188
Pressure Builds to Ban ‘Blatantly False’ Ads | The Tyee (www.thetyee.ca)
submitted 6 days ago by girlfreddy@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca
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
[-] Yaztromo@lemmy.world 14 points 6 days ago

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.

[-] Player2@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

Also conveniently forgetting that shipping methane across an ocean is extremely polluting and inefficient

[-] supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago

Not in the least it's the most effective means for shipping methane across such distances. LNG remains liquid across the voyage, and any boil off is used for the ship engines that do not typically use diesel.

[-] Player2@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

I'm not saying that a giant pipeline would be preferable, but cooling LNG to cryogenic temperatures and keeping it there for the entire voyage is very energy intensive, not to mention the fuel costs of a carrier vessel. I am against gas exploration and transporting in general and in all its forms. It should not be considered a 'necessary' evil and it should certainly not see further investment in my opinion.

[-] supercriticalcheese@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

Transportation is not, it's energy intensive producing it, not transporting it. LNG don't require much refrigeration normally once liquified.

It takes a lot of energy to vaporise LNG and the tanks are designed so that the boil off equals to what the ships engines need .

load more comments (4 replies)
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2024
188 points (98.0% liked)

Canada

6931 readers
766 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Regions

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Universities

👒 Lifestylecoming soon

💵 Finance / Shopping

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Other

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here:

  1. No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia.
  2. Be respectful. Everyone should feel welcome here.
  3. No porn.
  4. No Ads / Spamming.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca