this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
188 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

8139 readers
2129 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter
mp3
188
Pressure Builds to Ban ‘Blatantly False’ Ads | The Tyee (www.thetyee.ca)
submitted 8 months ago by girlfreddy to c/canada
14 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

For Ed Wiebe, seeing prominent ads claiming that “B.C. LNG will reduce global emissions” while on his daily bike ride to work as a climate researcher was particularly galling.

“What really got me was it was just completely blatantly false,” Wiebe said about advertising displayed prominently on city buses and billboards in Victoria and the Lower Mainland. “I just could not understand how they could get away with it.”

Wiebe wasn’t alone.

According to the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, or CAPE, “multiple” anonymous complainants believed the ads were misleading and asked Ad Standards Canada to investigate. Wiebe confirmed to The Tyee that he was among them.

But Wiebe may never learn the outcome of his complaint. He has been cut out of the process after another complainant leaked an initial decision, which unanimously found the ads by industry advocacy group Canada Action Coalition gave an “overall misleading impression that B.C. LNG is good for the environment, amounting to greenwashing.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 8 months ago (8 children)

This is how the LNG argument typically goes: if we build up LNG capacity, we can ship it to China who can use it to replace coal burning power plants which emit significantly more CO2 than LNG fired plants do.

That sounds nice — but do we have any_ commitments from China that this would actually happen? Or is it more likely that they’ll just build more LNG capacity on top of their existing coal capacity?

To me, the latter seems more likely than the former.

[–] MetricIsRight 11 points 8 months ago (3 children)

I may be completely out of the loop here so correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't China making a monumental shift towards solar and renewables right now as well? Why would they need LNG when they have record amounts of renewables being implemented and an established Coal system.

[–] evranch 3 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Coal plants can be fairly easily repowered to natural gas, which decreases CO2 emissions but more significantly drops local particulate emissions nearly to zero. China's air quality is famously poor so this would be a smart move.

China still needs baseload generation and converting coal to NG is far cheaper than nuclear or advanced stack scrubbers.

[–] MetricIsRight 1 points 8 months ago

I didn't realize that converting coal to LNG was a thing, Interesting. Thanks for the information!

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)