Will Canada ever respect GHG targets?

B.C. Premier Christy Clark wishes to establish LNG plants in British Columbia, tapping into reserves of natural gas in that Province and possibly in the neighbouring province of Alberta.  Her problem is that LNG generating plants are sources of Greenhouse gases.  The contemplated plants would probably make it impossible for BC to meet its 2020 emission targets.

Her solution: reduce the BC target.

Her rationalization:  China will import the LNG, which it will use to replace coal as the energy for electricity generation.

The happy result:  overall China’s Greenhouse Gas emissions will be reduced.

Canada has a reputation in the rest of the world for running away from targets.  So a reduction of targets for the sake of B.C.’s industrial development is quite consistent with our past performance.

Here is the justification for the policy in Premier Clark’s own words:

“If we can ship more LNG to China in particular, which is very dependent on coal, we are helping them wean themselves off dirty sources of energy. And that’s good for the world. It’s good for global climate change. This myth that our control or responsibility for climate change stops at our borders – that that is the only way we should measure it – I think it is wrong.”

If our responsibility for climate change does not stop at our borders, how does Canada explain its promotion of the Keystone Pipeline, which will be the conduit for tar sands oil, an enormous source of Greenhouse Gases when burned elsewhere in the world?

And shouldn’t B.C. oppose the Northern Gateway Pipeline for the same reason?

And what about the use of B.C. ports that will funnel coal from the US to the Pacific Rim?

Questions for which Premier Clark to answer – if she has one.

 

Share Button
SubscribeSubscribe to one of 4RG's Newsletters

Click below to subscribe to any of our email newsletters. You can always unsubscribe at any time.

Subscribe Here