The tension around tariffs continues.

I fully expected by now to be writing a feature story presenting two sides on the outcome of the Canada-U.S. trade talks. Good deal, bad deal — that kind of thing. But with negotiations still going, we had to go with the backup plan.

Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is a hot topic these days. Canada’s first large-scale LNG terminal opened in Kitimat, B.C., last summer. Eleven other LNG projects are at various stages of development across the country, including seven in B.C.

Politicians — who are always extremely careful about the words they choose — seem to have no problem calling it clean, cleaner, cleanest, low-carbon, you get the idea.

But it’s still a fossil fuel. It releases greenhouse gases. It’s not great for the planet.

We break both sides down below, followed by a poll where you can vote on where you stand.

Enjoy your day,

-Neil

Calling it “clean” is based on way more than just whether LNG is a fossil fuel or not.

Hydroelectric power to run the plant, lower global emissions from replacing coal, and even shorter shipping routes to Asia give Canada’s LNG some environmental street cred.

Once you add in Indigenous ownership and strong political backing, the case becomes far more complicated than “all fossil fuels are bad.”

Ottawa is doubling down on fossil fuels while Canadians are dealing with wildfire smoke, evacuation alerts, and extreme weather events overall becoming more likely.

Even with hydroelectric power to run the plant, emissions are still generated from upstream fracking, shipping, leakage, heating it back into a gas once it reaches Asia, and eventually burning it for power generation, heating, cooking, etc.

Calling LNG “clean” (or some version of it) may sound reassuring — but the full lifecycle tells a messier story.