It is a pleasant change to have a politician reply confirming our concerns about the impacts of certain actions. I received the following email from Fiona Hall MEP for the North East of England, as a result of a standard mail out organised by the No Tar Sands campaign whose link is on the home page of Northumberland Greenpeace.
Thank you for your email regarding moves by the Canadian government to bring tar sands derived fuel into the EU and the CETA negotiations.
This is an issue I share your concerns about and I have been working with colleagues in the European Parliament to push the Commission to come forward with a separate value for tar sands in the context of finalising the implementing measures of Article 7a of the Fuel Quality Directive.
Last week (16 March), I hosted an event in the European Parliament called ‘Keep Tar Sands Out of Europe’ and attended an exhibition on this to raise the profile of the issue in the European Parliament.
Last June, along with a number of my colleagues, I co-signed a letter to Commissioner Hedegaard on the need to have a separate value for tar sands in the Fuel Quality Directive. We made the point that the current draft implementing provisions contain just one default GHG value for petrol and one for diesel, despite the fact that extraction and processing of different crude oils show substantial variations in carbon intensity. A methodology which used only a single default value would remove any incentive to clean up oil extraction and processing methods and bring about substantial emission cuts. The Commissioner explained to us that in order to propose a separate (and higher) emissions value for tar sands, the Commission had to undertake a study using the same methodology it used for assigning values for other fuels, and that this would lead to some delay. The study on tar sands was subsequently carried out, confirming the higher carbon intensity value for tar sands. But after appearing on the Commission's website for a couple of hours, it was mysteriously taken off.
Earlier this year, my colleague Chris Davies and I wrote again to Commissioner Hedegaard, as well as to Commissioner de Gucht who is responsible for EU trade policy. The reason for this letter was a growing concern in Brussels that Canada was putting considerable pressure on the Commission not to propose a separate tar sands value. Following the letter to de Gucht, we met with his Cabinet representatives who are working on this issue in the Commission. We did point out to them that Canada should not undermine EU domestic efforts to curb CO2 emissions. Chris and I also met with Alberta's Energy Minister a couple of weeks ago and raised similar concerns.
If the currently negotiated implementing measures of the Fuel Quality Directive do not set a separate value for tar sands, there will be no provisions to take into account high carbon crude oil, such as tar sands or oil shale. Without a special default value and monitoring rules for very carbon intensive transport fuels, the EU might end up wiping out the emissions savings from low carbon alternative fuels and other recently adopted climate legislation. I believe this would contradict the whole purpose of the FQD and Article 7a in particular.
I have pointed out to the Commission that we should not try to pretend that all aspects of our relationship with Canada are unproblematic. Canada is generally seen as a friend and an ally but its record on climate change is poor. At the point at which efforts are being made to reduce the well-to-wheel emissions from fossil fuel, Canada is attempting to gloss over the fact that oil from tar sands has a far bigger carbon footprint than oil from other source. Furthermore, the left-over contaminated water ponds are polluting rivers, killing wildlife and causing illnesses to indigenous peoples living in the vicinity.
Please be assured that my colleagues and I share your concerns on this issue and are working in close cooperation with NGOs in Brussels to make sure that Tar Sands oil stays out of Europe.
Thank you once again for your email.
Yours sincerely
Fiona Hall MEP
Comments