Using LNG for shipping will hurt the Arctic, not help it

Last month, a new study came out touting the benefits of using liquefied natural gas—more commonly known as LNG—as a fuel for shipping in Arctic waters. It comes on the heels of other proposals across the country to expand the development and use of LNG in the shipping industry. Supporters of LNG claim that it emits less carbon dioxide, making it a good “transition fuel” between the fossil fuels of the past and the zero-emission technologies of the future. However, LNG-fuelled ships have a dirty secret—one that could make emissions from shipping even worse than they already are and tip us closer towards climate catastrophe. There’s no question that shipping emissions are a huge and growing problem, accounting for roughly three per cent of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—about the same as Germany or Japan—and two to three per cent of Canada’s emissions. Emissions are set to keep growing and could reach 10 per cent of global emissions by 2050. This puts us on a path towards a rise in global temperatures above 3 C—far higher than what science says is needed if we want to preserve a recognizable world for future generations. The good news is that ambitious industry leaders and countries—including Canada—are mobilizing around a new target: zero emissions by 2050. What’s more, some of our key trading partners, such as the European Union, California, and China, are taking major steps to decarbonize shipping in their domestic waters. The bad news is that some actors, including in Canada, are continuing to peddle the false solution of LNG-powered ships to address this problem. LNG is more than 90 per cent methane, a short-lived but highly potent greenhouse gas. Over the 10 to 12 years that methane is in the atmosphere, it has a warming effect more than 100 times that of carbon dioxide When it’s burned, LNG produces less carbon dioxide than conventional fuels; however, significant leaks of unburned methane in both the extraction and use of LNG is causing serious damage to the climate. Erin Abou-Abssi is director of policy at Oceans North. Photograph courtesy of Oceans North Methane is released throughout the LNG production process, likely in amounts higher than industry accounts for. A 2021 study from British Columbia found that methane emissions from oil and gas facilities were up to 2.2 times higher than existing estimates. And while regulations can be put in place to reduce these emissions, industry has in some places flouted the rules. Methane is also released when LNG is used to power ships, an effect known as “methane slip.” There are some LNG-fuelled engines that emit very little methane, but these engines are so expensive that they are not commonly used. The engines on most LNG-fuelled ships—both existing and on order—are leaky. Studies have found these engines produce somewhere between zero and six per cent fewer emissions than conventional fuels—much less than the 25-30 per cent figure that the industry often cites. What’s more, this zero to six per cent is still too generous because it averages the warming effects of methane over 100 years. The 100-year time scale is used so that methane emissions can be compared more easily to carbon dioxide emissions, which stay in the atmosphere for much longer. But averaging the effect over 100 years dilutes and misrepresents its real impact on the climate. Both industry-funded and independent studies have found that when the devastating short-term effects of methane are properly accounted for, LNG-fuelled vessels are actually 125 per cent to 149 per cent worse for the climate than conventional fuels. Methane is so potent that policies to reduce these emissions—and especially to prevent new emissions—are some of the most effective strategies available for curbing climate change. For example, a recent study found that cuts to methane emissions could be critical in avoiding the loss of sea ice—the essential infrastructure that Arctic communities and ecosystems depend on, and which is key to global climate stability. Canadian policymakers need the right information to make strategic choices about our transition to net zero. But many of the studies and proposals that are circulating in Canada today use calculations that mischaracterize the impact of new methane emissions and continue to perpetuate the false narrative of LNG as a “transition fuel.” In fact, the world is rapidly decarbonizing, and LNG will soon be sidelined for better solutions such as electrification, energy efficiency, and zero-emissions fuels, as well as operational strategies like slower speeds. Support for such projects is a misuse of the finite resources we have to reach our climate goals. If we want to reach zero emissions by 2050, we need to invest wisely and strategically—starting now. As Canada prepares its climate plan for the marine sector, it is critical that LNG not be included. We can’t afford to lock in methane emissions while underinvesting in a liveable future. Erin Abou-Abssi is director of policy at Oceans North. The Hill Times