CDN NEWS | 
US NEWS 
New report finds that displacing coal and foreign gas with Canadian LNG could lower global emissions by 70 megatonnes a year
By Stewart Muir
Mark Cameron (left) with Stewart Muir
By Resource Works
More News and Views From Resource Works Here
Canada’s energy policy debate has become trapped in a polarization that feels dangerously disconnected from global reality.
On one side, we have a domestic conversation focused intensely on our own emissions ledger—counting every tonne produced within our borders as a liability. On the other side is the global reality: a world hungry for energy, often turning to the dirtiest sources available to keep the lights on and economies growing.
I’ve long argued that we cannot solve a global problem like climate change by wearing blinders that restrict our view to the 49th parallel. Recently, on the Power Struggle podcast, I sat down with Mark Cameron to discuss the hard data that backs this up.
Cameron is a fellow at the Public Policy Forum and the co-author of a new report Refuel: What Canadian LNG and Oil Exports Could Mean for Global Emissions. The numbers tell a story that might surprise those who view energy exports solely as a climate negative.
Flipping the script on emissions
The central finding of the Refuel report challenges the orthodoxy that “more production equals more pollution.” When we look at the global picture, the opposite appears to be true.
“The headline news is that if Canada was to increase its LNG exports by [47 million tonnes a year] and if we are exporting primarily into Asian markets, there would be a net reduction in emissions of about 40 to 70 megatonnes per year,” Cameron told me.
Let that sink in. By increasing our economic output and shipping more product abroad, we could lower global emissions by an amount roughly equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road.
It comes down to displacement. The energy we export doesn’t vanish into a void; it replaces other, often dirtier, forms of power generation.
“In some of those markets, you’re displacing coal,” Cameron explained. “Coal obviously is about twice the emissions in generating electricity as LNG. So to the extent that you’re displacing coal, you’re getting a clear emissions reduction.”
The Canadian advantage
This isn’t just about the inherent chemistry of gas versus coal. It is also about the specific quality of the gas produced in Western Canada. Not all liquefied natural gas (LNG) is created equal.
Canada’s geography and technology provide a distinct edge over competitors regarding carbon intensity.
“Canadian LNG, because it has cooler temperatures, shorter shipping times to Asia, more electric drive in its production, is actually about 35 per cent lower in emissions than LNG that would be shipped from, say, the U.S. Gulf Coast,” Cameron said.
When we debate blocking a Canadian project, we act as if the alternative is zero consumption. But the alternative is often gas from the Gulf Coast—which requires more energy to cool in the hot southern climate and takes longer to ship—or worse, coal.
Asian markets know this. They are looking for reliability and lower carbon intensity.
“We want to have a certain percentage of LNG, and we want a certain percentage of that coming from Canada because it’s a stable market and it has a particularly low emissions intensity,” Cameron noted.
The reality of substitution
This brings us to the concept of “carbon leakage.” It is a harsh economic reality that if Canada steps out of the market, we don’t save the planet—we simply cede market share to those with lower environmental standards.
“If the LNG is not coming from Canada, it’s going to come from somewhere else,” Cameron said bluntly. “It’s going to come from the U.S. or Qatar or Australia, or it would be displaced by coal or another energy source. So when you look at all those things in balance, it does look like Canadian LNG is a net positive for the climate.”
Progress in the oilsands
While LNG often dominates the “transition fuel” conversation, the report also addresses the oilsands. The narrative there has often ignored massive strides in efficiency.
“That emissions intensity is coming down. It’s come down by about 30 per cent in the last 20 years,” Cameron said.
He pointed to operational fuel switching as a key driver of this progress.
“Canadian oilsands was using petroleum coke, essentially coal, to generate the steam for the oilsands production. That is almost entirely shifted to natural gas.”
The long game
Finally, we must address the timeline. Critics argue that building LNG infrastructure locks us into fossil fuels. But the transition is a decades-long process.
“There is going to be LNG demand,” Cameron said. “We don’t know exactly how much, but there’s going to be LNG demand for the next four or five, six decades.”
Furthermore, natural gas is a fundamental building block of modern civilization, used for fertilizer and chemical production, not just electricity.
“If we can produce the cleanest LNG in the world, we’re actually doing global climate a favour by building those projects,” Cameron added.
If we retreat from the world stage, we aren’t taking the moral high ground; we are merely outsourcing the emissions to countries with a heavier carbon footprint. A Canada that exports more is a Canada that contributes to a cleaner world.
Watch the video on Power Struggle
- Power Struggle audio and transcript
- Mark Cameron on LinkedIn
- Stewart Muir on X
- Stewart Muir on LinkedIn
Power Struggle on social media:
- Power Struggle on LinkedIn
- Power Struggle on Instagram
- Power Struggle on Facebook
- Power Struggle on X
Share This:
STRONG COAST: Inside the Social-Media Campaign Organizing Opposition to Canada’s New West Coast Pipeline