Image credit: JoachimKohlerBremen, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
_-_Juni_2015.jpg){kind=link}
Key Points
- Prime Minister Mark Carney and Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew are pushing to export liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Churchill by 2030.
- LNG is extremely high-emitting due to a combination of widespread methane releases (both intentional and accidental), routine flaring, combustion of fossil gas by liquefaction facilities, and downstream consumption of the product.
- Liquefying and consuming fossil gas also produce considerable air pollutants, including nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds, which contribute to smog and other health threats.
- If LNG facilities are powered by electricity, they require massive amounts of it, reducing the supply available for electrifying transportation, heating, and existing industry.
- Building new LNG export infrastructure locks in fossil fuel consumption for decades and undermines the transition to renewables and energy storage.
After many months of allusions to “pipes” and “energy,” Premier Wab Kinew has announced that his government hopes to ship liquefied natural gas (LNG) out of the Port of Churchill by 2030. Under the leadership of Prime Minister Mark Carney—who has seemingly abandoned his previous climate convictions—the federal government has gone all-in on massively expanding Canada’s LNG exports in the coming years. In response to Carney’s goal of shipping LNG out of Churchill by 2030, Manitoba Environment and Climate Change Minister Mike Moyes said: “It’s an ambitious plan … but we believe we’re up for the challenge.”
There are many reasons to remain skeptical about the proposal’s economic viability, including the bet on long-term rising demand for fossil gas. Solar and wind power met a stunning 99 percent of global electricity demand growth in 2025, and many LNG-reliant countries (including France, Spain, and the UK) are accelerating plans to transition off of fossil fuels in response to the US-Israeli war on Iran. LNG exports also tie domestic gas prices to global markets, adding far more volatility and the potential for price spikes.
But there’s another huge reason we should be concerned about LNG exports from Manitoba. If built, the project would be a climate and environmental catastrophe for Manitoba at a time when the province and the world need to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as rapidly as possible. This article provides an overview of what LNG is and how it contributes to climate change.
What is LNG?
So-called “natural” gas—or more accurately, fossil gas—in Canada is now primarily extracted from dense rock using hydraulic fracturing (or “fracking”) and horizontal drilling. The gas is then processed and transported by pipelines, such as the highly controversial Coastal GasLink project, to export facilities on coastlines. To ship fossil gas overseas, exporters chill it to -162°C, at which point it becomes a much denser liquid called LNG.
The LNG Supply Chain
The US began exporting LNG in 2016, in the wake of the fracking boom in states such as Texas, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. It’s now the world’s largest LNG exporter, closely followed by Australia and Qatar (although the latter’s capacity has been taken offline for years due to recent attacks). By far the largest importers of LNG are Japan, China, and South Korea, each of which holds a stake in the LNG Canada project in Kitimat, BC. India is also a major and growing importer of LNG.
As a fossil fuel, LNG is a significant contributor to climate change, with the International Energy Agency (IEA) reporting that it’s about two-thirds more emissions-intensive than fossil gas by itself. This fact matters a great deal, as producer countries are exporting an increasing share of fossil gas as LNG, reaching about 15% of all fossil gas production in 2024. And LNG exporters are pushing countries to enter into longer and longer contracts, meaning decisions made today will have consequences for decades to come—including crowding out the far better options of solar and wind power, battery energy storage, and energy efficiency.
Here are five of the biggest problems with LNG and why it’s incompatible with climate and environmental goals.
1. Substantial Methane is Leaked During Fossil Gas Production and Transport
Fossil gas is mostly methane, which has a global warming potential more than 80 times that of carbon dioxide over a 20-year period. While relatively short-lived in the atmosphere, non-combusted methane is very potent and can wipe out much, if not all, of the alleged emissions-reduction benefits of fossil gas relative to coal (which the fossil gas industry regularly compares itself to). A 2023 study found that methane leaks of less than 5% of gas make it as bad as coal mines over a 20-year timeframe.
The oil and gas industry is Canada’s largest emitter of methane, accounting for about half of all estimated releases (the other major sources are livestock, especially cattle, and landfills). Incredibly, much of this pollution is intentional “venting” that companies use due to failure to install necessary equipment, for safety reasons, and, most notably, from gas-powered equipment designed to routinely vent.
Methane also regularly leaks from faulty equipment at wellheads, pipelines, processing facilities, storage tanks, and export facilities. It can also occur if flaring—the intentional burning of gas—is incomplete or ineffective.
One of the biggest yet least-known sources of methane leakage occurs during the shipment of LNG by tankers that burn fossil gas. “Methane slip” happens when methane escapes from tanker engines without being combusted and enters the atmosphere. A 2022 analysis of a US-Belgium LNG tanker trip reported 3.8% methane slip, while a 2024 study by the International Council on Clean Transportation recommended a default assumption of at least 6% methane slip. This problem is especially bad with auxiliary engines that produce electricity for on-ship use and operate at low efficiency. Methane often also escapes during unloading from LNG tankers.
2. Methane Leakage Is Likely Higher Than We Think
Methane is colourless and odourless, making it extremely difficult to track without specialized equipment. Even with that equipment, the unpredictability of leaks in duration and site complicates detection.
In Canada, the federal government relies on aerial measurements from satellites and aircraft—the most accurate monitoring tools available—to identify about one-third of known methane leaks. It derives the remainder from a combination of modelling, extrapolation, and industry self-reporting. Analysts have questioned the integrity of modelling estimates, with the Pembina Institute’s oil and gas program director stating their inputs are “not very reliable; they’re not very accurate, and they don’t really capture how frequently or how badly equipment can fail.”
Studies have indicated that the federal government has lowballed methane emissions from Canada’s (and especially Alberta’s) upstream oil and gas industry by a factor of 1.5. A more recent study of inactive oil and gas wells in five provinces concluded that the federal government is underestimating such emissions by about a factor of seven. And while the federal government has been working to improve the accuracy of its methane estimates, the oil and gas industry has been ratcheting up pressure on Ottawa to adopt Alberta’s far laxer approach to methane measurement. Given methane’s powerful short-term impacts on climate change, governments should err on the side of caution regarding the threat of venting or leakage, rather than assuming that a lack of data means there are no emissions.
To Canada’s credit, there have been some apparent improvements on the methane front in recent years, especially as oil and gas producers recognize vented or leaked methane as lost profits. However, the federal government has pushed back its previous (already deferred) target to reduce oil and gas methane emissions by 75% below 2012 levels by 2030, delaying the goal until 2035. Critics described this as “Canada’s first major climb down on its efforts to control this pollutant,” likely preventing Canada from achieving its recent commitment to “drastically reducing” methane emissions from oil and gas operations.
Much of this is the result of the Alberta government’s obstructionism on the issue, which has produced provincial regulations that are far less stringent than federal expectations. The Pembina Institute has warned that, if accepted by the federal government, these weaker standards “would lock in more emissions for a longer time.” Given that Manitoba’s LNG exports would rely on gas from Alberta, this would deepen the province’s complicity in widespread methane emissions.
3. Flaring is Another Huge Pollution Source
So far, we’ve only been talking about methane emissions. But the LNG supply chain also produces enormous volumes of carbon dioxide and air pollutants from the combustion of fossil gas.
The most visible form this takes is flaring, or the intentional combustion of fossil gas. Companies use this practice during facility start-up, shutdowns for maintenance, and emergency situations. LNG export terminals are huge and poorly regulated flaring sites. Routine flaring has led to widespread air pollution at LNG export terminals in the US, with all seven facilities found to have violated federal air pollution standards since 2022.
A startling investigation by The Narwhal and Point Source revealed that the massive new LNG Canada export terminal in Kitimat, BC, has been flaring at a far higher rate than projected—almost 10% of all fossil gas that reached the facility—likely making it one of the highest-flaring export terminals in the world. LNG Canada chalked up this major problem to an “integrity issue” with its equipment that may take years to resolve.
There have also been several instances of LNG Canada’s flaring producing black smoke, indicating improper flaring and putting it out of compliance with permitting. The Tyee reported that four municipalities in British Columbia—including Terrace, which is about an hour north of the LNG Canada facility in Kitimat—have called on the province to commission an independent investigation into the health impacts of the LNG industry.
Quite obviously, air pollution is also a major crisis when rare but extremely damaging explosions occur at LNG infrastructure, such as pipelines and terminals.
4. Liquifying Fossil Gas is Extremely Energy Intensive–Producing More Emissions
There’s an even bigger emissions threat from LNG than flaring: the enormous amount of energy required to run the compressors and turbines used to chill fossil gas to a liquid state 600 times denser than as a gas. Most of the time, LNG export facilities use—you guessed it—fossil gas to power these processes. The IEA reports that large LNG facilities use about 8-10% of their feed gas to power the liquefaction process. And, as with burning fossil gas in any context, this produces large amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants. LNG Canada’s Phase 1 project emits more than two million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year, which is more than Manitoba’s entire freight transport sector.
LNG tankers also emit significant volumes of carbon dioxide. A 2025 investigation by Inside Climate News found that, in combination with methane slip, this pollution from tankers carrying US LNG “more than cancels out the annual emissions reductions achieved through all the electric vehicles currently on U.S. roads.” While a route from Churchill to Europe would reduce trip lengths and some tanker-related emissions, the need for heavy icebreakers for much of the year would likely negate these savings.
Some LNG export facilities have or are planning to electrify operations, which would considerably reduce on-site emissions. However, there’s a huge trade-off: these facilities require an enormous amount of electricity. For example, the Freeport LNG plant in Texas uses 675 megawatts (MW) of electricity to run its liquefaction process, which is about the same as the entire generation capacity of Manitoba’s Keeyask dam. In BC, Ksi Lisims LNG will use 600 MW of electricity, LNG Canada Phase 2 will use 585 MW, and Cedar LNG will use 214 MW.
These massive electricity requirements have major socioecological impacts, including the construction of generation and transmission infrastructure. But they also consume power that governments could otherwise use to electrify transportation, buildings, and existing industry to reduce fossil fuel reliance and greenhouse gas emissions—the actual work of minimizing catastrophic climate change.
It’s unclear whether the proposed Churchill export facility would be fossil gas-powered or electrified. However, the Government of Manitoba has heralded the proposed $3.3-billion Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link to Nunavut as functioning to “complement and enhance development of the Port of Churchill by helping to unlock northern resources and opportunities,” suggesting a vision of at least partial electrification. In either case, the energy demands are untenable.
5. LNG Exports Will Entrench Downstream Emissions and Further Delay Decarbonization
Emissions from upstream production and the LNG facility would more than offset the very modest climate progress Manitoba has made in recent years. And this is before the gas even reached final consumers, which generates even more emissions.
While estimates vary with methane leakage rates, the end-use combustion of fossil gas—for electricity generation, building heating, and industry—results in as much as 10 times the greenhouse gas emissions of its production and transportation. The IEA, which uses a more conservative methane-leakage assumption than some analyses, reported that LNG results in about 25% fewer lifecycle emissions than burning coal. However, it also cautioned that “comparing LNG only to coal sets the bar too low” and that “it is not enough just to surpass the emissions performance of the most carbon-intensive fuel.”
Contrary to the common myth that LNG is a “bridge fuel” in the energy transition, it is instead further delaying the rapid and urgently necessary transition away from fossil fuels. As the International Institute for Sustainable Development has warned, “Instead of displacing coal use abroad, or even other LNG products, flooding the market with more LNG could disincentivize investments in electrification and new renewable power generation.” The Canadian Climate Institute has reached a similar conclusion, writing that Canadian LNG is likely to be additional to higher-emission fuels rather than replacing them. And former US energy secretary Jennifer M. Granholm wrote in late 2024 that “additional U.S. LNG exports displace more renewables than coal globally” and “would lead to increases in global net emissions.”
Downstream combustion also poses serious health risks for the residents of countries that import LNG. As in Canada, fossil gas is burned for many purposes, including in buildings for space heating, water heating, and cooking. In the worst case, indoor gas leaks and air pollution can occur from malfunctioning equipment or poor ventilation. But even when everything is working as planned, pollutants are simply vented into the local atmosphere. The Building Decarbonization Coalition described this problem as “there’s millions of boilers and furnaces and water heaters, and they’re all pumping combustion fumes up into the air, and it’s bound to affect people’s health.”
What Does This Mean For Manitoba’s Push To Export LNG?
If Manitoba builds an LNG export terminal, most of the emissions from extracting, shipping, and burning fossil gas would not show up in its greenhouse gas emissions inventory. But the province would be directly complicit in facilitating the increased production, transportation, and consumption of large volumes of fossil gas, further escalating global risks of catastrophic drought, wildfires, and flooding—especially in the poorest countries of the Global South.
Additionally, given that Churchill’s economy is largely based on ecotourism, large-scale air pollution from an LNG export facility could significantly affect the viability of existing businesses, jobs, and quality of life in the region. Countries that import LNG would also suffer from downstream air pollution and health impacts, which would be greatly minimized by adopting a combination of variable renewables, energy storage, transmission lines, and energy efficiency.
Premier Kinew recently acknowledged that “climate change is real” and the time for mitigation is now. If he does indeed believe that, he should ensure that Manitoba does not follow the path of deep-red states like Texas and Louisiana or autocracies like Qatar and Russia by trying to hinge much of its economy on climate change-fuelling and air-polluting LNG exports. The threat of the world passing irreversible tipping points is ever-increasing, and Manitoba must focus on phasing out fossil fuel infrastructure, not pouring even more gas onto the fire of the crisis.