the BC government. In 2014, instead of mandating a high level of performance, the province\u2019s carbon rules for LNG offered up several compliance loopholes that gave proponents options to pay for credits instead of actually limiting their pollution. Then, in 2015, the province made things worse by signing a long-term agreement with Petronas, which promises the Malaysian state-owned enterprise compensation if any future provincial government tightens those regulations.<\/p>\n The federal government shouldn\u2019t be constrained by BC\u2019s poor policy decisions, but to date the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) hasn\u2019t shown any willingness to push back substantively on the project\u2019s failings. It looks as if that task will fall to the federal cabinet as it makes its determination. (After the CEAA submits its final report, cabinet will decide whether the significant adverse environmental effects likely to arise from the project are warranted.)<\/p>\n If cabinet doesn\u2019t push back \u2014 through a rejection or an approval with appropriate conditions \u2014 and allows the project to proceed largely unchanged, the federal government will be sending all the wrong signals. It will be signalling to BC that it\u2019s okay to miss legislated climate targets that are supposed to be part of a national climate plan. Other provinces will see the signal, as will the international community in the lead-up to the international climate change negotiations in Marrakesh this November. They\u2019ll also be signalling to Petronas and other LNG proponents that Canada is fine with substandard technology that doesn\u2019t improve over time.<\/p>\n If \u201cCanada\u2019s back\u201d is going to be more than an empty slogan, it needs to be sure that all of the signals are the right ones. Thankfully, the federal government has the ability to ensure that it does, and hopefully will not allow BC\u2019s and Petronas\u2019 mistakes to be locked in for the next 30-plus years.<\/p>\n Photo: Scanrail\u00a0\/ Shutterstock.com<\/p>\n <\/p>\n Do you have something to say about the article you just read? Be part of the\u00a0<\/em>Policy Options\u00a0discussion, and send in your own submission.\u00a0Here is a\u00a0<\/em>link<\/em><\/a>\u00a0on how to do it. <\/em>|\u00a0Souhaitez-vous r\u00e9agir \u00e0 cet article ? <\/em>Joignez-vous aux d\u00e9bats d\u2019<\/em>Options politiques\u00a0et soumettez-nous votre texte en suivant ces\u00a0<\/em>directives<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In the next few weeks, the federal cabinet is expected to decide on the fate of the Petronas-backed Pacific NorthWest LNG proposal to develop a liquefied natural gas facility and export terminal near Prince Rupert, BC. One of the central issues in their deliberations will be the carbon pollution arising from the project. The BC […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":237244,"template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","ep_exclude_from_search":false,"apple_news_api_created_at":"2025-08-30T05:30:43Z","apple_news_api_id":"93e90ae4-1990-4a60-9edc-7abd52299d3e","apple_news_api_modified_at":"2025-10-08T01:17:41Z","apple_news_api_revision":"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA==","apple_news_api_share_url":"https:\/\/apple.news\/Ak-kK5BmQSmCe3Hq9UimdPg","apple_news_cover_media_provider":"image","apple_news_coverimage":0,"apple_news_coverimage_caption":"","apple_news_cover_video_id":0,"apple_news_cover_video_url":"","apple_news_cover_embedwebvideo_url":"","apple_news_is_hidden":"","apple_news_is_paid":"","apple_news_is_preview":"","apple_news_is_sponsored":"","apple_news_maturity_rating":"","apple_news_metadata":"\"\"","apple_news_pullquote":"","apple_news_pullquote_position":"","apple_news_slug":"","apple_news_sections":[],"apple_news_suppress_video_url":false,"apple_news_use_image_component":false},"categories":[9361,9372],"tags":[8674],"article-status":[],"irpp-category":[4261],"section":[],"irpp-tag":[],"class_list":["post-264400","issues","type-issues","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-environnement","category-recent-stories-fr","tag-environmental-assesment-fr","irpp-category-environnement"],"acf":[],"apple_news_notices":[],"yoast_head":"\n![\"horne-carte\"](\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Horne-carte.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"horne-carte-2\"](\"https:\/\/policyoptions.irpp.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/horne-carte-2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n
\n