2024 Provincial Election Toolkit

A resource prepared by the BC Climate Emergency Campaign (BCCEC) for members and allies seeking to make the climate emergency a prominent issue in the upcoming October 19th provincial election in British Columbia.

Overview

The toolkit is meant to support you with:

  • Meetings with candidates

  • All-candidate debates, forums, town halls, etc.

  • Letters to your local paper or elected officials, and calling into radio shows

  • Election and climate conversations with friends and family

The toolkit aims to:

  • Increase climate literacy (among the public and those running for public office)

  • Increase awareness of the scientific evidence that global warming is human-caused, primarily from burning fossil fuels

  • Highlight the need for urgent political action to address the climate emergency

  • Demonstrate that climate solutions contribute to a healthier, more affordable & equitable society

  • Amplify the 10 Actions covered by the Progress Report of the BC Climate Emergency Campaign, and the BC government's steps to address them

  • Strengthen democracy by supporting voters to ask key questions

  • Help voters make informed decisions by determining where parties and candidates stand on climate science and solutions

  • Foster the acceptance of facts and attitudes to trigger a 'societal tipping point' of the electorate who demand climate solutions

PLEASE SHARE WIDELY!

NOTE: This toolkit is non-partisan and does not endorse any political parties.   

PART 1: Affordability & Climate Connections

The climate and affordability crises are deeply intertwined. We need to advocate for ambitious solutions that address both issues simultaneously.

Learn About the Connections Here

PART 2: Questions for Candidates

These questions are mostly structured around the BCCEC’s 10 urgent actions, supplemented by overarching climate questions. While the focus is on climate action and policy, there is significant overlap with other election issues including health, transportation, Indigenous sovereignty, housing, and cost of living. For the BCCEC’s perspective on what climate policy changes we need to see, please consult our 2023 Climate Action Progress Report.

Feel free to bring these questions to all candidate meetings, election forums, and the doorstep.

GENERAL QUESTIONS

  • Why do you want to be an MLA? What is your motivation for running?

  • What are your plans to prevent further deaths, destruction of property, and economic loss caused by the climate crisis?

  • Do you feel the provincial government has done enough to address the climate crisis?

  • What climate policies, programs, or actions have you previously enacted or endorsed? If elected (or re-elected), how would you prioritize climate action? What actions on the public record and/or personal actions demonstrate your commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions?

  • BC has an opportunity to become a climate leader in Canada and globally. If elected, how would you make this happen?

  • Do you actively support aligning BC’s climate plan with the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)? 

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION (GHG) TARGETS

Action 1: Set binding climate pollution targets based on science and justice
Reduce BC’s greenhouse gas emissions by 10% per year below 2007 levels. Set binding reduction targets of 60% by 2030 and 100% by 2040 (below 2007 levels). Review and update targets regularly as climate science evolves.

  • How will you communicate a sense of emergency and tell the truth about the severity of the climate crisis to the public? Will you support binding pollution targets that reflect that urgency?

  • BC’s current target is to reduce emissions by 40% by 2030. Do you think this is sufficient, and what will you do to help BC reach that target?

  • If all of BC’s planned LNG projects come online, BC will blow past its 2030 targets. How would you rectify this?

ECONOMIC RESILIENCE

Action 2: Invest in a thriving, regenerative, zero-emissions economy
Invest 2% of BC’s GDP ($8 billion dollars per year) to advance the zero-emissions economy and create tens of thousands of good jobs. Spend what it takes to immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create new economic institutions to get the job done. Ensure that the economic component of Aboriginal Title is recognized through the sharing of benefits and revenues that result.

  • Are you prepared to spend what it takes – 2% of BC’s GDP (approximately $8 billion per year) – to drive down GHG emissions and increase BC’s contribution to the global effort to avoid the worst impacts of climate change?

  • What new institutions or public enterprises dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and building a zero-emissions economy would you advocate for if elected? Would you support a Youth Climate Corps to provide climate-related training and employment for youth? 

FOSSIL FUEL REDUCTION

Action 3: Rapidly wind down all fossil fuel production and use
Immediately stop all new fossil fuel infrastructure including fracking, oil and gas pipelines, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and fossil fuel-derived hydrogen. Rapidly phase out and decommission all existing fossil fuel production and exports. 

  • BC will fail to meet its climate targets as long as it continues to expand fossil fuel projects. What have you done (as either an incumbent MLA or community leader) to support the wind down of fossil fuel production and use, and accelerate the transition to a renewable energy future?

  • Will you oppose the approval of new LNG facilities and other fossil fuel infrastructure? Do you think approvals should be rescinded for any LNG terminals or facilities that have not yet been built (i.e. Tilbury LNG Phase 2, Woodfibre LNG, Cedar LNG)?

MAKE POLLUTERS PAY

Action 4: End fossil fuel subsidies and make polluters pay
End all fossil fuel subsidies and financial incentives immediately. Ensure that those industries that profit from fossil fuel pollution pay their fair share of the resulting climate damage.

  • Are you in support of legally seeking compensation for a fair share of the harm caused by the fossil fuel industry (i.e. suing Big Oil, as California is doing)? If not, what is your solution to preventing taxpayers from bearing all of the costs of climate change?

  • Will you end all fossil fuel subsidies and financial incentives? Please give details.

  • There is no worse use of renewable electricity than the production and greenwashing of dirty fossil fuels that are 100% aimed at export markets (such as LNG in BC). Will you commit to zero public financing for LNG projects, including no tax or royalty breaks and no public financing for electrification for any aspect of LNG production?

  • The International Energy Agency has called for a 50% reduction in oil production by 2040 and an immediate end to all new fossil fuel projects. However, Canada still provides huge subsidies and public financing to expand fossil fuel projects. Will you prohibit all new fuel extraction projects?

JUST TRANSITION

Action 5: Leave no one behind
Ensure a just transition for fossil fuel workers, resource-dependent communities, and Indigenous and remote communities impacted by fossil fuel production. It will be critical to collaborate in true partnership with Indigenous peoples in climate action. Prepare our communities for the impacts of the climate crisis to minimize human suffering and infrastructure damage. Support those most vulnerable to climate change impacts.

  • In what ways have you supported efforts toward achieving a just transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy sources (i.e. solar, wind, geothermal)? How would you ensure that no one gets left behind in the transition? 

  • How quickly do you feel the BC government can wind down the fossil fuel industry while ramping up renewable energy infrastructure and production? 

  • What specific supports would you offer to fossil fuel workers, resource-dependent communities, and Indigenous and remote communities as BC moves towards a just transition?

  • Canada has pledged to implement the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which includes rights to clean water, free movement, traditional cultural resources, and environmental stewardship according to Indigenous traditions. What guarantee can you provide to Indigenous peoples that under your government, these rights will be implemented in the near future? How will you prioritize Indigenous leadership and work to further Indigenous sovereignty and self-determination?

  • What policies would you propose to ensure BC is better protecting those who are more vulnerable during extreme weather events, particularly the elderly, people with disabilities, and people who are unhoused?

  • Given that structurally vulnerable populations are already, and will continue to be, disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis, what actions do you commit to taking to address societal inequities and support community-based resilience building efforts?

NATURE RESTORATION

Action 6: Protect and restore nature
Protect 30% of terrestrial and marine ecosystems by 2030; support and invest in Indigenous-led conservation initiatives; restore natural ecosystems to enhance ecosystem functions and services, preserve biodiversity, increase carbon sequestration, and improve human and ecosystem resilience to climate impacts. Impose an immediate moratorium on the industrial logging of all old growth forests which are critical carbon sinks.

  • Less than half of the priority old growth areas recommended by the government-appointed Technical Advisory Panel back in 2021 and agreed to by the government have actually been deferred. What will you do to ensure their immediate deferral?

  • BC committed to implementing all recommendations from the 2020 Old-Growth Strategic Review, but there are no short-term implementation milestones and the finalization of the draft Biodiversity and Ecosystem Health Framework has been delayed to 2025. Do you support accelerating implementation to safeguard biodiversity and protect and restore intact forests, which play an indispensable role as carbon sinks and in reducing climate impacts like droughts and flooding?

  • BC has committed to protecting 30% of lands by 2030 but has a track record of insufficient protection of high-risk ecosystems like low elevation old-growth forests and grasslands to avoid conflict over short term economic opportunity. Will you work to change that, and how?

AGRICULTURE, FARMING & FOOD SECURITY

Action 7: Invest in local, organic, regenerative agriculture and food systems
Incentivize carbon storage in soil, restore biodiversity, and ensure food sovereignty and food security across the province. Increase consumption of plant-based foods, and reduce food waste. Support Indigenous communities that wish to maintain traditional food systems and enhance their food security.

  • If elected, how would you create more healthy, equitable, and sustainable food systems in your region and in the province?

  • Increasing consumption of plant-based foods and reducing food waste are very effective ways of reducing GHG emissions. What would you do to incentivize and promote these behaviour changes and initiatives?

TRANSPORTATION

Action 8: Accelerate the transition to zero emission transportation
Invest in affordable, accessible, and convenient public transit within and between all communities. Reallocate infrastructure funds from highway expansion to transit and active transportation (cycling, rolling, and walking). Mandate zero emissions for all new light vehicles by 2027, and all medium and heavy duty vehicles by 2030.

  • BC’s climate plan, the CleanBC Roadmap to 2030, calls for reducing “distances travelled in light-duty vehicles by 25% by 2030, compared to 2020.” Will you strive to meet or beat this traffic reduction target? (Background here and here.)

  • Highway expansion in or near urban areas makes traffic worse and increases greenhouse gas pollution. This well-documented phenomenon is called “induced traffic.” Do you support reallocating funding from highway expansion to public transit, walking, rolling and cycling infrastructure? (Background here.)

  • More fossil fuels are burned in transportation than any other sector in BC, and improving public transit is one of the best ways of making life more affordable. How would you support the development of green public transportation across the province that is accessible, safe, efficient, and affordable? (Background here.)

BUILDINGS

Action 9: Accelerate the transition to zero emission buildings
Ban natural gas connections to all new buildings by the end of 2025. Create a Crown Corporation to mobilize the workforce to retrofit all existing buildings and eliminate fossil fuel heating by 2035, and to build new affordable zero emissions buildings.

  • As better technologies come onto the market, we should require their use in all new buildings and construction. These smart upgrades ultimately save us in energy and money. Do you support the requirement for new buildings to be all-electric, instead of hooking up with less efficient gas? If so, what will you do to make this happen?

  • How should the province expedite the transition from gas to electric in existing buildings and homes? Do you think the province should offer free heat pumps to low and modest income households and to those with heightened heat risk, including the elderly and people with disabilities?

  • Do you support the creation of a Crown Corporation to mobilize the workforce to retrofit all existing buildings and eliminate fossil fuel heating by 2035 and to build new affordable zero emissions buildings?

  • Would you ban advertising extolling the virtues of fossil fuels and promoting fossil fuel use in homes and other buildings and vehicles?

TRACKING PROGRESS

Action 10: Track and report progress on these actions every year
Embed all of these actions in legislation to ensure accountability, transparency, and inclusion. Establish rolling 5-year carbon budgets that decline over time towards zero emissions by 2040 or sooner.

  • Do you support the establishment of rolling five-year carbon budgets that decline over time?

  • Huge sources of GHG emissions are not included in the official provincial accounting of our GHG emissions, such as forest emissions from logging, slash burning and wildfires (BC’s forests are now a net source of carbon emissions), emissions caused from burning the fossil fuels we export, and emissions embedded in the goods we import. What do you think should be done about this?

  • Do you support updating the Climate Change Accountability Report to explain how BC’s climate plans will achieve all legislated targets on the path to 2050, including greater details on both progress AND the risks involved in not meeting those targets, so that the public can hold the government accountable?

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT & EDUCATION

  • As an elected representative, how will you enhance public understanding of the scientific causes and societal implications of global warming? How will you boost public climate literacy?

  • Will you advocate for climate literacy training for all government employees (as France has done)?

  • How will you support youth engagement in climate action and provide opportunities for them to meaningfully take part in solutions?

  • What will you do to ensure the BC education system is accurately and thoroughly educating youth on the climate crisis and the availability of climate solutions? 

  • Do you support the creation of a Youth Climate Corps, a two-year program funded by the federal government to ensure a good, green job to any youth who wants one?

  • Do you support lowering the voting age in BC to 16?

Download Questions as PDF

PART 3: Prominent “Anti-Climate” Talking Points/Myths & How to Respond

It is tough to stay informed and up-to-date on the climate crisis in a rapidly changing world. And when government officials, friends and family, and the media all share different perspectives, it can be challenging to weed out the facts from the misinformation and disinformation. This section provides useful rebuttals when you are faced with false solutions, denialism, or greenwashing. 

Need more info on fracking and LNG (liquified “natural” gas)? Find an explainer below the talking points.

  • Response: That may have been true at one point, but not anymore. California, Quebec, and PEI all have stronger climate plans than BC. And arguably, Canada's federal climate policies are more ambitious than BC’s. BC has failed to meet its emission reduction targets for over a decade. Despite a slight decrease in emissions in 2020 due to the pandemic, emissions increased again in 2021, and in 2022, distressingly, they returned to pre-pandemic levels, meaning no GHG reduction progress has been made since 2019.

    BC’s existing targets are inadequate, are not aligned with science or justice, and are non-binding. Policies in CleanBC’s Roadmap to 2030 do not extend past 2030. There is no plan to achieve the legislated 2025, 2040, or 2050 greenhouse gas reduction targets. And while CleanBC’s Roadmap to 2030 commits to becoming net-zero by 2050, this target is yet to be legislated.

    Further resources:

  • Response: Unlike Quebec, BC has still not developed a plan to rapidly phase out and decommission existing fossil fuel production and exports, and has no adequate policies to limit the expansion of fracking or LNG exports.

    The BC government approved a third LNG export facility in 2023 (Cedar LNG), locking in fracking and LNG exports for decades. The LNG produced by Cedar LNG, once burned, will emit about 8 megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year—more than the entire city of Vancouver. If LNG Canada, Woodfibre LNG, and Cedar LNG are all built and become operational, it will be impossible for BC to achieve its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

    BC also continues to focus on false climate solutions including hydrogen, RNG (renewable “natural” gas), liquid biofuels, carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS), and carbon offsets, all of which prop up and greenwash fossil fuel extraction.

    While BC plans to electrify the oil and gas sector, this risks diverting limited energy resources away from other sectors to greenwash ongoing fossil fuel extraction.

    As of 2022, the last year for which we have data, BC’s GHG emissions were back to the pre-pandemic levels of 2019. This was not true nationally, where 2022 GHG emissions remain below pre-pandemic levels. For all these reasons, it can no longer be said that BC is leading the country in climate action.

  • Response: Polling shows that in fact, the public is ahead of the government on many things. For example, 33% of British Columbians felt the government’s recent $36 billion investment to expand the electricity grid was overdue. Meanwhile, 69% of British Columbians want the government to focus on developing renewables, with only 15% preferring a focus on LNG.

    Leaving it to the market to phase out gas production means not actively supporting oil and gas workers or their communities. It means not positioning BC as a leader in the renewable energy economy that is coming. What the workers need is policy support that lets them see what life looks like after fossil fuels. A Just Transition should be central to this process, so that workers are not left behind during the energy transition.

  • Response: Leading by example is hugely important. BC has a moral obligation to act, considering we are a wealthy province and historically and currently are responsible for far more than our fair share of global GHG emissions.

    And, despite our relatively small population, Canada has higher per capita (per person) emissions than the U.S., Russia, and India.

    The climate does not care who is or is not doing their part. Our actions should be based on doing what it takes to protect the people of BC from harm to the greatest extent possible.

  • Response: These are all greenwashing tactics that allow the oil and gas industry to continue operations as usual. When in doubt: if the oil and gas industry supports a climate policy, it is probably not a strong climate policy.

    For more on how to fight back against greenwashing, see “How to Say no to LNG Greenwashing in Canada.”

    For more on greenwashing claims by FortisBC, see “Greenwashing Debunked in 11 FortisBC Gas Claims.”

TALKING POINT: Let’s bring in more LNG!

  • Response: BC has a thriving, diverse economy. Oil and gas contributes less to GDP than tourism and creates fewer jobs than the film industry. Even in northeastern BC, healthcare employs more people than fracking does. Gas revenues contribute only $2 billion to the province’s $80+ billion budget. Phasing out fracking over the next decade or so would not significantly impact the provincial economy as a whole. However, there are several thousand workers, eight First Nations and a handful of communities that would need support to transition to a sustainable economy. Investing in the Peace Region so it can develop an economy based on renewable energy, ecological restoration and other sustainable sectors is critical to ending fracking.

  • Response: But it doesn't, because BC’s climate plan has a 25% gap in it that has not been addressed. That gap could be closed immediately by canceling planned LNG projects.

    Meanwhile, CleanBC does not model all proposed or approved LNG facilities but acknowledges the threat these projects pose to the province’s ability to hit its targets. When CleanBC was first announced, only emissions from Woodfibre LNG and phase one of LNG Canada were included. Neither the oil and gas industry’s sectoral target or the recent output-based pricing system prevents additional facilities from putting BC further off track.

    Growing gas production, particularly for export, threatens BC’s ability to meet its climate commitments. Already the first phase of LNG Canada, due to be completed in 2025, means the province will not meet its target of a 16% reduction in carbon emissions for that year. If all planned LNG projects are to become operational, their combined export capacity will be 47.9 million tonnes of LNG per year.

    Meanwhile, according to the International Energy Agency, gas demand must decline 20% by 2030 to limit global heating to safe levels.

    Plus, emissions anywhere are emissions everywhere. Just because the fracked gas is being burned elsewhere doesn’t mean it isn’t heating the planet and exacerbating climate disasters at home and abroad.

  • Response: Proponents of using gas as a “bridge fuel” argue it can provide reliable energy with lower greenhouse gas emissions than coal or oil as the world transitions over the longer term to carbon-free energy. However, since this proposition first appeared, the case for gas as a bridge fuel has weakened:

    Recent studies show that LNG may actually be worse for the climate than coal, as LNG is primarily composed of methane, which is 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide in the near term. And rates of methane loss throughout the oil and gas supply chain are much higher than previously believed. Additional methane production could quickly do irreversible damage to the climate, while methane reductions have a quicker beneficial effect than carbon reductions.

    At the same time, renewables have matured, becoming reliable and cost-competitive.

    Switching from coal to gas power does little to change the overall trajectory of GHG emissions since increased supply (even when displacing coal) creates a long-term commitment to fossil fuel infrastructure and incentivizes additional consumption of gas. Canadian LNG, as additional supply, is superfluous and works against the needed energy transition.

    There is no guarantee that LNG exports would replace coal rather than compete with renewable energy in its target markets. The Ads Standards Council recently ruled that claims that BC LNG will reduce greenhouse gases globally is false advertising.

    A growing body of research shows the need for an immediate transition away from gas that does not allow for expanded LNG export capacity. This disqualifies Canadian LNG as a part of a credible energy transition.

    [Above text is from Burning Bridge: Debunking LNG as a Climate Solution]

  • Response: The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) is a United Nations international body of eminent scientists who clearly state that we must rapidly reduce production and consumption of all fossil fuels, meaning no new fossil fuel infrastructure can be built. They make no exception for LNG because no exception is warranted. LNG is methane and methane causes 80 times as much warming as carbon dioxide in the short term.

    LNG production poses significant risks to British Columbians beyond global warming, considering that natural gas in BC is obtained through fracking, which has serious health risks.

    Expanding LNG would require tradeoffs for the province: if all six proposed LNG facilities in BC were to be built, they would require around 43 TWh of electricity per year—equivalent to the electricity from more than eight Site C dams. Diverting this much power to LNG would mean less is available for households or cleaner industries on a less risky growth path (Clean Energy Canada).

  • Response: In many cases, it is the elected leaders of Indigenous communities who support a project (or feel pressured into supporting it because of the economic advantages of doing so) while the hereditary chiefs, who are unelected leaders, continue to oppose the project. Indigenous support or co-ownership of a project is not always indicative of support from the entire nation, or from neighbouring nations. One or more First Nations’ support for a project does not eliminate the need to gain consent from all nations whose title and rights would be affected. See this report from the Gitanyow Hereditary Chiefs outlining their concerns with Ksi Lisims LNG, a project led by the Nisga’a Nation.

    A better solution would be to create jobs and income for local communities through renewable energy projects. See Seth Klein’s recent article for more on this.

    Take particular care with the recent rise in discourse around economic reconciliation, which has "become a buzzword touted by political figures and resource industries, for a pathway towards reconciliation through economic opportunities afforded by resource extraction projects" (see more).

  • Response: Projects including Summit Lake LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG are not yet approved, so there is no legal consequence to saying no. Projects in the past have been cancelled; it’s just a matter of political will. Our understanding of climate science has greatly changed since 10 years ago when many projects were first approved.

    There may be costs to shutting down projects, but the costs that will be incurred in the future if we fail to act now will be astronomical.

TALKING POINT: But whatabout…

  • Response: A new study has shown that, by 2049, global inaction on climate change will cost the world $38 trillion in economic damage annually (for reference, the current global economy is approximately $105 trillion per year). The Canadian Climate Institute calculates that by 2025, climate change will already be slowing Canadian economic growth by $25 billion a year.

    Climate inaction is exponentially more expensive than climate action. The costs to BC’s economy from the 2021 heat dome and the subsequent horrific wildfires, widespread flooding and crippling landslides were estimated at between $10.6 to $17.1 billion, making it the most expensive climate disaster year in Canadian history.

    The cost of evacuations, cleanup, rebuilding infrastructure, and recovery will only continue to increase as climate disasters ramp up. Insurance companies are already refusing to provide fire insurance for homes in parts of BC. We are only playing whack-a-mole if we continue spending at the wrong end of the problem (reacting to climate disasters) and setting ourselves up for ever increasing damages and costs and lives lost (i.e. over 600 people and over a billion intertidal animals in the 2021 heat dome, and more than 642,000 farm animals in the 2021 Abbotsford floods).

    Spending on prevention of climate change is a necessary investment in a liveable future and it prevents increasing expenditures on disasters. Do we want to fix the hole in the roof or keep on mopping the floor?

    Climate action also presents an opportunity to liberate people from high costs of home heating, of transport, and the volatility of gas prices. For example, every new home tied into gas means giving the new owners a bill for $20,000 for retrofits they’ll have to pay in the future. Switching to electric heating and cooling systems generates immediate cost savings for families.

  • Response: While all forms of energy and transportation have environmental impacts – and regardless of the fossil fuel vs renewables path forward, we all need to make different choices as individuals and a society to consume less – it is fundamentally false that the environmental impacts of an economy based on renewables is equivalent to one based on fossil fuels. 

    Also, stay alert! The speedy spread of doubts about EVs and renewable energy are part of a coordinated strategy by the fossil fuel industry. Having largely lost the debate about the reality of climate change, oil and gas corporations have shifted their strategy, seeking now to advance what is called “Solutions Scepticism.” One should always ask hard questions about environmental harms (and ensure Indigenous consent for mining), but be careful not to be an unwitting tool of the fossil fuel companies. 

    More details:

    Renewable energy uses much less materials mass.

    • According to Mark Jacobson, Stanford University professor and author, wind and solar energy require about 1% of the mining that fossil fuel energy needs in terms of materials mass.

    • A December 2021 study by researchers from the Baker Institute Center for Energy Studies in Texas found that “even if the world increased 12-fold the annual global production of all rare earths, lithium, cobalt, and even copper, the metals produced would comprise just 3% of 2020 world coal production. Over two decades, five times more power would be produced by mining an equivalent amount for wind rather than coal.”

    And on electric vehicles:

    • EVs consume far less raw material (metals) than internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. In study after study of life cycle analyses examining the environmental impact of building and using vehicles, there has been a clear benefit found for EVs. More here.

    • Batteries are now lasting longer. Since 2010, lithium-ion battery cells have nearly tripled their energy storage per kilogram. Their 89 percent price drop over the same decade is due partly to their more frugal use of materials. Million-mile batteries are also emerging, so their lifetime could soon become as irrelevant an issue as the speed of your modem. When an EV ultimately retires (or crashes), its battery pack can be “reincarnated” into valuable stationary storage that continues to provide great value.

    • Technology is changing the EV game exponentially. Over the next decade, technological advancements will cut in half the amount of lithium required to make an EV battery. The amount of cobalt required will drop by more than three-quarters and nickel by around a fifth.

    • Recycled lithium battery cells are richer in minerals: about 17 times richer sources of nickel, 4-5 times richer sources of lithium, and 10 times richer sources of cobalt than their respective natural ores. “Mining” that recycling resource is already getting well underway. 

    • By 2035, over a fifth of the lithium and nickel and 65% of the cobalt needed to make a new battery could come from recycling. A billion batteries in old consumer-electronics devices, many 30-fold richer in cobalt than the remaining cobalt-using car batteries, await recycling in clean and profitable American factories already being scaled up.

    Brains outpace mines. Let’s not let myths outpace truth. 

  • Response: The BC Climate Action Tax Credit is a progressive tax credit that offers the lowest income residents of BC the greatest reimbursement, and more than offsets what most households pay in the carbon tax. If the carbon tax and its resulting credit were scrapped, most BC families would be financially worse off. Additionally, in comparison to the spiraling cost of housing, the carbon tax is either a negligible cost for British Columbians or a net gain after taxes.

    On a national scale: According to a recent study from the International Institute for Sustainable Development, fossil fuel price volatility is a key driver of inflation, making life less affordable for Canadians. From February 2021 to June 2022, energy prices accounted for 33% of Canada’s overall inflation. The price of gasoline skyrocketed by 55% between June 2022 and 2023 due to international pressures beyond Canadian borders. Despite popular belief, the carbon tax only contributed 4% to this increase.

    And as an open letter from more than 100 economists points out, “Carbon pricing is the lowest cost approach because it gives each person and business the flexibility to choose the best way to reduce their carbon footprint.”

    How else has BC's carbon tax helped?

    Since implementing the carbon tax in 2008, fuel consumption has fallen by at least 7% per person, while BC’s air quality has improved between 5 and 11%. The carbon tax has also saved nearly $200/per person on our health system as a result of a reduction in lung cancers, circulatory diseases, and respiratory diseases caused by air pollution.

TALKING POINT: BC is leading the way

FAQ on Fracking and LNG

What is fracking?

Fracking is the process gas companies use to extract methane gas from shale rock beds deep underground in northeastern BC. They mix enormous amounts of freshwater with silica sand and a cocktail of toxic chemicals, then pump it down a well at extremely high pressure to shatter the rock and displace the gas. 

What is LNG?

LNG, or liquified natural gas, is created by supercooling methane gas in order to liquify the gas so that it can be put on tankers and exported overseas. This process is extremely energy-intensive and occurs at LNG facilities.

Why does BC need to end fracking?

Growing gas production, particularly for export, threatens BC’s ability to meet its climate commitments. Already the first phase of LNG Canada, due to be completed in 2025, means the province will not meet its target of a 16% reduction in carbon emissions for that year. Every new LNG plant puts BC further off track and makes it less likely we’ll meet our 2030 goal. Meanwhile, gas demand must decline 20% by 2030 to limit global heating to safe levels, according to the International Energy Agency. 

What are the local impacts of fracking in northeast BC?

Fracking has already destroyed an area of forest and farmland five times the size of Alberta’s tar sands mines. It draws over five billion litres of water a year from nearby rivers and lakes, contributing to drought conditions. Residents of the Peace Region face enormous health risks living in close proximity to fracking operations but little research has been done. Doctors report staggering rates of glioblastoma and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Recent studies show pregnant women living near gas development have elevated levels of benzene metabolites in their urine. Indigenous participants had six times the level of the carcinogen than the Canadian population.

Why is gas so bad for the climate?

Methane is the main component of fracked gas. It’s an extremely potent greenhouse gas that traps 80 times as much heat as carbon dioxide over its lifetime in the atmosphere. From the gas well to the consumer, methane escapes at every step of the process. While BC has committed to nearly eliminating industrial methane leaks by 2035, there are limits to this approach. The more gas we extract, the more will wind up in the atmosphere heating the planet.

Won’t the proposed oil and gas emissions cap solve this problem?

For years, the provincial government has claimed the existence of sectoral targets for the oil and gas industry makes it possible for them to approve new LNG plants. But BC has missed every climate target it has ever set for itself and no new pollution fits into a plan the province is not on track to meet. While the recently proposed oil and gas emissions cap is promising, there have been no details showing the policy would actually result in no new LNG plants being constructed and a decline in gas production. With the industry lobbying the province several times a day, it seems more likely it will serve only to greenwash the growing extraction of fossil fuels. Additionally, the cap only addresses production emissions; the vast majority of GHG emissions occurs when LNG reaches its intended market and is subsequently burned.

How would a phase out of the gas industry affect the economy?

BC has a thriving, diverse economy. Oil and gas contributes less to GDP than tourism and creates less jobs than the film industry. Even in northeastern BC, healthcare employs more people than fracking does. Gas revenues contribute only $2 billion to the province’s $80+ billion budget. Phasing out fracking over the next decade or so would not significantly impact the provincial economy as a whole. However, there are several thousand workers, eight First Nations and a handful of communities that would need support to transition to a sustainable economy. Investing in the Peace Region so it can develop an economy based on renewable energy, ecological restoration and other sustainable sectors is critical to ending fracking. 

How will people in BC heat their homes without gas?

Currently, only about 10% of the gas extracted in BC is used for domestic purposes (such as home heating). Most of the gas BC currently extracts is shipped to Alberta. As for our domestic needs, BC is fortunate to have abundant renewable energy to run heat pumps and a public utility that can maintain affordability as residents adopt them for space and water heating. It also has an opportunity to put tens of thousands of people to work installing these appliances and insulating homes so they work even in the coldest conditions. Heat pumps work using a compressor to extract heat from the outdoors and are extremely energy efficient. They also double as air conditioning during summer heat wave events that are becoming more common and dangerous.

Is LNG a good climate solution for the shipping industry?

Many of BC’s proposed LNG projects are tied to the shipping industry. For example, the Tilbury Marine Jetty project recently approved by the BC government will add new infrastructure for LNG tanker and ship fueling. While LNG emits less CO2, SOx, NOx, and particulate matter than traditional marine fuels, it replaces them with methane emissions that cause air pollution, crop loss, and health implications. Methane slip (the escape of unburned methane) occurs at several points in the LNG lifecycle, including when methane isn’t fully burned during combustion, or when methane escapes directly from the exhaust valve of a ship’s engine. Since methane is such a potent greenhouse gas, even small amounts of escaped methane (“slipping”) contribute to the climate crisis. Despite being greenwashed as a cleaner alternative, there is no climate benefit to using LNG as a fuel for shipping. LNG has no place in a sustainable shipping future.