logo
The Canadian government raised doubts about a climate scientist's LNG research. He says they sounded like fossil fuel lobbyists

The Canadian government raised doubts about a climate scientist's LNG research. He says they sounded like fossil fuel lobbyists

Yahoo10-04-2025

Edward Burrier chuckled as he told his colleagues what he thought about an academic paper written by a prominent U.S. climate scientist.
Burrier, a director of public policy at Canadian fossil fuel giant TC Energy, said the study was largely to blame for public skepticism about whether liquefied natural gas (LNG) is as environmentally friendly as the oil and gas industry claims.
"One quoted study that drove a lot of this initial activism … said that LNG is worse than coal," Burrier said.
"I asked the team to dissect this and of course they found it was written by a long- time anti-natural gas advocate," he continued, identifying the author as "a Cornell professor."
Burrier didn't mince words during that lunch-time meeting in February 2024, a recording of which was leaked to The Narwhal. His comments are among a number of statements made during two internal company calls that highlight how the fossil fuel industry is sensitive to the public's awareness of the environmental impacts of LNG.
The study in question, by Cornell University biogeochemist and ecosystem scientist Robert Howarth, did in fact demonstrate how the total greenhouse gas emissions from exported U.S. liquefied natural gas is higher than U.S.-produced coal used in power plants.
But Howarth told The Narwhal he's no anti-gas advocate. As a professor and a highly cited research scientist, he said he has "an ethical obligation to communicate the results of my research to the public and decision makers"—laid out in the codes of several scientific societies to which he belongs.
"My research, which underwent extensive peer-review by a respectable journal using anonymous expert reviewers, clearly shows that LNG is bad for the climate," Howarth, who is Cornell's David R. Atkinson professor of ecology and environmental biology, said in an interview.
Howarth's research casts doubt on the industry's common talking point that using natural gas can help address climate change. His work shows how methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, leaks into the atmosphere during LNG processing, transport and storage, as well as from oil and gas fracking operations. Addressing climate change can lead to fewer deaths and injuries from extreme weather, fewer asthma attacks and fewer disease outbreaks.
U.S. President Donald Trump is moving ahead with LNG export approvals and has launched a major assault on science, disrupting U.S. scientific research that over the years has helped the public interpret climate and health threats from fossil fuels like LNG.
That has led to uncertainty over academic funding, including for Howarth's own lab and a key atmospheric monitoring site it runs, and provoked thousands of protesters, including Nobel laureates, to take to the streets in defense of public science.
LNG is a hot-button issue in Canada too, and documents obtained by The Narwhal show the federal government has been reluctant to accept Howarth's findings, leading Howarth to conclude the Government of Canada is adopting industry "talking points."
An internal Canadian government briefing note, released to The Narwhal under access to information law, shows some of Howarth's research was questioned by the federal energy department.
Natural Resources Canada has been on the hunt for evidence that could demonstrate "social license" for Canada's new LNG export industry, taking shape in British Columbia. Canada's first LNG export project, LNG Canada, is fed by the Coastal GasLink pipeline, built by TC Energy, that will transport fracked gas from the province's northeast to a Pacific Coast facility that plans to start shipping LNG this year to countries in Asia.
The briefing note shows the department used Howarth's work to suggest Canadian LNG sent to Asia would have a comparatively low emissions intensity—a term that compares the amount of carbon pollution generated when producing a given amount of a fossil fuel.
Written in the fall of 2024 for the federal minister, Jonathan Wilkinson, the briefing note states, "using Howarth's methodology," Canadian LNG sent to Asia would have "up to half" the emissions intensity of American LNG fed by fracked gas from the Permian Basin, a major oil and gas area around Texas, and shipped from the U.S. Gulf Coast.
The documents try to make the case for Canada's "strict regulations" around methane leaks, as well as better leak detection and repair surveys, better methane reduction technology and other environmental advantages.
The briefing note for Wilkinson also accuses Howarth of basing his work on assumptions that may not reflect the industry's true state of affairs.
For example, it said Howarth's use of U.S.-based coal emissions intensity "is not an adequate substitute" for the emission intensity of coal used in Asia to generate power.
It instead cited another figure, picked from a consulting firm, that was 85 per cent higher, saying it "may be more appropriate." The consulting firm's figure, the briefing note added, took into account other factors like the type of coal power technology in Asia and the quality of coal there.
It also claimed Howarth used a calculation about how much heat methane can trap in the atmosphere that was based on a shorter timespan than the one the United Nations requires for country reports on emissions.
Howarth said his work is based on academic research and his estimates were in line with most of the other scientific literature in this field.
The consulting firm's figure, he said, was "very much out of step" with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, considered the world's top scientific climate authority.
And he argued using a longer timespan for emissions "greatly underestimates the actual influence of methane on the climate."
While methane doesn't stick around in the atmosphere as long as carbon dioxide, it can trap much more heat over a shorter period. Scientists have projected Earth will cross a critical threshold of warming in the coming decades, meaning the potency of methane over the short term is of immediate concern.
Under a list of "key findings," the briefing note states that "Howarth has used several assumptions in his analysis that may overstate the difference in emissions intensity."
Howarth told The Narwhal that this line "sounds like talking points directly from the PR folks in the oil and gas industry."
The briefing note about Howarth indicates it was written by three officials from Natural Resources Canada with input from a fourth departmental official, and approved by an assistant deputy minister.
Asked for comment, departmental communications advisor Maria Ladouceur said briefing notes are "developed by public servants, with no role from external stakeholders."
"Industry and public relations consultants did not have a role in drafting or providing input into this briefing note, or any other briefing note prepared by Natural Resources Canada," Ladouceur said.
She said the department engages with a "wide variety of industry stakeholders on numerous topics of mutual interest as part of day-to-day business" and draws information from a "range of sources such as technical journal publications, news articles, environmental impact assessments, and various reports such as governmental contracted studies."
"NRCan's policies continue to be informed by science and evidence-based decision-making," she said.
Ladouceur also defended the briefing note's composition, arguing the department used a figure at "the lower end" of the consulting firm's estimate which she said was "in line with other scientific literature," while the department provided emission estimates for both methane timespans.
The oil and gas industry has often forged a close relationship with the government, including when the environment department allowed oil and gas lobbyists to discuss decarbonization at a national pavilion during an international climate event in 2022.
It's unclear how close this relationship runs. At one point during the leaked TC Energy calls, for example, a company official claimed the firm was "given opportunities to write entire briefing notes for ministers and premiers and prime ministers."
In another instance, Burrier, a former administration official during Trump's first term in office, claimed TC Energy "literally did the government's homework for them" by briefing Canadian bureaucrats on how to get LNG export projects built.
TC Energy previously told The Narwhal that some claims made on the leaked recordings were inaccurate, without specifying which ones.
TC Energy did not respond to The Narwhal's requests for comment about Howarth, Burrier or the briefing note that were sent by email on March 6, March 11 and March 19, and by voicemail on March 19. Burrier did not respond to a request for comment sent through LinkedIn on March 11.
The briefing note was written while the U.S. presidential election campaign was in full swing. Since then, the B.C. government has cited repeated threats from Trump that he wants to annex Canada as one reason why the province wants to speed up approvals for major energy projects.
B.C. will soon decide whether to approve another major LNG export project, Ksi Lisims LNG, and its feeder pipeline, the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission (PRGT) line.
South of the border, the Trump administration has banned grants mentioning the term "climate" and reportedly blocked U.S. government participation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's next report.
It has also threatened to deal huge blows to the workforces of U.S. academic science funders like the National Science Foundation and attempted massive purges of federal departments working on climate science, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Howarth said funding for study-abroad programs has been frozen while indirect grants may be slashed, leading to a hiring freeze at Cornell.
He said he has two vacant research scientist positions in his lab that he can't fill, as well as a third position for a visiting scholar from the Fulbright program—an international academic exchange founded in 1946—who is supposed to work on harmful algal blooms. The Trump administration froze funds for the Fulbright program in February.
On March 14, Howarth said he heard the U.S. is ending funding for a key atmospheric monitoring site run out of his lab, one of the oldest in the country that measures pollutants like acid rain.
"The Trump administration seems hell-bent on destroying environmental research in the U.S.," he said.
This story was produced by The Narwhal and reviewed and distributed by Stacker.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters
New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters

Yahoo

timean hour ago

  • Yahoo

New York passes a bill to prevent AI-fueled disasters

New York state lawmakers passed a bill on Thursday that aims to prevent frontier AI models from OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic from contributing to disaster scenarios, including the death or injury of more than 100 people, or more than $1 billion in damages. The passage of the RAISE Act represents a win for the AI safety movement, which has lost ground in recent years as Silicon Valley and the Trump Administration have prioritized speed and innovation. Safety advocates including Nobel prize laureate Geoffrey Hinton and AI research pioneer Yoshua Bengio have championed the RAISE Act. Should it become law, the bill would establish America's first set of legally mandated transparency standards for frontier AI labs. The RAISE Act has some of the same provisions and goals as California's controversial AI safety bill, SB 1047, which was ultimately vetoed. However, the co-sponsor of the bill, New York state Senator Andrew Gounardes told TechCrunch in an interview that he deliberately designed the RAISE Act such that it doesn't chill innovation among startups or academic researchers — a common criticism of SB 1047. 'The window to put in place guardrails is rapidly shrinking given how fast this technology is evolving,' said Senator Gounardes. 'The people that know [AI] the best say that these risks are incredibly likely […] That's alarming.' The RAISE Act is now headed for New York Governor Kathy Hochul's desk, where could either sign the bill into law, send it back for amendments, or veto it altogether. If signed into law, New York's AI safety bill would require the world's largest AI labs to publish thorough safety and security reports on their frontier AI models. The bill also requires AI labs to report safety incidents, such as concerning AI model behavior or bad actors stealing an AI model, should they happen. If tech companies fail to live up to these standards, the RAISE Act empowers New York's Attorney General to bring civil penalties of up to $30 million. The RAISE Act aims to narrowly regulate the world's largest companies — whether they're based in California (like OpenAI and Google) or China (like DeepSeek and Alibaba). The bill's transparency requirements apply to companies whose AI models were trained using more than $100 million in computing resources (seemingly, more than any AI model available today), and are being made available to New York residents. While similar to SB 1047 in some ways, the RAISE Act was designed to address criticisms of previous AI safety bills, according to Nathan Calvin, the Vice President of State Affairs and General Counsel at Encode, who worked on this bill and SB 1047. Notably, the RAISE Act does not require AI model developers to include a 'kill switch' on their models, nor does it hold companies that post-train frontier AI models accountable for critical harms. Nevertheless, Silicon Valley has pushed back significantly on New York's AI safety bill, New York state Assemblymember and co-sponsor of the RAISE Act Alex Bores told TechCrunch. Bores called the industry resistance unsurprising, but claimed that the RAISE Act would not limit innovation of tech companies in any way. 'The NY RAISE Act is yet another stupid, stupid state level AI bill that will only hurt the US at a time when our adversaries are racing ahead,' said Andreessen Horowitz general partner Anjney Midha in a Friday post on X. Andreessen Horowitz, alongside the startup incubator Y Combinator, were some of the fiercest opponents to SB 1047. Anthropic, the safety-focused AI lab that called for federal transparency standards for AI companies earlier this month, has not reached an official stance on the bill, co-founder Jack Clark said in a Friday post on X. However, Clark expressed some grievances over how broad the RAISE Act is, noting that it could present a risk to 'smaller companies.' When asked about Anthropic's criticism, state Senator Gounardes told TechCrunch he thought it 'misses the mark,' noting that he designed the bill not to apply to small companies. OpenAI, Google, and Meta did not respond to TechCrunch's request for comment. Another common criticism of the RAISE Act is that AI model developers simply wouldn't offer their most advanced AI models in the state of New York. That was a similar criticism brought against SB 1047, and it's largely what's played out in Europe thanks to the continent's tough regulations on technology. Assemblymember Bores told TechCrunch that the regulatory burden of the RAISE Act is relatively light, and therefore, shouldn't require tech companies to stop operating their products in New York. Given the fact that New York has the third largest GDP in the U.S., pulling out of the state is not something most companies would take lightly. 'I don't want to underestimate the political pettiness that might happen, but I am very confident that there is no economic reasons for them to not make their models available in New York,' said Assemblymember Borres. Sign in to access your portfolio

Startups show off ocean-preserving tech at Paris trade fair
Startups show off ocean-preserving tech at Paris trade fair

Yahoo

time9 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Startups show off ocean-preserving tech at Paris trade fair

Harnessing ocean currents to boost fuel efficiency of vessels, or tracking whales using sensor data and AI -- startups at Paris trade fair Vivatech have been showing off the latest innovations aimed at protecting the environment. Recently developed AI programs capable of learning from vast datasets have boosted projects trying to understand and predict real-world phenomena, several company founders told AFP. "We have to use AI because in the natural world there are too many variables" to deal with manually, said Emily Charry Tissier, a biologist and founder of Canadian startup Whale Seeker, which is developing technology to track sea mammals. Powered by "neural network" systems that ape the functioning of the human brain, the learning systems behind today's AI models "can calculate a weather forecast 1,000 times faster than a standard digital model running on a supercomputer", agreed oceanographer Alexandre Stegner. He flagged an AI model developed by his firm, Amphitrite, that he said could predict ocean currents by crunching "several layers of satellite data corresponding to different physical variables". It can forecast currents up to 10 days in advance, he said, offering sea captains "a simple way to save fuel" by slightly changing course and using currents to gain a speed boost of up to four knots. That could save operators money on fuel, reduce the carbon emissions from shipping, and avoid the classic solution of telling sea captains to reduce their speed. - Global protection push - Technologies like these were being shown off in the halls of Vivatech as the UN Ocean Conference (UNOC) drew to a close hundreds of kilometres to the south in French Mediterranean city Nice. The conference has pushed a treaty to protect 60 percent of the world's oceans closer to becoming law, with 55 signatures -- just five shy of the number required for its enactment. New technologies could be "a very good thing" for the oceans, said Andre Abreu, International Affairs Director at the Paris-based Tara Ocean Foundation. But he warned that innovation should not be harnessed to allow more fish to be caught. "That would mean shooting ourselves in the foot" on goals like preserving marine biodiversity, he said. That ambiguity can be seen in technology from OceanEyes, a Japanese startup using AI analysis of satellite data to predict sea conditions. The company hopes to cut the time fishing boats spend tracking down a catch. "A big problem in Japan is the efficiency of the fishery operations. Many fishers spend a lot of time searching for fish in the water," said boss Yusuke Tanaka. With less fuel burnt, operators will save money and greenhouse emissions can be slashed. Anticipating concerns about overfishing, OceanEyes said it also aimed to help vessels comply with recently updated Japanese regulations that oblige fishers to "ensure sustainable use of marine resources". - 'Can' vs 'should' - Whale Seeker's Tissier said technology could be used in a considered way to find sustainable solutions. "I'd like the market to recognise its own limits -- not the limits of what we can do, but what we should do," she told AFP. That attitude pushed her to refuse to work with a company that wanted to use whale detection to identify nearby fish to catch. But startups cannot grow without funding and, in the context of oceans, investments are likely to come from big firms keen to make a saving -- from fishing and ship management companies to haulage and logistics giants. This could well limit their ability to stand on principle. Stegner called for "regulations that would push the maritime sector to reduce carbon emissions". But Charry Tissier said the initiative could come from business. "Technology is developing so much faster than regulation... what I'd like is for big companies to decide for themselves to be responsible," she said. mng/tgb/jxb

CCRAN Announces Its Third Annual Pan-Tumour Biomarkers Conference: Transforming Cancer Care for Patients Through Precision Medicine, Policy, and Partnerships
CCRAN Announces Its Third Annual Pan-Tumour Biomarkers Conference: Transforming Cancer Care for Patients Through Precision Medicine, Policy, and Partnerships

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

CCRAN Announces Its Third Annual Pan-Tumour Biomarkers Conference: Transforming Cancer Care for Patients Through Precision Medicine, Policy, and Partnerships

TORONTO, June 12, 2025 /CNW/ - The Colorectal Cancer Resource & Action Network (CCRAN) proudly announces its third annual Pan-Tumour Biomarkers Conference, taking place virtually June 19 - 20, 2025. As the role of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and biomarker-driven treatments become increasingly vital in cancer care, this event reaffirms CCRAN's position at the forefront of Canada's precision medicine movement. The 2025 Conference arrives at a critical time. With provinces and territories working to align clinical innovation with system delivery, this year's event brings together leaders across healthcare, policy, research, industry, and patient communities to explore what it will take to embed comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) into the fabric of cancer care - consistently, efficiently, and with long-term sustainability in mind. With a curated agenda centered on health system readiness, policy development and advocacy strategies, the Conference will drive widespread integration of genomic testing, specifically CGP, across cancer care in Canada. From laboratory infrastructure to funding models and clinical adoption, speakers will explore both the science and systems behind matching patients with the most effective treatments for their unique cancer profile. A key highlight of the 2025 Conference is the keynote presentation by the Conference Board of Canada, wherein a groundbreaking cost-benefit analysis will be unveiled to showcase the transformative value of CGP across five tumour types – lung, colorectal, breast, pancreatic and prostate. This study will demonstrate not only the substantial return on investment in modernizing Canada's testing landscape, but more importantly, quantify the profound benefits to patients, including improved survival outcomes, enhanced quality of life, reduced treatment toxicity, and faster access to targeted therapies. This critical data will inform policy decisions and provide compelling evidence for healthcare leaders to accelerate the adoption of precision medicine, ultimately ensuring Canadian cancer patients receive the most effective, personalized care possible. The event also builds on CCRAN's continued efforts to mobilize support for biomarker-driven cancer care through education, policy dialogue, and cross-sector partnerships. CCRAN has played a vital role in amplifying the urgency of public access to biomarker testing and is also helping to align national conversations around the need for timely, standardized, and publicly funded diagnostics. "Precision oncology must be accessible to every Canadian metastatic cancer patient, regardless of geography or circumstance," said Filomena Servidio-Italiano, President & CEO, CCRAN. "This Conference brings together the expertise and momentum required to overcome barriers and chart a clear path forward for advancing genomic testing in Canada's cancer care system." The Conference is designed for healthcare professionals, health system administrators, researchers, policy leaders, patients, caregivers, and all those invested in building a more personalized and equitable future for cancer care in Canada. CCRAN extends its heartfelt gratitude to our premier partners - Merck, AstraZeneca, Roche, Johnson & Johnson - for their unwavering commitment to advancing equitable access to precision medicine in Canada. The organization also expresses its sincere appreciation to the balance of the Conference sponsors as well as the dedicated patient advocacy group partners whose collaboration ensures that the patient voice remains at the heart of every initiative. Registration is free. All sessions will be hosted virtually and made available for post-event register and view the full agenda, visit: CCRAN: The Colorectal Cancer Resource & Action Network (CCRAN) is a national, patient-focused advocacy group that champions the health and well-being of Canadians touched by colorectal cancer, and others at risk of developing the disease. They provide support, education, and advocacy to patients (and their caregivers) to help improve patients' quality of life, as well as their longevity. SOURCE Colorectal Cancer Resource & Action Network (CCRAN) View original content to download multimedia: Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store