The federal government could use a section in the 2015 Paris Treaty to claim credit for emissions reductions caused by foreign nations replacing coal with natural gas shipments from Canada, according to a former chief of staff to the energy minister.

Claire Seaborn told iPolitics‘ No Talking Points podcast last week that she believed that Ottawa was signalling that it planned on using Article 6 in the agreement to this effect as LNG Canada announced on Tuesday that it was moving forward with the Phase 2 expansion project in Kitimat, B.C.

Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters at the announcement event in Vancouver that the project would provide “low-carbon Canadian energy to global markets.”

As part of the Paris Treaty, Canada pledged to reduce emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030, and by 45-50 per cent by 2035. The feds’ latest accounting was released earlier this year but was based on 2023 data. It shows that emissions have fallen by 14 per cent below 2005 levels in 2023.

But a lot has changed since that time. The Carney government has terminated several key climate policies — including the consumer carbon price and the oil and gas emissions cap — and it’s unclear if Canada is still working towards its Paris Treaty commitments.

Enter Article 6. This clause in the Paris Treaty allows countries to count emissions that take place outside of their borders towards their own target.

Environment Minister Julie Dabrusin announced in September that the federal government was developing a framework around the use of that section.

WATCH NOW: Bill C-39: Project approvals, labour, and consultation

Seaborn, who headed up Jonathan Wilkinson’s office when he was energy minister, said while this sort of framework is “long overdue,” Ottawa must ensure that it’s “credible and robust.”

That means putting in place “safeguards” to make sure Canada is using this only in situations where it can demonstrate that those reductions wouldn’t otherwise have happened, she said.

“LNG Canada… in theory, displaces coal or other high-emitting energy sources in Asia. Should those should those GHG reductions be credited to Canada?” asked Seaborn, now a lawyer with Torys LLP.

“We’ve got a long way off right now on our climate targets in Canada. We’ve got a huge gap. It’s a big issue, and this is one way to fill that gap. But the problem is that you got to have some safeguards around these things because you can’t just say that because LNG is being exported that those reductions wouldn’t have otherwise occurred.”

A spokesperson for Dabrusin refused to rule out the possibility, but acknowledged the complexities in counting reductions from LNG projects and the “unresolved questions remain regarding emissions accounting and environmental integrity.”

“These questions are particularly relevant where private-sector proponents may seek recognition for emissions reductions associated with commercial activities outside of Canada,” Amy Falkner told iPolitics in a statement, adding that no decision on the framework has been made.

“Our government remains committed to establishing a credible Article 6 framework that supports the two-way trade in high-integrity carbon credits, provides certainty to market participants, and positions Canada participate globally in growing international carbon markets,” she said.

Environmental groups are already raising concerns that Ottawa may look to take credit for LNG-induced reductions, which they call a disingenuous approach to Article 6.

Alex Walker, climate campaign finance manager with Environmental Defence, said they’re “certainly worried” about the concept and warned that these sorts of LNG projects are “absolutely going to increase both domestic and international emissions by quite significant amounts.

“To treat it any differently just seems completely contrary to all of the best available evidence that we have,” Walker said in an interview.

Walker also threw cold water on the idea that Canadian LNG shipments to Southeast Asia would displace the use of coal in those countries, calling it a “truly dubious” claim.

“Coal is very cheap, and it remains to be. Whereas Canadian LNG, in particular, is quite [costly],” Walker said.

“It has to ship — to kind of traverse — across Canada and then across the Pacific, and for various structural reasons, Canadian LNG is always going to be a little bit more pricey. So, there’s very little incentive for this… switching.”

READ MORE: Direct air capture startup ready as Canada eyes carbon credit exports

But that cost differential may be prompting industry to look to Article 6.

Once Canada develops a policy framework for the clause, companies can start participating in cross-border carbon offset exchanges, though they must satisfy an internationally-set criteria.

“I guess that’s why they’re considering this mechanism, but there’s just really no evidence that this is happening already, and it would be very hard to determine it,” Walker said of using LNG Canada in this context.

“So, this idea of integrity just doesn’t stand up in this instance.”

Keith Stewart, senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, said there “isn’t a snowball’s chance in a globally-warmed hell” that Canada would get credited for emission reductions caused by its LNG exports.

He called the idea “a key industry talking point,” and said it wouldn’t make sense for any country purchasing Canadian LNG to pass those credits on to Canada for nothing.

Walker wondered if Ottawa is looking for any reductions it can find because of the ground it’s losing thanks to the rollback of climate policies. Still, they expressed optimism in reporting that Canada is working on an agreement with the European Union that will assess the long-term sustainability of LNG agreements.

“I hope that takes up much more energy than trying to figure out if and how LNG can fit into Article Six frameworks,” Walker added.