For Ed Wiebe, seeing prominent ads claiming that “B.C. LNG will reduce global emissions” while on his daily bike ride to work as a climate researcher was particularly galling.
“What really got me was it was just completely blatantly false,” Wiebe said about advertising displayed prominently on city buses and billboards in Victoria and the Lower Mainland. “I just could not understand how they could get away with it.”
Wiebe wasn’t alone.
According to the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, or CAPE, “multiple” anonymous complainants believed the ads were misleading and asked Ad Standards Canada to investigate. Wiebe confirmed to The Tyee that he was among them.
But Wiebe may never learn the outcome of his complaint. He has been cut out of the process after another complainant leaked an initial decision, which unanimously found the ads by industry advocacy group Canada Action Coalition gave an “overall misleading impression that B.C. LNG is good for the environment, amounting to greenwashing.”
Fossil fuel companies should have their right to advertise taken away. This is what we did to cigarette companies when we found out they were knowingly poisoning the population. There is ample evidence that the FF industry does the same thing on a much larger scale. They even hired a lot of the same marketing people.
Just no more fossil fuel ads. No more billboards outside gas stations telling you what company’s gas it is or how much they are selling it for. No more YouTube ads where they talk about all of their greenwashing. People should just never hear anything positive about fossil fuel again.
Amen. 💯%
This is how the LNG argument typically goes: if we build up LNG capacity, we can ship it to China who can use it to replace coal burning power plants which emit significantly more CO2 than LNG fired plants do.
That sounds nice — but do we have any_ commitments from China that this would actually happen? Or is it more likely that they’ll just build more LNG capacity on top of their existing coal capacity?
To me, the latter seems more likely than the former.
I may be completely out of the loop here so correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t China making a monumental shift towards solar and renewables right now as well? Why would they need LNG when they have record amounts of renewables being implemented and an established Coal system.
Coal plants can be fairly easily repowered to natural gas, which decreases CO2 emissions but more significantly drops local particulate emissions nearly to zero. China’s air quality is famously poor so this would be a smart move.
China still needs baseload generation and converting coal to NG is far cheaper than nuclear or advanced stack scrubbers.
I didn’t realize that converting coal to LNG was a thing, Interesting. Thanks for the information!
They are, but you still need baseload. Solar and wind are great — when it’s daytime and/or the wind is blowing. Coal (and natural gas, hydro, and nuclear) can provide more scalable power on demand. These fill in the gaps for times when solar and wind production are lower.
But China isn’t likely to convert existing coal plants to natural gas. If they wanted to do that they could do it already — they have an LNG pipeline from Siberia. But instead of replacing existing coal power plants, China keeps approving new ones — it was reported last year they were approving two new coal fired plants per week. So even if they increased their LNG imports (they’re looking to open a second pipeline with Russia on the western side of the country), those coal plants aren’t going anywhere — with the rate they’re building new power plants, they’re not likely to be “upgrading” any coal plants to LNG anytime soon — they’ll just build additional LNG plants (and likely further coal plants) alongside those existing coal plants instead.
Also conveniently forgetting that shipping methane across an ocean is extremely polluting and inefficient
Not in the least it’s the most effective means for shipping methane across such distances. LNG remains liquid across the voyage, and any boil off is used for the ship engines that do not typically use diesel.
I’m not saying that a giant pipeline would be preferable, but cooling LNG to cryogenic temperatures and keeping it there for the entire voyage is very energy intensive, not to mention the fuel costs of a carrier vessel. I am against gas exploration and transporting in general and in all its forms. It should not be considered a ‘necessary’ evil and it should certainly not see further investment in my opinion.
Transportation is not, it’s energy intensive producing it, not transporting it. LNG don’t require much refrigeration normally once liquified.
It takes a lot of energy to vaporise LNG and the tanks are designed so that the boil off equals to what the ships engines need .
Yep I’ve been a bit peeved by these ads. North American Oil industry advocates are pushing any way they can to stay relevant over the next decades. They won’t hesitate to tell misleading statements to get their way.
The sun stops shining, the wind stops blowing, but coal is here forever.
“Pulling methane out of the ground reduces greenhouse gases, actually” really seems to be what oil and gas is going with next. I kind of think it will work worse than just flat denialism did, because you don’t even need science to notice that’s fishy.
