LNG Myth-busting: What Canadians need to know – Ecojustice

FACT: LNG is often framed as an economic opportunity — but the economic case for Canadian LNG is much weaker than advertised by governments and industry. 

In simplest terms: we’re late to the party.  

B.C.’s LNG export industry is ramping up just as the global market is becoming oversupplied, with recent forecasts predicting that demand for natural gas could decline as much as 78 per cent by 2050. 

LNG Canada (Phase 1) started operations in 2025, and multiple other LNG export facilities are under construction or approved, including LNG Canada (Phase 2), Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG, and Ksi Lisims LNG , but global demand for LNG is expected to plateau — and even decline — in the years ahead, as countries shift to renewable energy. Forecasts show that future demand may already be met by projects approved elsewhere around the world, many of which have significant cost advantages over B.C. 

This creates a serious risk: by the time Canada’s costly (and polluting) new LNG projects come online, the market may no longer be there. 

Add in the billions of dollars in public subsidies and preferential tax treatment for the companies behind these projects, and the costs to taxpayers become even more astronomical — all while the economic case becomes bleaker.    

In terms of what Canadians actually get from the industry, the Province of B.C. only expects to collect $942 million in royalty revenue from natural gas producers in 2026— less than the B.C. Lottey Corporation is projected to earn. 

This is a high-risk investment with uncertain long-term economic returns. Instead of strengthening Canada’s economy, as government and industry claim, science and economic modelling suggest LNG expansion could leave communities exposed to stranded assets and long-term financial instability.

FACT: LNG is a fossil fuel and there is nothing “clean” about it.  

The fossil fuel industry loves to claim LNG is “cleaner than coal,” but that comparison only considers the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the point of combustion (the burning of liquified natural gas). When the GHG emissions from the full lifecycle of LNG are accounted for – extraction, transportation, processing, and combustion – that picture changes drastically! A growing body of research finds that, when considering the full lifecycle, carbon pollution from LNG is actually worse than coal. 

But this also ignores the other health impacts of LNG.   

In B.C., LNG starts as methane – also known as “natural” gas – which is extracted in northeastern B.C. by a process called “fracking”. Fracking involves drilling several kilometres underground and injecting water, sand, and toxic chemicals at high pressure to release the gas. This process requires massive amounts of freshwater and poses multiple health risks to nearby communities, including water contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes.    

The methane is then transported by pipeline to an LNG terminal on the West Coast where it is super-cooled and turned into a liquid for export overseas.  During processing, LNG terminals often “flare” – or burn off – excess gas, releasing GHG emissions and a toxic mix of pollutants into the local air. For example: particulate matter, black carbon, and volatile organic compounds such as benzene.  In 2025, LNG Canada flared 350 million cubic metres of gas, making it one of the highest sources of LNG flaring emissions in the world.  

Once B.C.’s LNG reaches its destination, it is turned back into a gas and burned for heat or energy, which also releases harmful air pollutants. Indoor gas stoves have been shown to heighten the risk of asthma in children and aggravate chronic pulmonary disease. 

LNG is bad for the planet and for your health. Whichever way you look at it, there’s no way LNG can be considered “clean”.

FACT: LNG is often framed as a “bridge fuel” — a temporary stepping-stone on the road to renewable energy. But in practice, it risks doing the exact opposite. 

First of all, the world needs an immediate and rapid transition away from all fossil fuel production and use in order to achieve our internationally-agreed climate goals. As of 2021, the International Energy Agency concluded that new fossil fuel production was incompatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 C. This means that new B.C. LNG export facilities can’t help achieve our climate goals. 

LNG infrastructure (including pipelines, export terminals, and upstream fracking operations) are designed to operate for decades. This creates a long-term dependency on fossil fuels and delays investments in renewable energy, locking in both emissions and infrastructure at a time when both must be rapidly reduced. In countries like China, imported LNG is too expensive to displace coal in power generation, even if LNG prices fall as global supply increases.   

In practice, LNG expansion is a barrier — not a bridge — to a low-emissions future. It locks in fossil fuel use just as the global economy is shifting toward cleaner, more cost-effective alternatives, and risks leaving Canada behind in the transition. At the end of the day, climate leadership is not compatible with large-scale fossil fuel expansion.

FACT: There is no guarantee that LNG exports from B.C. will displace coal use overseas. In many cases, LNG adds to the global energy supply — rather than displacing existing fossil fuel use. 

At the same time, renewable energy is now often cheaper and faster to deploy than new gas infrastructure in key Asian markets. Expanding LNG in Canada risks delaying the transition to clean energy — locking countries into long-term fossil fuel dependence. 

The claim that LNG will lower global emissions is not based on evidence. It’s a high-risk gamble that could ultimately make the climate crisis worse. 

FACT: Increasingly, rules and protections are being reinterpreted to push projects through.  

The Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) project highlights how regulatory frameworks can be stretched or reinterpreted to push through fossil fuel expansion — including with a controversial “substantial start” decision. The proposed pipeline would stretch almost 900 km across northern B.C., transporting fracked gas to the Ksi Lisims LNG export terminal on the West Coast. 

In June 2025, the B.C. Minister of Environment concluded that construction on less than 5% of the PRGT pipeline was enough to determine that the project had been “substantially started.” Accepting such a trivial amount of work undermines the protections in B.C.’s laws because it enables the project to proceed with full construction based on an environmental assessment that took place in 2014. Since then, climate science has advanced, environmental conditions have changed, and the cumulative impacts of LNG development in B.C. have grown significantly. Projects built on outdated assessments risk harm to British Columbians. 

This is about more than just one pipeline. It’s about how the rules in place to protect our communities, health, and environment are applied. When thresholds are lowered or deadlines are extended, environmental protections are weakened. Strong laws only work if they are applied consistently — and enforced as intended.  

B.C.’s environmental laws are meant to protect people and the environment from projects proceeding based on out-of-date assessments, and the PRGT decision raises serious concerns about whether these laws are being applied as intended.

FACT: In B.C., most fossil gas is extracted through fracking — a process that injects toxic chemicals underground and requires millions of litres of freshwater per well, at a time when many communities face water shortages, wildfires, and heat waves. 

Transporting this gas requires massive pipelines — often hundreds of kilometres long — that cut through communities and ecosystems, and threaten species at risk (like B.C.’s fragile caribou and salmon populations). 

Turning this gas into LNG also requires a lot of power; which involves burning gas itself (creating GHG emissions) or using electricity from the B.C. grid. LNG export facilities like the Ksi Lisims project would require vast amounts of electricity — as much as the output of the Site C dam. That’s electricity B.C. needs to decarbonize homes, transportation, and industry. In a perverse twist, B.C. is now expediting the construction of wind energy projects and expanding the provincial electricity grid in order to power its dirty LNG export projects.  

LNG expansion also brings industrial development into frontline communities, contributing to air pollution, increased traffic, and other community safety risks. Well beyond its climate impacts, LNG development poses real and lasting risks to ecosystems, public health, and Indigenous rights.