Article content continued

“It would be a massive source of greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere,” said Simon Fraser University professor Kirsten Zickheld, who signed the letter. “If you are in a hole, you shouldn’t dig deeper. What you should really do is start to get out of that hole. In this case, what it really means is leaving fossil fuels behind and embarking on a renewable energy trajectory”

Added Tim Flannery, chief councilor of Australia’s Climate Commission, in a written statement: “As an Australian living with the consequences of gas exploitation, I know that LNG is the wrong pathway to take — from both an environmental and financial perspective.”

A decision from a federal review on the Petronas-led project is expected possibly this summer, then the Trudeau government has the final say.

Like other LNG proposals, none of which has made final investment decisions, Pacific Northwest LNG, a $36-billion project if its pipeline and gas extraction is included, is hoping to tap into energy demand in Asia.

The Trudeau government has already signalled it will take a new approach on climate change.

In late January, the government introduced a requirement for major energy projects to be assessed for carbon emissions related to gas and oil extraction and pipelines, referred to as upstream emissions.

In the past, only the carbon emissions from the manufacturing plant or terminal itself had to be taken into account.

A draft report from the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA) released in February on the Petronas project estimated greenhouse gas emissions at 5.28 million tonnes for the plant on B.C.’s northwest coast near Prince Rupert and 6.5 to 8.7 million tonnes for upstream emissions from gas extraction, processing and transport on pipelines.