We launched our newsletter yesterday and, as is custom with basically any new project, there was a hiccup. Those of you who clicked through to read the “feds vs. the middle class” story we’d promoted would have found the link went to an entirely different story. Whoops!
If you want to read the actual intended story, check it out here. It’s really there this time.
A big thank you to everyone who’s subscribed and supported The Level so far, hiccups and all. It means a lot. - Stephen Smysnuik
Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that the $10-billion Ksi Lisims liquified natural gas (LNG) export facility will be fast-tracked for approval as part of a plan to boost a Canadian economy damaged by U.S. tariffs.
The thing is – LNG is not a green energy, and lots of us are asking, like, is it really worth sacrificing the environment to salvage our economy?
There’s an argument to be made for it. To keep our economy afloat, Canada needs to diversify its resources to other countries. Demand for natural gas in the Asia Pacific region is projected to grow substantially by 2050, and many Asian countries still burn coal for energy and natural gas is seen as a better option with a lower carbon footprint.
According to the Fraser Institute, if Canada doubles its current LNG production, and exports the additional supply to Asia to replace its use of coal. This could reduce global emissions by up to 630 million tonnes annually – which is like taking 137 million cars off the road.
On the other hand, it’s still dirty AF. Natural gas is still a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Fracking for natural gas can cause earthquakes, and it uses massive amounts of water that affect drinking water supplies in affected regions.
Some neighbouring First Nations have opposed the project due to the impact it would have on the local ecology… never mind that pumping more oil and gas products into the atmosphere doesn’t really solve the climate crisis.
It’s complicated, man. Ecology versus economy – classic story.