As British Columbia’s first liquified natural gas (LNG) terminal prepares to begin exporting gas and Canada’s two largest political parties discuss expediting fossil fuel projects to protect ourselves from American tariffs, the health harms of this policy direction have been erased from the conversation.
So, why is this a problem?
First is that the burning of fossil fuels is internationally recognized by climate scientists as the main driver of climate chaos. In the same breath politicians use to discuss the best ways to deregulate fossil fuel projects, we hear Premier Doug Ford apologizing to Ontarians for prolonged power outages from the big ice storm, U.S. President Donald Trump taking time out from his tariff wars to declare a state of emergency in Kentucky due to severe storms, tornadoes and flooding, all while major insurance companies warn they will be no longer able to insure people due to climate change. The cognitive dissonance is staggering.
Second is the disregard for the health of voters living close to the fossil fuel industry, whether near the oil sands, fracking well pads, along pipeline routes or nearby fossil fuel facilities preparing oil and gas for export.
When it comes to fracking – the industrial process used to extract “natural” gas – there is a growing body of research reporting higher rates of impaired fetal growth, pre-term birth, congenital malformations, asthma, childhood leukemia and overall mortality among people living close to the industry. Like the climate effects of fossil fuel burning, this “inconvenient truth” has been erased from election debates.
And as for living near the oil sands, despite decades of local people reporting higher rates of cancers, the Canadian government agreed only last year to allocate $12 million to study this.
Northern B.C. and Alberta, where most fossil fuel extraction activity is located, are also home to a higher percentage of First Nation communities already experiencing lower life expectancies and higher rates of chronic conditions due to the legacy of colonization and systemic and structural disadvantages. There is now evidence that exposure to fracking activity has a disproportionately negative impact on Indigenous peoples.
This disproportionate placement of polluting industries near already disadvantaged communities, resulting in serious health issues, is a well-documented practice across many jurisdictions.
Last June, Canada passed an Environmental Justice Bill mandating the Canadian government to redress this disproportionality. The blind enthusiasm we have seen during this election campaign for scaling these industries without consideration of the potential health harms to those living nearby flies in the face of this Bill.
Research on exactly how people living downwind of these projects get sick (the so-called “causal pathway”) suggests exposure to toxic chemicals from wastewater and tailing ponds or air pollution from venting, flaring, diesel truck traffic and compressor stations are some of the causes.
The health of those living downstream from oil and gas extraction activity but close to LNG facilities is also an issue.
The health of those living downstream from oil and gas extraction activity but close to LNG facilities is also an issue. Research in this area is just beginning but findings are far from reassuring.
One issue is the amount of air pollution generated from flaring – a technique for controlled burning of gas to release pressure in LNG pipes at LNG facilities. The air pollutants produced during this process include N02, VoCs, CO and particulate matter (PMx), all of which have been associated with a number of harmful health outcomes.
One study reported significantly higher one-hour N02 levels associated with flaring compared to the standard set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. N02 is a powerful respiratory toxicant. Another U.S. study estimated that emissions from flaring and venting were linked to $7.4 billion in health damages, 710 premature deaths and 73,000 asthma exacerbations in that country. Still another study reported 50 per cent higher odds of premature birth among women living in Texas exposed to a high number of nightly flare events compared with no exposure.
Calls for rapid scaling of fossil fuel projects not only ignore the impacts of these industries on atmospheric warming but fail to consider their direct effects on human health.
“Ghosting” of the planetary health harms of fossil fuel expansion from 2025 Canadian election platforms suggest President Trump’s fossil fuel “drill, baby, drill” agenda may be winning even before the votes have been counted.
Dr. McGregor, thank you for reminding us that the climate crisis did not go away even though the main candidates in the Canadian election are pretending it did. In fact, with Trump abandoning climate treaties, reversing previous US policies in support of renewables and gutting environmental protections from GHGs and other air pollution we are arguably in a worse crisis than before the election. It’s not just a problem of the candidates, but Canadian media is also to blame. There IS one party that is clear about facing the climate crisis with effective policies to reduce climate pollution, but media does not mention the Green Party nor its clear climate policy. This is a travesty that feeds the interests of Canadian fossil fuel companies. Like Big Tobacco, Big Fossil is getting away with murder.