Described as one of the largest infrastructure projects ever in Canada, a $40-billion liquefied natural gas project in northern British Columbia was approved on October 1, and the five investors – Royal Dutch Shell, Mitsubishi Corp., Malaysian-owned Petronas, PetroChina Co. and Korean Gas Corp. – have stated that construction on the pipeline and a processing plant will begin immediately. According to the CBC report , the project is expected to employ as many as 10,000 people in its construction and up to 950 in full-time jobs. The processing plant will be located in Kitimat, which is within the traditional territory of the Haisla First Nation, and which is in favour of the project, as are the elected councils of 25 First Nations communities along the pipeline route. The B.C. Federation of Labour also supports the project, as stated in its press release: “The Federation and a number of other unions have been part of the LNG process since 2013….As a part of the former Premier’s LNG Working Group, and the new government’s Workforce Development Advisory Group with First Nations and LNG Canada, labour pushed for many of the work force provisions that are reflected in today’s final investment decision”.
That leaves environmental activists in opposition. Although B.C.’s Premier announced the project with as “B.C.’s new LNG Framework to deliver record investment, world’s cleanest LNG facility” , the project’s emissions will represent more than one-quarter of B.C.’s legislated targets for carbon pollution in 2050. Both the Pembina Institute and Clean Energy Canada note how difficult it will be to reach B.C.’s targets for clean growth (currently under a consultation process), and Pembina warns of the dangers of fracking and of methane emissions associated with natural gas. Reflecting years of opposition, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wrote “LNG is incompatible with B.C.’s climate obligations” (July 11). As far back as 2015, CCPA B.C. published A Clear Look at B.C. LNG: Energy Security, Environmental Implications, and Economic Potential , by David Hughes. An October 2 Maclean’s published an Opinion piece, “Will LNG Canada increase greenhouse-gas emissions? It’s complicated.” which considers (and rejects) the idea that B.C. LNG might have a global benefit if it displaces coal use in China .
And finally, the issue of fossil fuel subsidies, which Canada and other G20 countries have promised to phase out. In “LNG Canada project called a ‘tax giveaway’ as B.C. approves massive subsidies” in The Narwhal, author Sarah Cox reports that a senior B.C. government official “pegged the province’s total financial incentives for the project at $5.35 billion”, including break on the carbon tax, cheaper electricity rates, a provincial sales tax exemption during the project’s five-year construction period, and a natural gas tax credit.
The B.C. Green party, which has to date supported the current minority NDP government through a Confidence and Supply Agreement , maintains an online petition called LNG is not worth it . Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver issued this statement on October 1, expressing disappointment and stating:
“The government does not have our votes to implement this regime…..Despite our profound disappointment on this issue, we have been working closely in good faith with the government to develop a Clean Growth Strategy to aggressively reduce emissions and electrify our economy. The B.C. NDP campaigned to implement a plan to meet our targets and reaffirmed that promise in our Confidence and Supply Agreement. We will hold them to account on this. We will have more to say once that plan becomes public later this year.”