Environmental and Indigenous issues associated with natural gas development in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter discusses key environmental and Indigenous peoples’ issues facing development of the natural gas and liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry in the Province of British Columbia, and examines the main approaches to mitigate, manage and monitor these issues effectively. The authors reviewed environmental assessment applications for 29 major natural gas and LNG projects in British Columbia that have undergone a typical environmental assessment process with the provincial or federal responsible authorities since 2010, as well as the content of primary regulatory documents and issues identified in relevant case law. The key environmental issues identified from the review include significant residual adverse effects related to greenhouse gas emissions; significant residual adverse effects and cumulative effects to rare and threatened wildlife species; and cumulative adverse impacts of natural gas development. The most common potential adverse impacts on Indigenous peoples’ interests summarized in the review include but are not limited to effects on health and socio-economic conditions; physical and cultural heritage; the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes; sites of historical and archeological significance; and potential cumulative impacts on Aboriginal interests. The chapter also provides examples of key approaches to mitigate the foregoing issues and stresses the importance of effective consultation and engagement with Indigenous groups at early stages of the proposed projects development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".