Skip to main content

When Premier Christy Clark dismissed opponents of resource developments in B.C. as the "forces of no," she singled out for specific criticism those aligned against the proposed LNG facility at Lelu Island, near Prince Rupert.

The Pacific Northwest LNG proposal is widely seen as the front-runner among several such proposed projects and Ms. Clark, who in the last election campaigned on a promised liquefied natural gas bonanza, is clearly hoping to see it proceed before facing re-election next year.

In January, she took on the "kind of a ragtag group of people" trying to stop the Lelu Island project.

Story continues below advertisement

"I'm not sure what science the forces of no bring together up there except that it's not really about the science," she said. "It's just about trying to say no."

Last week, however, more than 130 Canadian and international scientists joined the no side, sending an open letter to Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Catherine McKenna. The letter says the federal environmental assessment of the project "is scientifically flawed and represents an insufficient base for decision-making."

Among the signatories, the forces of no counted 81 PhDs.

A day later, 48 sports fishing guides and lodge owners submitted their comments to the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA).

"The location of this terminal poses an unimaginable risk to our local economy and our livelihoods," they stated, saying the project threatens the Skeena River's wild salmon run, which contributes $110-million annually to the regional economy.

The "forces of no" it appears, are not uninformed rabble-rousers, but knowledgeable scientists and small-business operators.

Perhaps more of a problem for Ms. Clark than the growing credibility of her opponents are the findings of the CEAA itself.

Story continues below advertisement

"The project would result in 5.28 million tonnes of CO2 per year … a marked increase of greenhouse gas emissions both at the provincial (8.5 per cent increase) and national (0.75 per cent increase) level," the CEAA draft report states. "The agency concludes that the project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions."

Matt Horne, associate director of the Pembina Institute and a member of the B.C. government's advisory Climate Leadership Team, underscored the issue in a letter released Friday.

"I agree that the GHG emissions from the project and the associated upstream activity are significant and represent material challenges to B.C. and Canada being able to meet their climate change targets," he wrote.

Chris Tollefson, director of the University of Victoria's Environmental Law Centre, said Mr. Horne's analysis is significant because it shows that if the LNG plant is built, neither B.C. nor Canada will likely meet GHG targets. Instead of going down, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised in Paris and Washington, GHG emissions would climb.

"The numbers are staggering," Mr. Tollefson said of the GHG volumes tied to the LNG project. "It could be the biggest single point source emitter of greenhouse gas in the country."

Mr. Tollefson says GHG emissions put Ottawa in a tough position, because the government has committed to meeting GHG targets.

Story continues below advertisement

"The only way the project can go ahead is if cabinet decides that under CEAA those effects can be justified in the circumstances. And so basically we're into what I think is the biggest test for this [federal] government. Which is, are they going to be serious about Paris or are they going to bend in the political wind?" Mr. Tollefson said.

Put another way, will Ms. McKenna and Mr. Trudeau side with "the forces of no"?

If they do, Ms. Clark will look as if she tried to push the LNG project through to bully her opponents. And if the federal government does side with her, ignoring the CEAA's caution, it will face both governments with the tough problem of trying to explain how GHG targets can be met.

Report an error
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter