Why Liquefied Natural Gas Expansion in Canada Is Not Worth the Risk

This policy brief by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that expanding liquefied natural gas (LNG) production in Canada poses excessive economic and environmental risks. The document asserts that new facilities will undermine Canada's climate commitments, face a global supply glut by the end of the decade, and struggle to compete with lower-cost producers like Qatar and the United States, potentially leading to stranded assets and taxpayer losses.

• Expanding LNG production threatens Canada's domestic climate goals by increasing upstream and midstream emissions. Specifically, six advanced projects in British Columbia could add 13 Mt of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) annually by 2030, which would exceed BC's sector-specific emissions target by 200%.
• The claim that Canadian LNG exports reduce global emissions by replacing coal is uncertain and potentially overstated. High fugitive methane emissions in the supply chain can reverse the climate advantage of coal-to-LNG switching, and low gas prices may disincentivize investment in renewable energy in emerging economies.
• New LNG projects are incompatible with the 1.5°C global temperature target. International bodies including the IEA, UNEP, and IPCC have concluded that no new long-term oil and gas projects can be approved if this target is to be met.
• Global LNG market fundamentals are weakening, with supply expected to outpace demand by the time most Canadian projects are operational toward 2030. Demand has already peaked or is in structural decline in advanced economies such as Europe, South Korea, and Japan.
• Canadian LNG is likely to be uncompetitive against low-cost producers. Qatar is the world's lowest-cost producer, and LNG Canada is estimated to have double the production costs per unit of capacity compared to U.S. Gulf Coast exporters.
• There is a significant risk of asset stranding, with taxpayers bearing much of the financial burden through subsidies. For example, the BC government has provided LNG Canada with at least CAD 5.4 billion in financial incentives, and the federal government has provided at least CAD 275 million in direct investments and CAD 1 billion in steel tariff exemptions.

APA

Rempel,, S. H. D. (2024). Why Liquefied Natural Gas Expansion in Canada Is Not Worth the Risk. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/lng-expansion-canada-not-worth-risk

Chicago

Rempel,, Steven Haig,Nichole Dusyk,Zachary. Why Liquefied Natural Gas Expansion in Canada Is Not Worth the Risk. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2024. https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/lng-expansion-canada-not-worth-risk.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Rempel, |first1=Steven Haig,Nichole Dusyk,Zachary |title=Why Liquefied Natural Gas Expansion in Canada Is Not Worth the Risk |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=4 June 2024 |url=https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/lng-expansion-canada-not-worth-risk |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{rempel2024why, author = {Rempel,, Steven Haig,Nichole Dusyk,Zachary}, title = {{Why Liquefied Natural Gas Expansion in Canada Is Not Worth the Risk}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2024}, month = jun, url = {https://www.iisd.org/articles/deep-dive/lng-expansion-canada-not-worth-risk}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }