Common Climate 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 it here.

  • 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