Re: 鈥淟NG project will put B.C. on path to global energy leadership,鈥� comment, May 22.
Any economic benefits to B.C. claimed by LNG Alliance鈥檚 CEO, Bryan Cox, would be short-term gain for long-term pain.
An hour spent on the web reading government and scholarly reports revealed that converting to liquefied natural gas would only marginally reduce the rate of global warming and consequent sea-level rise, which, according to some recent reports, could be as much as two metres by the year 2200. Moreover, increased use of LNG could offset any reduction in greenhouse gases that result from replacing liquid hydrocarbons with LNG.
If there is such a high worldwide demand for LNG, as Cox claims, why must B.C. reduce royalties and grant subsidies and tax breaks of as much as $100 million per year to the LNG alliance?
Cox suggests that demand for LNG might be met by jurisdictions with 鈥渓ess robust regulatory standards鈥� than B.C. B.C.鈥檚 dismal record of environmental regulation of the mining industry fails to inspire confidence. Reports on methane leakage and ground-water contamination by fracking liquids in B.C. are hard to come by.
If the huge capital investment and subsidies required to develop and market LNG were directed instead toward development and sale of alternative-energy technology, Canada could shed its reputation as a hewer of wood and a drawer of water.
Harvey Williams
Victoria
