Keep climate a national priority
British Columbia's carbon emissions are barely budging, and the province will fall far short of its climate goals, despite the reduction of emissions per person by about 20 per cent through the adoption of heat pumps, electric vehicles and other climate actions.
The province will emit nearly 20 million tonnes more carbon than its 2030 targets under existing policies, blowing through targets essential to keeping the climate crisis in check, according to the province's annual climate accountability report.
Released Tuesday, the document reveals that the province's gross emissions have increased 0.2 per cent since 2007, the reference year against which reductions are measured, hitting 65.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents in 2022. The emissions data are from 2022, the most recent in Canada's National Inventory Report.
It comes as the province reconsiders its climate actions. This spring, BC Premier David Eby cancelled the consumer carbon tax. The province has announced it will review its subsidy for EVs, and it is planning to reassess the CleanBC climate plan, which sets provincial emissions reduction targets.
The numbers show these emissions held steady despite the province's GDP almost doubling and the population growing by a fifth in the same timeframe, resulting in about 20 per cent fewer emissions per person. That's higher per capita emissions than Ontario, Quebec and PEI, but lower than the Prairies and Atlantic provinces.
About 40 per cent of the province's carbon emissions came from transportation, while the oil and gas industry accounted for nearly 15 per cent.
BC residents weren't the biggest emitters, with many embracing climate action and recent polling showing widespread support for climate action. Heat pump installations soared by over 60 per cent between 2022 and 2023, according to the province's climate accountability report. In 2023, EVs made up nearly a quarter of new cars sold in the province — though recent provincial data show sales are slowing.
"I'm not that surprised we're not on target," said Thomas Green, senior climate policy advisor for the David Suzuki Foundation. The province's climate policies have taken longer to implement than initially expected, and there is typically a lag between when the policies are implemented and their impact starts to show, he said.
Making the targets remains essential for the province's economic future. Evan Pivnik, program manager at Clean Energy Canada highlighted in a statement that 10 of Canada's largest non-US trading partners have net-zero commitments and carbon pricing — and border fees on products that don't meet similar standards.
Still, experts highlight that no matter what measures the province takes to reduce emissions from buildings, transportation and other sources, many of those hard-won emissions reductions could be canceled out by the province's push to build up an LNG industry in northern BC.
LNG "is certainly the elephant in the room," said John Young, LNG senior strategist for Climate Action Network. "Whenever you're talking about climate in British Columbia or climate in Canada, LNG needs to be part of the conversation in ways that it often hasn't been."
If all six LNG projects proposed in the province are built, their operational and upstream emissions alone would make up about 40 per cent of the emissions allowed under the province's 2030 goals. The emissions generated when that fuel is burned would be about 10 times higher, harming global efforts to fight the climate crisis.
Government officials know that supporting the LNG industry will send the province blowing through its climate goals, but have decided the financial returns are worth the devastating climate impacts of exploiting those reserves, Young said.
"There's no way to dress it up. If you build new fossil fuel projects, you're not going to meet your climate targets. That's not, that's not rocket science. That's climate science."
Comments
"Government officials know that supporting the LNG industry will send the province blowing through its climate goals, but have decided the financial returns are worth the devastating climate impacts of exploiting those reserves, Young said".
And those financial returns are paying for the 20% reduction in personal emissions through, for example, 60% more heat pumps installed, natural gas bans in new construction, roof-top-solar, etc. The wealth that is going into LNG projects will not go into sustainable energy projects until the return on investment turns around, in effect, not until the fossil fuel customers go away. These are off-shore, and beyond our control. That makes the government's decision realistic, if not particularly palatable.
AB wrote: "And those financial returns are paying for the 20% reduction in personal emissions through, for example, 60% more heat pumps installed, natural gas bans in new construction, roof-top-solar, etc."
Evidence? Mr. Ball fails to substantiate his opinions.
Don't believe it for a second.
Why could the government not invest those billions of public dollars directly into heat pumps, roof-top-solar, etc?
Such subsidies are directed to individuals, typically affluent homeowners. Far better to invest public dollars in public works: transit, "green" affordable housing, parks and biodiversity protection, urban redesign, cooling spaces, etc.
How many BILLIONS of dollars has the B.C. and federal government sunk into LNG subsidies, visible and invisible?
Tally the climate, environmental, and health costs of LNG "development". The invisible subsidies associated with fossil-fuels should be prohibitive. Government bean counters and Mr. Ball write them off.
"BC Taxpayers Digging Deep for LNG Subsidies, Tax Breaks' (The Tyee, 16 Jul 2018)
"From cheap power to low taxes, companies winning special benefits from government.
"… The incentives offered to LNG Canada by the B.C. government include eliminating the LNG income tax, a lower price for BC Hydro electricity, exemption of the provincial sales tax on construction materials and a rebate on new carbon taxes. This is all in addition to other subsidies currently in place — such as extremely generous royalty credits for fracking operations, which virtually eliminate the public rents gas companies must pay for extracting a public resource and subsidize roads and electricity infrastructure."
"Feds spend $275 million on $40-billion LNG Canada project, including cash to buy gas turbines" (EJ, June 24, 2019)
"The contribution will include $220 million for LNG Canada to buy highly efficient gas turbines and $55 million to replace a bridge in Kitimat.
"Ottawa is putting up $275 million in federal support for LNG Canada’s $40-billion liquefied natural gas development in Kitimat as an investment in 'cleaner technology' to get Canadian resources to new markets."
"BC Looks like an LNG Loser: Report" (The Tyee, 24-Jun-2021)
"A 2019 report from the Queensland University of Technology found that the LNG sector is infamous for 'cost blowouts,' and only 10% of projects come through under budget.
"Yet efforts to establish an LNG industry in Canada have received billions in subsidies from provincial and federal govts.
"LNG Canada alone has received $5.3 billion from the province."
"LNG Canada project called a ‘tax giveaway’ as B.C. approves massive subsidies" (The Narwhal, Oct. 3, 2018)
"The 'right' fiscal framework amounts to a bouquet of government subsidies for B.C.’s largest carbon polluter, including tax reprieves, tax exemptions and cheaper electricity rates for some of the largest and most profitable multinationals in the world — the LNG Canada quintet of Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsubishi Corp., Malaysian-owned Petronas, PetroChina Co. and Korean Gas Corp.
"At a technical briefing for media, a B.C. senior government official pegged the province’s total financial incentives for the project at $5.35 billion.
"… To entice the LNG Canada investors, the B.C. government has offered a break on the carbon tax, the elimination of the LNG income tax it previously supported and cheaper electricity rates than those set by the previous Liberal administration.
"… Patrick DeRochie, climate change and energy program manager for Environmental Defence, said research shows that six or seven times more jobs are created for every dollar invested in a renewable energy project instead of in fossil fuels."
"The Shell-led consortium that owned the $40-billion project didn’t make a final decision to move ahead until after Horgan’s government helped out with a raft of incentives that included eliminating the LNG income tax, offering a reduced price for electricity from BC Hydro, rebating new carbon taxes, and exempting construction materials from provincial sales tax."
"How Did John Horgan Change BC?" (The Tyee, 2022/11/18)
In 2024, Export Development Canada provided a $500-million loan for Cedar LNG and $200 million for the Coastal GasLink pipeline.
"Feds to contribute up to $200M for Haisla-led project to ship liquefied natural gas to Asia" (CBC, March 21, 2025)
AB wrote: "And those financial returns are paying for the 20% reduction in personal emissions through, for example, 60% more heat pumps installed, natural gas bans in new construction, roof-top-solar, etc."
Time warp.
The "financial returns" on LNG investment are in the future. Speculative.
The 20% reduction in personal emissions are in the past. Historical.
Future returns have not paid for historical reductions. Try again.
As far as I know, the LNG industry hasn't actually started selling any LNG. So I don't see how the financial returns on nothing could have been paying for any heat pumps. Further, the BC government has given LNG projects massive tax breaks and seems in various ways to be actually SPENDING money to make them happen. So I'm not at all clear that the BC government will ever break even on this stuff.
Given the direction natural gas use is projected to go in the major customers for LNG, I also don't think any of these projects is ever going to make a net profit. Maybe whichever one is currently farthest along will get going soon enough to have enough years of operation to make a profit . . . maybe. Certainly any just starting now will be doomed. Although I'm sure SOMEONE will make some money from them. Contractors building the facilities, consultants, executives exercising options to sell stock and then bail before the bankruptcy.