A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

“Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger,” Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. “Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs.”

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions – nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What’s more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in.

– Henrieke Butijn, researcher at BankTrack

“Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies,” the report authors explain.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

1. Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
2. JPMorgan Chase (U.S.)
3. Mizuho (Japan)
4. Gazprombank (Russia)
5. SMBC Group (Japan)
6. Bank of America (U.S.)
7. Citigroup (U.S.)
8. Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
9. Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
10. RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report’s list of the top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of the top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net-Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

Front-line communities pay a steep cost for LNG projects

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to front-line communities. Venture Global’s Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

“Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition,” said Henrieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. “While banks will secure their profits, it’s at the expense of front-line communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen.”

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the United States led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

1. BlackRock
2. Vanguard
3. State Street
4. Fidelity Investments
5. Capital Group
6. GPFG
7. JPMorgan Chase
8. Brookfield Asset Management
9. Blackstone
10. MSBI

Just three of these entities – BlackRock, Vanguard and State Street – contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb. “Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed,” the report authors write. “This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion.”

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

“LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition,” Duclos-Gonda said. “Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately.”

Olivia Rosane is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

This article by Common Dreams is published here as part of the global journalism collaboration Covering Climate Now. It has been edited to conform with Corporate Knights style.

The post Banks flout net-zero targets to cash in on the next LNG boom appeared first on Corporate Knights.

But an impending flood of liquefied natural gas exports from western Canada to Asia could make it harder for countries there to achieve their national climate targets and contribute to tens of thousands of additional deaths due to air pollution.

That’s the assessment of major environmental organizations based in South Korea and Japan, whose representatives told DeSmog that rather than increasing east and southeast Asia’s dependance on an economically volatile and planet-warming energy source it would be much better for the region to shift from coal directly into renewables.

“The argument that liquefied natural gas is helpful for climate action is way outdated,” Dongjae Oh, head of the oil and gas finance program at the Seoul-based non-profit Solutions for Our Climate, told DeSmog. “We need to think about not just stopping the expansion of LNG but how to phase it out as soon as possible.”

Ayumi Fukakusa agrees. She is deputy executive director at the Tokyo-based environmental organization Friends of the Earth Japan. “I don’t believe gas is a climate solution,” she told DeSmog.

23,000 premature deaths

These Asia-based energy and climate experts point to the landmark 2021 report from the International Energy Agency which concluded that the only way to stabilize atmospheric warming at the relatively safe threshold of 1.5°C is to stop building new fossil fuel projects.

South Korea is currently the world’s third largest LNG importer and plans to expand its gas capacity 50 percent by 2036. But to reduce South Korea’s emissions in line with the 1.5°C temperature limit, the country must fully phase out gas from its electricity sector over the same time period, Solutions for Our Climate calculates.

If Canada begins shipping huge amounts of LNG to South Korea and other Asian countries, as companies including Shell and Petronas intend to do starting next year, it will impede the shift to truly clean sources of energy. That’s because current market dynamics in the country “motivate the fossil fuel generators to continuously construct new plants and delay the phaseout of those that contribute little to the power grid,” Gyuri Cho of Solutions for Our Climate said last year.

This could have dire health impacts. Because many gas plants in South Korea are located in or near densely populated urban areas, the air pollution caused by expanding LNG could result in 23,000 premature deaths across East Asia by 2064, the organization calculates.

Climate impacts downplayed

Nevertheless, a $40 billion export facility called LNG Canada led by Shell (and including partners such as Malaysia’s Petronas and the Korea Gas Corporation) could begin shipping LNG from British Columbia to Asian markets including South Korea in 2025. Another west coast facility, Cedar LNG, received environmental approval from the B.C. government last year. There are six additional Canadian LNG export projects in development.

The gas for these projects is projected to largely come from fracking operations in the Montney play, a gas field straddling the Alberta-B.C. border that contains as much as 449 trillion cubic feet of gas. Burning all that gas could release 13.7 billion tonnes of planet-warming emissions into the atmosphere, leading international climate researchers to deem Montney the world’s sixth-largest “carbon bomb.”

Yet this is still being presented by gas advocates as global progress on climate change. “Canadian LNG can help Asia switch from coal to gas, a huge win for the climate,” declared the conservative political advocacy group Canada Action, which received $100,000 in 2019 from the gas producer ARC Resources, a report in The Narwhal revealed.

That message is echoed by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, major business interests such as the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, conservative think tanks like the Macdonald Laurier Institute and rightwing advocacy groups including Fairness Alberta. A report commissioned in 2022 by an Alberta government organization called the Canadian Energy Centre concluded that “Canadian LNG would ultimately help to lower emissions in Asia.”

The argument that liquefied natural gas is helpful for climate action is way outdated.

 

– Dongjae Oh, Seoul-based non-profit Solutions for Our Climate

Channeling this industry marketing push, federal Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre said in a speech last September that “we will grant permits for natural gas plants to safely ship it off to replace dirty coal in Asia.” Even ostensibly progressive politicians are on board, with B.C.’s NDP premier David Eby recently defending LNG exports as being consistent with a “clean economy.”

As in South Korea, however, gas expansion in other Asian countries brings only uncertain climate benefits at best, while ultimately stalling the shift towards truly low-carbon energy sources, Fukakusa argues. “If we build new LNG projects we lock in massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said.

China, currently the world’s largest importer of LNG, is attempting to meet its ambitious climate goals in part by shifting from coal power plants to gas plants. Gas releases less emissions when burned than coal. But if you include in the accounting methane leaks during fracking and transportation, this “introduces uncertainties in the climate benefit comparison between gas and coal,” a team of Chinese and international researchers noted in a 2020 Nature paper. According to researchers such as Cornell University’s Robert Howarth, gas might even have a climate footprint worse than coal.

That’s why some environmental campaigners in China are wary about the fuel source, as well as recent claims by oil and gas companies such as Shell that LNG can be “carbon neutral” if paired with carbon offsets. “These companies are either walking back previous climate commitments or remain wholly uncommitted to take action on climate,” the Beijing-based Greenpeace East Asia said in a report last fall.

A shaky business case

The price of wind, solar and other renewables is falling so quickly that they are now cheaper to install and maintain as electricity sources than gas and coal, meaning that it makes more sense economically for Asian countries to go straight to renewables, Oh said. “Increasing reliance on gas plants is bad economically,” he said.

Japan, the world’s second largest LNG importer, is currently planning to reduce gas in its power sector from 37 percent in 2019 to 20 percent in 2030 while expanding renewables like solar and wind, as well as nuclear power. This means that Canada will have to compete against other gas suppliers like Qatar, the United States and Australia for control of an increasingly shrinking Japanese market.

“I’m not sure it still makes economic sense,” Fukakusa says of proposals to greatly expand Canada’s gas exports.

Climate trackers worry that vast volumes of gas could end up being shipped to Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand, stalling their clean energy transitions. But with a wind-down of international fossil fuel financing and strong support for industries like solar and offshore wind, countries across the region wouldn’t require Canadian LNG at all — they could skip the fossil fuel altogether.

“There is a lot of positive potential for renewables across Southeast Asia,” Oh said, “rather than sticking to the risky business of LNG expansion.”

The story first appeared in DeSmog. Read the original article here.

The post How Canada’s LNG could hurt – not help – Asia’s green transition appeared first on Corporate Knights.

On one stretch of the Douglas Channel shoreline is the site of LNG Canada, a partnership of international corporations including Shell PLC and PetroChina. The LNG Canada project currently under construction and the TC Energy pipeline that will supply it with gas were jointly billed as the largest private-sector investment in Canadian history – made possible with $5.4 billion in subsidies from British Columbia and $275 million in support from Ottawa.

Further along the shore is the planned home of Cedar LNG, a smaller yet-to-be-green-lit project that is majority owned by the Haisla with a minority stake held by Calgary-based Pembina Pipeline Corp. Privately owned Woodfibre LNG is also under construction at Squamish.

All told, 24 would-be LNG developers have received natural-gas export permits from the federal energy regulator, though many of those will not proceed. Canada is well behind competitors like the United States and Australia in the race to supply a fossil fuel market that has limited growth prospects over the medium term. Advocates of Canadian LNG exports say that sending gas to Asian markets will help them reduce reliance on coal, and thereby decrease global carbon emissions.

It is a much-disputed argument. Several recent studies challenge the industry position. Researchers suggest that the leakage of methane throughout the LNG life cycle can eliminate any greenhouse-gas (GHG) advantage gas has over coal at the point of final combustion. And some question whether growing reliance on LNG could slow the deployment of less carbon-intensive alternatives.

Still, producers want the federal government to include exported LNG as part of its climate change strategy, including policies for preferential financing. Ottawa is currently developing a transition taxonomy – essentially a guideline as to which types of investments are appropriate in the transition to a net-zero economy. In a report last March, the federally appointed Sustainable Finance Action Council (SFAC) said that only projects that are aligned with a net-zero pathway should be included in the taxonomy, without clarifying whether natural gas falls into that group. The government now faces a concerted lobbying effort to green-light expanded LNG capacity. Sources tell Corporate Knights that the minister’s office has delayed commenting on SFAC’s recommendations because of concerns over LNG.

West Coast dreams of LNG-fuelled prosperity rest on a shaky foundation of questionable assumptions.

Methane leakage

Numerous recent studies suggest that a major expansion of LNG exports from Canada would contribute to the growing climate crisis, rather than mitigate it as proponents claim. Both the International Energy Agency (IEA) and the United Nations Environment Programme warned this past fall against expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure that could lock in carbon emissions for decades.

Cornell University ecosystem scientist Robert Howarth recently concluded that LNG exported from the U.S. to Asia or Europe has higher carbon intensity than local coal use due to the leakage of methane – a powerful warming agent – throughout the LNG supply chain, but particularly during shipping. To address the urgency of the climate crisis, the world must “move away from any use of LNG as a fuel as quickly as possible, and immediately stop construction of any new LNG infrastructure,” Howarth wrote in a paper released in November. He’s been an outspoken critic of natural gas for more than a decade, facing years of harassment for his stance. But he’s not alone in his critiques. Researchers at RMI – the Rocky Mountain Institute – published a paper last July in which they concluded that methane leakage rates as low as 0.2% can eliminate any carbon advantage natural gas would have over coal-fired energy. 

Hundreds of studies using an array of measurement techniques have concluded that the industry’s methane emissions are often wildly underestimated. Methane can leak from a number of points in the natural gas cycle, from extraction and processing to transportation and power generation facilities – and there are no reliable government systems in place to comprehensively track the leaks. 

Globally, the IEA has estimated that methane emissions are 70% higher than industry reports. Carleton University’s Energy and Emissions Research Lab recently completed a census of methane emissions from upstream oil and gas production. Led by engineering professor Matthew Johnson, the researchers measured emissions at 3,500 oil and gas facilities and 5,600 wells. As Carleton reported, “Johnson and his team discovered that the actual quantity of methane produced by Canada’s oil and gas sector in the provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta is consistently far higher than what was previously reported.” Alberta’s facilities, in particular, were found to be underreporting by nearly 50%.

At the COP28 climate summit in early December, the federal government announced new draft regulations that it says would result in a 75% reduction in methane emissions in the oil and gas sector from 2012 levels by 2030 while acknowledging that further work is required to accurately quantify methane emissions. Slashing methane emissions – along with better tracking – would help Canadian gas producers make the environmental case versus coal. However, natural gas still produces CO2 emissions and expanding supply and demand is inconsistent with net-zero plans. 

A paper co-authored by University of Calgary professor Sara Hastings-Simon suggests that newly built natural gas assets would become white elephants if the world succeeds in reducing its demand for fossil fuels as governments have pledged to do. At the same time, growing LNG imports in Asia could slow the adoption of lower-carbon alternatives, including renewable energy, the researchers concluded.

LNG at best represents a short-term opportunity, Hastings-Simon and her colleagues say. By the 2030s, the costly new LNG export terminals will either become stranded assets or lock in emission growth that takes us in the wrong direction on climate change.

In a special report released ahead of the United Nations climate summit in November, the IEA forecast that global demand for natural gas will peak by 2030 and could decline precipitously over the following two decades if countries rise to the challenge of global warming. The Paris-based agency – which advises wealthy countries on energy policy – urged against a major expansion of any fossil fuel infrastructure, noting that the world would need to reduce natural gas demand by 20% by 2030 and 75% by 2050 if we’re to limit warming to 1.5°C. “The ‘Golden Age of Gas,’ a term coined by the IEA in 2011, is nearing an end,” said the IEA report.

“Successful clean energy transitions require much lower demand for oil and gas, which means scaling back oil and gas operations over time – not expanding them,” Fatih Birol, the agency’s executive director, says in the report. Rapid expansion in LNG supply over the past 10 years will be sufficient to supply the market and compete against pipeline gas in Asian markets, the agency says.

Essentially, building LNG infrastructure represents a bet against climate success.

Industry optimism

Still, backers of LNG Canada, Woodfibre and Cedar LNG remain optimistic. TC Energy’s $14.5-billion 670-kilometre Coastal GasLink pipeline that will ship supply from the gas fields of northeastern B.C. to the coast is 98% complete, according to the company. Construction at Woodfibre and the LNG Canada site is well underway; LNG Canada expects the first LNG shipments in 2025. Cedar’s owners – the Haisla and Pembina Pipeline Corp. – are aiming to make a final investment decision in the coming months.

Canadian LNG producers maintain that they have the lowest carbon intensity of any facilities in the world. LNG Canada says its phase-one facility will have a life-cycle GHG footprint 65% lower than the global average for the industry and 28% below the best performers. That figure is based on carbon intensity in the Montney gas field of northeastern B.C., as well as “highly efficient processes” and use of renewable power from B.C. Hydro. Carleton’s Energy and Emissions Research Lab also concluded that stronger regulation and monitoring in B.C. has meant that methane intensities are approximately four times lower on average than neighbouring facilities in Alberta, though there are variations between facilities.

LNG Canada’s partners are considering plans to fully electrify phase two of the project, should they decide to proceed. Though that would require completion of a $3-billion transmission project to bring additional power to Kitimat for commercial and residential use. B.C. reportedly wants Ottawa to cover half the cost of the line.

First Nations’ support

Many First Nations leaders in B.C. support the expansion of the LNG industry, seeing it as a path to economic development. That support remains, despite the much-publicized battles over the Coastal GasLink pipeline that will feed LNG Canada and Cedar. Land defenders led by hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suwet’en First Nation have blocked construction on the pipeline right-of-way, prompting a series of arrests by the RCMP. Still, elected First Nations leaders continue to support LNG expansion and, in some cases, have equity positions in projects.

I think [ownership of LNG development] is one of the solutions to helping our people to get out of poverty.

 

Karen Ogen, First Nations LNG Alliance

Karen Ogen – who served as elected chief of the Wet’suwet’en for six years – leads the First Nations LNG Alliance and travelled this fall to Beijing. In a telephone interview, Ogen says Asian nations have communicated their desire for LNG supply from Canada to replace coal, and alliance members are eager to benefit. “For 150 years, we were not included when major projects went through our territories and have not benefited from them,” Ogen says. “I think [ownership of LNG development] is one of the solutions to helping our people to get out of poverty.”

The First Nations communities are looking for loan guarantees from Ottawa to help finance their equity participation in resource projects, including LNG facilities and fossil fuel pipelines. In her fall economic statement in November, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that the federal government would develop a loan guarantee program but provided no details. In a release, the First Nations Major Projects Coalition said Ottawa should not exclude fossil fuel projects from the financing plan, but rather allow First Nations governments to pursue the projects they deem appropriate.

That approach could leave Canadian taxpayers on the hook for massive loans to finance risky fossil fuel projects that are designed to last 30 years. “There is no justification for the Government of Canada to be subsidizing any new oil or gas production, including LNG, no matter the project’s owner,” says Julia Levin, associate director of national climate policy at Environmental Defence.

There is no justification for the Government of Canada to be subsidizing any new oil or gas production, including LNG, no matter the project’s owner.

 

–Julia Levin, associate director of national climate policy at Environmental Defence.

Meanwhile, advocates on both sides of the LNG debate are waiting with bated breath to see where the federal government lands on LNG in its transition taxonomy – will it make the cut or not. Behind the scenes, insiders have told Corporate Knights off the record that the finance minister’s office has been holding up the taxonomy’s release until LNG gets the green light.

In an email, SFAC chair Kathy Bardswick says that individual projects will have to be assessed on their own merits. Individual LNG projects could qualify “if there is a credible link to transition,” she says. “But there is no scenario that will pass scrutiny related to ‘new exploration.’”

In a report for the First Nations Climate Initiative, economist Robert Johnston concludes that Canadian LNG could qualify for the transition taxonomy if methane emissions are minimized and the result tracked and verified. But that’s a lot of ifs, which, as of yet, remain unresolved.

 Back at the COP28 climate summit, 50 companies (including LNG Canada partners Shell and Petronas) signed on to an agreement that commits them to “near zero” methane emissions from their oil and gas production operations. Notably, the commitment covers production but not processing at liquefaction plants or transportation in pipelines or ships. 

Given all the uncertainties, it’s unclear whether Canadian-based producers will be able to benefit in the marketplace from any carbon advantage they claim. Will buyers opt for supplies from a producer that can certify its low GHG intensity? Will they be willing to pay a premium? Would they sell credits from reducing any coal use that the additional LNG supply might allow? To date, there has been little evidence of that type of energy trading.

At most, Canada may add another LNG plant or perhaps two. Investment decisions are looming on Cedar LNG and LNG Canada’s phase two. They will depend on a host of political, environmental and market-based factors.

One thing is clear, however: a major expansion of Canadian LNG production runs counter to climate goals and entails a significant risk of big financial losses down the road for the producer, their First Nations partners and, potentially, for Canadian taxpayers.

Shawn McCarthy is an independent writer focused on energy and climate change. He is also a senior counsel at Sussex Strategy Group.

The post Is the LNG industry gaslighting the path to net-zero? appeared first on Corporate Knights.

In recent weeks and months, the fossil fuel lobby and its supporters in governments of all political stripes have been touting the putative benefits of liquefied natural gas. It’s been a full court press of advertising, sympathetic columnists presenting one-sided opinions as if they were carefully researched facts, and reports such as the one recently published by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce that wouldn’t survive scrutiny as an undergrad economics assignment. Then there is the world’s leading fossil fuel project financier — the Royal Bank of Canada — and its push for increased Canadian LNG production, the latest in a regrettable stream of greenwashing exercises.  

One of the arguments most frequently made by industry lobbyists and LNG project proponents is that LNG is a “bridge fuel.” They assert that LNG can displace other climate-polluting fossil fuels such as coal, and that because LNG emits less carbon dioxide than coal when burned, it is beneficial in the effort to limit the rapidly compounding effects of the climate crisis. 

A new report I wrote commissioned by the David Suzuki Foundation, “Burning Bridge: Debunking LNG as a Climate Solution,” takes a close look at the science and economics around LNG and the climate crisis and concludes that, far from being a solution, LNG exacerbates the problem. 

Specifically, LNG locks up investment, locks in emissions and locks out renewables — the three locks. In the wake of the latest unmistakably clear “final warning” to humanity issued by the United Nations in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s comprehensive Sixth Assessment report, the three locks keep us on the road to climate chaos.  

LNG projects are capital intensive. In fact, LNG Canada’s Phase 1 project in Kitimat, British Columbia, with a price tag of $40 billion, is the largest private sector project in Canada’s history. Because of the enormous capital cost of building LNG infrastructure, such projects must operate for decades to first break even and then turn a profit. That’s problematic when we have very little time left to dramatically reduce gas consumption.  

On the existential issue of emissions, LNG supporters carefully avoid comprehensive analyses of LNG emissions from wellhead to the end consumer. They prefer to focus on those liquefaction facilities that will use electricity to manufacture LNG leaving out all the other steps of the industrial process integral to production and emissions up to the point of delivery. In the case of Canadian LNG — the focus of the report — more than 90% of the gas that will travel via Coastal GasLink’s 640-kilometre pipeline to LNG Canada’s Kitimat facility will be fracked. Methane emissions from the fracking process are potent drivers of climate change — as methane is roughly 30 to 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In addition to emissions, fracking is also associated with serious health and water impacts. 

Then there is the cost of renewable energy, which has plummeted in recent years and is now the cheapest source of energy in many parts of the world, much more cost-effective than fossil fuel infrastructure. But if billions of dollars in private investment capital and billions more in government subsidies keep flowing to fossil fuel projects, we cannot fully leverage the cost and clean energy advantages of renewable energy.  

The federal and British Columbia governments have taken some positive steps in addressing the climate crisis. At the same time, they have worked against their own best efforts by financially supporting and approving new fossil fuel projects, such as the recent Cedar LNG project. With big oil and gas companies exerting their influence via lobbying, advertising and misinformation campaigns, governments need to listen to the science. LNG is not a climate solution in a world that desperately needs to decarbonize as quickly as possible. To be a climate leader, Canada must not add fuel to the fire by allowing any further expansion of the LNG industry.  

Daniel Horen Greenford is a postdoctoral researcher at Concordia University. He holds a PhD in Geography, Urban and Environmental Studies.

The post Why the push to sell LNG as a climate solution is full of hot air appeared first on Corporate Knights.