LNG poses risky bet for pension funds
Sharing is SO MUCH APPRECIATED!
By David Suzuki
For those able to invest for retirement, “ethical funds” are a good option. After all, what good are investments in industries such as coal, oil and gas that could be undercut by much better renewable energy technologies — or worse, that could leave one retiring into a world of increased wildfire smoke, extreme weather, floods, droughts, crop failures and food and water shortages?
With personal investing, it’s getting easier to make the right choices. But with large public pension plans — which many people rely on through the Canada Pension Plan and others — we have much less say.
That’s why it’s disturbing to see the federal government pressuring “Maple 8” pension funds to invest in liquefied natural gas and other fossil fuel projects. Maple 8 funds comprise the country’s largest pension funds, controlling C$2.7 trillion in assets under management.
Federal Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne has been encouraging pension funds and other institutional investors to help finance “major projects in the national interest” — which include risky investments in fossil fuel projects and infrastructure, including LNG terminals and pipelines.
Export Development Canada has issued notice that it intends to finance an unnamed entity to take an equity stake in LNG Canada — which could mean the pension funds would hold ownership in the company. The company is currently a joint venture between Shell, Petronas (Malaysian government), PetroChina (Chinese government), Mitsubishi Corporation (Japanese-owned) and Kogas (South Korean government).
According to climate and pension advocacy organization Shift, such investments would “carry unacceptable financial risks, climate and environmental consequences, and lack consent from impacted First Nations and Indigenous communities.”
Although war in the Middle East may have created short-term opportunities for Canada’s oil and gas industry, most plants under consideration won’t be ready quickly enough to take advantage of recent price surges. A David Suzuki Foundation report confirms that an LNG supply glut is expected in the long term, meaning major projects could be entering an oversupplied market.
The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis says, “Fast-tracking capital-intensive fossil fuel infrastructure in response to market disruptions tied to international conflict is not a reliable long-term energy strategy.”
And, as analysis from global energy think tank Ember indicates, “the world may be nearing a peak in gas-fired power.”
“Geopolitical disruptions have reinforced the downward trend in gas by exposing the price volatility and energy security risks associated with import-dependent gas systems. Major economies, including Germany, India, Japan and South Korea, have been committing to faster deployment of renewable sources as a response,” Ember reports.
We’ve seen it in light of the Russia-Ukraine war and the Middle East conflict. “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine temporarily pushed prices higher, but it also accelerated the energy transition, prompting Europe and other regions to diversify away from gas faster and invest more heavily in domestic clean energy,” Shift reports.
Shift adds, “Europe’s March 2026 commitment to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040 signals a rapid move toward electrification and clean energy systems. As a result, new LNG infrastructure will increasingly compete directly with cheaper, quicker-to-deploy renewables — further eroding its long term value.”
Beyond the financial implications, expanding LNG during an accelerating climate crisis is simply wrong. Increasing evidence shows new plants emit large volumes of the potent greenhouse gas methane (which is what natural gas mostly consists of), along with volatile organic compounds and cancer-causing benzene.
Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs President Grand Chief Stewart Phillip and Wet’suwet’en Nation hereditary chiefs have sent a letter to pension funds, urging them “not to purchase a stake in the LNG Canada export terminal or its Phase 2 expansion, given the project and its developers’ well-documented infringements upon our rights along with the significant legal and financial risks associated with this facility.”
Pension funds have a duty to do what’s best for the long-term interests of those who will rely on them. Investing in short-term, outdated, polluting energy sources such as gas, oil and coal is a violation of this duty. It could leave the funds saddled with stranded assets, and could mean they’re directly contributing to pollution, poor health outcomes, violation of Indigenous rights and climate change.
As Shift points out, “Your retirement security is on the line.” But it’s more than that. Investing in fossil fuels puts everyone’s overall security on the line.
David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with David Suzuki Foundation Senior Writer and Editor Ian Hanington.
Learn more at davidsuzuki.org.
REFERENCES:
Ethical funds:
https://davidsuzuki.org/story/divest-from-damage-and-invest-in-a-healthier-future
Maple 8:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maple_Eight
According to climate and pension advocacy organization Shift:
https://www.shiftaction.ca/news/2026/3/30/the-hidden-risks-behind-canadas-lng-push
David Suzuki Foundation report confirmed:
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis says:
https://ieefa.org/resources/potential-implications-iran-conflict-canadas-fossil-fuel-sector
Analysis from global energy think tank Ember:
Increasing evidence shows:
Sent a letter to pension funds:
Stranded assets:
Sharing is SO MUCH APPRECIATED!
