![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/bc-co2-dig-with-lng_v1.jpg\" "\\"Chart")
<\/p>\nBritish Columbians might be surprised to learn they are among the world\u2019s most aggressive extractors of climate-destabilizing fossil fuels, per capita \u2014 and major projects that are already being built aim to make the province\u2019s contribution much worse.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Seven charts help tell the story of how we got here.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
My first chart shows the amount of fossil fuel extracted per capita going back to 1980. I\u2019ve converted the various forms of fossil fuels \u2013 coal, oil, gas — into the tonnes of CO2 emitted when they get burned (see endnotes for details). In climate legalese, these emissions are known as \u201cscope 3 liability.\u201d<\/p>\n
Notice that back in 1980, British Columbians were extracting similar amounts per capita as the Americans and Canadians overall \u2014 around 18 tonnes of CO2 (tCO2) per capita.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Since then, British Columbians have aggressively increased fossil fuel extraction \u2013 currently digging up 41 tCO2 per capita. And just look how fast they have been bending their extraction curve upwards in recent decades. As the climate crisis keeps getting worse, British Columbians keep increasing the amount of the problem they are pulling out of the ground. They are choosing, decade after decade, to keep accelerating away from climate stability that can only come with net-zero fossil fuel CO2. That\u2019s the green line at the bottom of the chart.\u00a0<\/p>\n
And that is before British Columbians start up their brand-new, massive, liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry. We will look at the eye-popping surge in CO2 extraction needed to feed this industry in a minute. But first let\u2019s take a moment to consider the increasing costs that now shadow fossil CO2 extraction.<\/p>\n
British Columbians face a trifecta of liability. They own the fossil carbon beneath their province. They license the extraction of it. And they also provide subsidies. Rising climate damage and liability<\/p>\n
Unlike most pollution, fossil fuel CO2 relentlessly piles up in our atmosphere creating an ever-thickening blanket. This persistent blanket of CO2 will overheat and destabilize the climate system for countless generations to come.\u00a0<\/p>\n
As the World Meteorological Organization warns: \u201cthe accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere is irreversible<\/a> on human timescales and will affect climate for millennia.\u201d Irreversible. Millennia. The more fossil carbon we dig up and burn, the more damage and misery we cook up for the generations that follow.<\/p>\n The people who own, extract and sell these destabilizing fossil fuels are facing increasing liability for the serious and irreversible harm their products cause. This was highlighted by a recent International Court of Justice ruling<\/a> that British Columbians would be wise to pay attention to:\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cFailure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the\u00a0provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state.\u201d (Emphasis added).<\/p>\n British Columbians face a trifecta of liability. They own the fossil carbon beneath their province. They license the extraction of it. And they also provide subsidies<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the past, fossil carbon extractors have mostly dodged liability for their product because it has been hard to assess the specific role that fossil CO2 played in extreme weather events. But that\u2019s been changing rapidly as climate science is getting far more accurate at pinpointing the contribution of climate change in catastrophes. When each tonne of your product can be shown to cause specific monetary damages, you should expect liability claims to follow. And when the damage caused by your product continues to shoot upwards \u2014 often beyond what insurance companies are willing or able to cover<\/a> \u2014 those liability claims will grow massive.\u00a0<\/p>\n Someone will have to pay for the growing harm fossil carbon products are causing. And while the future is uncertain, the people increasing production of the problem as the crisis intensifies will certainly stand out.\u00a0<\/p>\n With that in mind, let\u2019s return to British Columbians\u2019 new LNG industry.<\/p>\n Turbocharging CO2 extraction via LNG<\/p>\n British Columbians are aiming to turbocharge CO2 extraction through a series of massive new LNG export terminals and the pipelines needed to feed them.<\/p>\n So far, BC has approved five LNG terminals with a combined capacity of 50 million tonnes of LNG per year (see endnotes for details).<\/p>\n Burning that much fossil gas will release 134 million tonnes of CO2 per year.<\/p>\n By 2035, when all these terminals plan to be operating, that will equal 21 tCO2 per British Columbian.\u00a0<\/p>\n I\u2019ve added a dotted orange line to the chart to show this amount.<\/p>\n To be clear, that\u2019s just the CO2 from burning the LNG. There is a lot more CO2 emitted when extracting, transporting, liquefying, and shipping it that isn\u2019t included in these numbers.<\/p>\n If most of the exported LNG comes from increased production, then British Columbians could shoot past 50 tCO2 extracted per capita as the terminals come online.<\/p>\n To offer some perspective, I added the Saudis to the chart. Whenever I think of fossil carbon excess, that\u2019s who comes to mind first. Currently, the Saudis extract 47 tCO2 per capita. That\u2019s been falling in recent decades.\u00a0<\/p>\n British Columbians are aiming to shoot past even the Saudis in CO2 extraction per person. How do British Columbians plan to climb safely down from such a dizzying height? As the gathering storm clouds of climate damage and liability sweep in, it certainly seems reckless to me to keep climbing higher.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Making Americans look like climate moderates You know things are heading off the rails when your actions make the \u201cdrill-baby-drill\u201d, \u201cmake-coal-great-again\u201d Yanks look like the climate good guys in the room.<\/p>\n But just compare the CO2 extraction curves for British Columbians and Americans.<\/p>\n The Americans are the blue line in the middle of the chart. I\u2019ve highlighted both ends of their line.<\/p>\n As mentioned before, back in 1980 the Americans were extracting a similar amount of fossil carbon as British Columbians and Canadians overall \u2013 around 18 tCO2 per capita.\u00a0<\/p>\n Since then, British Columbians (and Canadians overall) have more than doubled CO2 extraction per person, while the Americans have kept theirs at about the same level. They currently extract around 16 tCO2 per capita.<\/p>\n Imagine that chart with no regional names on it \u2014 which one of those CO2 extraction lines would look the most climate damaging to you? The flat blue line or the surging orange line?\u00a0<\/p>\n Peers heading to the safety of net zero fossil CO2<\/p>\n If British Columbians want a more hopeful climate future, they should follow the lead of their Commonwealth peers, the British. The British are highlighted in green at the bottom of the chart.<\/p>\n The British had coal mining and burning at the heart of their economy and national identity for more than a century. So, it\u2019s notable that the British have chosen to shut down both coal extraction and burning.\u00a0<\/p>\n In addition, the British are also intentionally reducing extraction of their sizable North Sea oil and gas deposits. This choice to leave carbon safely in the ground has drawn the ire of the world\u2019s great fossil carbon huckster and bully, Donald Trump \u2013 who lambasted this decision in a recent rambling speech<\/a> to the United Nations. \u201cOiligarchs<\/a>\u201d are getting worried they won\u2019t be able to maintain their accustomed supersized profits and geopolitical power if people switch to safer, cheaper, clean electricity.\u00a0<\/p>\n In total, the British have now reduced their CO2 extraction to only 20 per cent of what it was in 1980. They are choosing to head for the safe climate harbour of net-zero fossil CO2.<\/p>\n Another peer heading towards climate stability that British Columbians (and Canadians overall) could follow is Germany. Back in 1990, Germany was the world’s third largest coal producer. Despite the difficulties<\/a>, they too have cut off subsidies and shut down most of their coal production. Germans now extract only around one tonne of fossil CO2 per capita. British Columbians extract 40 times more CO2 per person and they still won\u2019t stop pig piling on more.<\/p>\n Getting to net zero CO2 is what the world\u2019s nations \u2013 including Canada \u2014 have collectively said is critical to achieve. The British and Germans have shown us that advanced economies can intentionally ramp down the fossil CO2 they extract if they choose to.\u00a0<\/p>\n The BC breakdown<\/p>\n So far, we\u2019ve looked at total fossil CO2 extraction. My next chart breaks down British Columbians\u2019 extraction into coal, oil and gas. (Special thanks to geologist, and Canadian energy expert David Hughes for helping me find some of the missing pieces in this puzzle.)<\/p>\n British Columbians currently extract record volumes of fossil gas \u2014 23 tCO2 worth per capita. This is shown by the darkest shading on the chart.\u00a0<\/p>\n For scale, that is more than the Americans extract from all forms of fossil fuel combined: coal, oil and gas.\u00a0<\/p>\n And you can also see how rapidly British Columbians have been increasing this. Now they want to push it higher. That\u2019s where the massive new LNG terminals come in.\u00a0<\/p>\n British Columbians are also currently extracting record amounts of fossil oil (or more broadly \u201cliquids\u201d). That\u2019s shown by the medium dark band in the middle of the chart. Per capita extraction is now around five tonnes of CO2 and rising quickly.\u00a0<\/p>\n And to top it all off, BC is digging up a near record amount of coal. However, unlike oil and gas, coal extraction hasn\u2019t increased as quickly as BC\u2019s population \u2014 so the per capita amount has slowly fallen to around 13 tCO2 today. That\u2019s shown by the lightest color area on the chart.<\/p>\n When this chart emerged from the data, the first question that jumped out at me was: how much higher are British Columbians planning to go?\u00a0<\/p>\n To find out, I turned to Canada Energy Regulator\u2019s Energy Futures report<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n Projections with LNG<\/p>\n The Canada Energy Regulator has future projections for BC\u2019s fossil gas and oil (but not coal). I\u2019ve added the projections from their current measures<\/a> scenario to the chart in grey.\u00a0<\/p>\n Under current policies, BC\u2019s fossil gas extraction is projected to jump 50 per cent by 2035. And BC\u2019s oil\/liquids extraction is projected to nearly double.\u00a0<\/p>\n When expected population growth is factored in, BC gas extraction would rise to 30 tCO2 per capita \u2013 and oil would rise to more than 6 tCO2.<\/p>\n Even that might significantly underestimate what\u2019s coming. That\u2019s because the regulator\u2019s scenario was based on current measures in 2023.\u00a0<\/p>\n Since then, BC has approved 45 per cent more LNG export capacity<\/a> (see endnotes for details). And BC has also axed some major climate policies<\/a>. So, I would expect projections based on today\u2019s \u201ccurrent measures\u201d to be even higher.\u00a0<\/p>\n The remaining piece of the puzzle is future coal production.<\/p>\n Unfortunately, I couldn\u2019t find any projections for this. So, the best I can offer is the observation that if BC coal extraction remains the same, it would result in 11 tCO2 per capita in 2035. That\u2019s based on projected population growth.\u00a0<\/p>\n Adding that much coal onto the Canada Energy Regulator\u2019s projected gas and oil amounts would push British Columbians\u2019 total in 2035 to nearly 50 tCO2 extracted per person. That would pass where the Saudis are now and be triple the Americans current level.<\/p>\n Regardless of how the details play out, the stage is set for the sprint away from net zero to continue.\u00a0<\/p>\n BC\u2019s direct emissions also out of control<\/p>\n So far, we have looked at indirect climate pollution (scope 3). This is what your fossil fuel products emit when used. I will wrap up with a quick look at the more familiar direct emissions (scope 1). This is what gets emitted in your region.\u00a0<\/p>\n My final chart lets you see the direct emissions for the Group of Seven (G7) advanced economies.\u00a0It shows the changes made since 1990 \u2014 the international baseline year for comparing climate progress.<\/p>\n Hey, look. This chart of direct emissions looks a lot like the earlier ones of indirect emissions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Once again, BC\u2019s emissions are way up \u2013 and Canada\u2019s are too.<\/p>\n And here, too, the Americans are making no real climate progress and yet still doing far better than we are.\u00a0<\/p>\n And once again, the British and Germans have slashed their climate pollution and are heading for net-zero. Both nations have cut their direct emissions in half.<\/p>\n In Canada we constantly hear a feel-good fairy tale that claims we can significantly increase fossil carbon extraction while meeting our climate targets. But it turns out that this isn\u2019t really a thing<\/a>. We certainly have never come close. And I\u2019ve never found any nation that has cranked up extraction while also making big cuts to their direct emissions.\u00a0<\/p>\n British Columbians need be honest about what they are doing and pick a climate lane. More extraction and emissions \u2014 or less.<\/p>\n As noted at the start of this article, British Columbians are one of the world\u2019s most aggressive extractors of climate pollution per capita. Is that really who we want to be? Must we be even more fossil greedy per person than the Saudis or the Americans? When will we bend our CO2 extraction curve the other way \u2013 towards climate stability and safety?<\/p>\n If nothing else, British Columbian should at least worry about the escalating amount of climate liability our current path is piling onto us.\u00a0<\/p>\n The dangerous reality is that climate damages are rising rapidly. Insurance companies are starting to pull back<\/a>. The costs aren\u2019t going away; they are spiralling upwards. Someone will have to pay those costs. If the world ever decides to cover some of the increasingly unmanageable costs by enforcing product liability on fossil fuels, then British Columbians face supersized claims. Carrying around 50 tonnes of climate liability per person by 2035 threatens to be a crushing burden on many levels.<\/p>\n Maybe it\u2019s time we start climbing down off the climate cliff.\u00a0<\/p>\n To start heading down toward climate safety we could align our CO2 extraction with the Americans \u2014 currently 16 tonnes of CO2 per capita.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n ——————————-<\/p>\n Endnotes<\/p>\n ——————————-<\/p>\n OTHER PROVINCES?\u00a0<\/p>\n The first question many readers might have is: \u201cwhat does per capita CO2 extraction look like in Alberta?\u201d (or another province). I too would like to know. Unfortunately, I find it very difficult and time consuming to find detailed fossil carbon extraction data at the provincial level, especially complete time series to show trends. For example, Statistics Canada has tables listing coal production by province but much of the data is \u201csuppressed to meet the confidentiality requirements\u201d and represented only by \u201cx\u201d. If any readers are aware of good extraction data for coal, oil and gas for a particular province, please leave a note in the comments section.\u00a0<\/p>\n B.C. LNG\u00a0<\/p>\n Here\u2019s a list of approved B.C. LNG terminals. Only the first one has started exporting and it is still in low volume start up mode. Annual capacity is listed in millions of tonnes of LNG per year. The climate pollution released when this LNG is burned (scope 3) I calculated using a standard multiplier (2.68) and listed in millions of tonnes of CO2 per year.\u00a0 \u00a0<\/p>\n 14 MtLNG (38 MtCO2) — LNG Canada (phase 1)14 MtLNG (38 MtCO2) — LNG Canada (phase 2)12 MtLNG (32 MtCO2) — Ksi Lisims LNG4.4 MtLNG (12 MtCO2) — Tilbury LNG3.5 MtLNG (9 MtCO2) — Cedar LNG2.1 MtLNG (6 MtCO2) — Woodfibre LNG<\/p>\n In addition to these emissions, there is roughly one quarter more climate pollution emitted \u201cupstream\u201d from extraction, pipeline transport, terminal liquification, etc. A full LNG lifecycle accounting should include these as well. I did not include them in my charts and discussion because these upstream emissions are not included in the datasets of CO2 extraction per capita for nations that I found. So, to compare like-to-like I only used scope 3 emissions for B.C. LNG as well.\u00a0<\/p>\n The CER \u201ccurrent measures\u201d scenario discussed in the article didn\u2019t include the 15.5 MtLNG capacity of Cedar LNG and Ksi Lisims LNG terminals. They had not been approved yet.\u00a0<\/p>\n B.C. CO2 EXTRACTION (SCOPE 3)<\/p>\n To piece together fossil CO2 extraction for B.C. I used the following data sources:<\/p>\n To convert fossil carbon volumes into resulting (scope 3) CO2 emissions I used these standard emissions factors:<\/p>\n Fossil gas: 0.002 tCO2\/m3Fossil oil: 6.28981077\u00a0bbl\/m3 * 0.438 tCO2\/bblFossil coal: 2.487 tCO2\/tCoal<\/p>\n NATIONAL CO2 EXTRACTION (SCOPE 3)<\/p>\n For this, I used data compiled by the Global Carbon Project<\/a>. This data is made very accessible by Robbie Andrews<\/a> of the Center for International Climate Research on his excellent website<\/a>. You can type in the name of the country you are interested in and look for a chart labelled \u201cAnnual extraction emissions per capita\u201d. Links are provided to download the data.<\/p>\n DIRECT EMISSIONS (SCOPE 1)<\/p>\n![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/bc-co2-dig-with-lng_v1b.jpg\" "\\"Chart")
<\/p>\n![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/bc-co2-dig-with-lng_v2-usa.jpg\" "\\"Chart")
<\/p>\n![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/bc-co2-dig-with-lng_v3-uk.jpg\" "\\"Chart")
<\/p>\n![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/bc-co2-dig-with-lng_v4-fossils.jpg\" "\\"Chart")
<\/p>\n![\"Chart](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/bc-co2-dig-with-lng_v5-projections.jpg\" "\\"Chart")
<\/p>\n![\"Change](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/bc-g7-ghg-1990-2023.jpg\" "\\"Change")
<\/p>\n