The European Union has reached a new legally-binding climate change agreement that would see greenhouse gas emissions drop by at least 40 per cent of 1990 levels by 2030.

The agreement, signed off in Brussels two weeks ago by the EU’s 28 member nations, is designed to ensure Europe meets its objective of cutting emissions by at least 80 per cent by mid-century.

It also puts Europe in the lead position to help persuade other nations trailing far behind the EU’s emissions-reduction goals to reach a long-sought global climate change accord next year in Paris.

The 2030 climate and energy plan also calls for the share of renewable energy to increase to 27 per cent of 1990 levels while seeing a 27 per cent increase in energy efficiency.

In an official statement, European Commission President José Manuel Barroso said the 2030 package is very good news for the fight against climate change.

“No player in the world is as ambitious as the European Union when it comes to cutting greenhouse gas emissions,” Barroso said.

“Indeed, the proof that it is ambitious is that we are now going from a goal of 20 per cent cut by 2020 compared to 1990 to 40 per cent by 2030, so, doubling the effort.”

Connie Hedegaard, Commissioner for Climate Action, said she was pleased the 28 EU leaders, despite economic uncertainty and other severe international crises, agreed to the package.

“The EU leaders’ decision . . . is an ambitious and important step forward,” Hedegaard said.

“Important not only to Europe and the Europeans, but also to the rest of the world. We have sent a strong signal to other big economies and all other countries: we have done our homework, now we urge you to follow Europe’s example.”

Bold climate leadership

A DeSmogBlog posting recently noted that Europe is already a world leader in emissions reductions. By way of comparison, under the Copenhagen Accord, Canada, the U.S. and other nations only committed to reducing domestic greenhouse gas emissions by 17 per cent from 2005 levels by 2020.

Global greenhouse gas emissions grew astronomically between 1990, the year Europe’s climate targets are based on, and 2005, the year the Copenhagen’s Accord’s targets are based on — making the European targets far more meaningful than those of Canada and the U.S.

The new agreement will drive continued progress towards a low-carbon economy, according to the official statement.

“It aims to build a competitive and secure energy system that ensures affordable energy for all consumers, increases the security of the EU’s energy supplies, reduces our dependence on energy imports and creates new opportunities for growth and jobs,” a statement accompanying the report said.

The New York Times noted the new accord makes the European Union the first major global emitter to put its position on the table ahead of the important United Nations climate meeting in Paris at the end of 2015.

The NYT story added that German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the new target “will ensure that Europe will be an important player, will be an important party, in future binding commitments of an international climate agreement.”

The Guardian newspaper noted that a clause was inserted into the agreement text that could trigger a review of the EU’s new targets if other countries do not come forward with comparable commitments in Paris.

Still not enough clean energy emphasis

Despite praise, some point out the agreement not only provides a back-out clause but remains non-binding while failing to provide concrete steps for moving to clean and renewable sources of energy.

The new 40 per cent emissions-reduction target falls far too short of what the EU needs to do to pull its weight in the fight against climate change, Natalia Alonso, Oxfam International’s deputy director of advocacy and campaigns, said.

“Insufficient action like this from the world’s richest countries places yet more burden on the poorest people most affected by climate change, but least responsible for causing this crisis,” Alonso said.

EU leaders had an opportunity to shape a smarter, fairer, more sustainable future through a clear shift towards renewable energy and energy efficiency, she said.

“Instead, they have been held back by the fossil fuel industry and their friends, settling for an underwhelming response that keeps the EU stuck in the energy and climate crisis.”

Brook Riley, climate justice and energy campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, described the agreement as dangerously irresponsible.

“This deal does nothing to end Europe’s dependency on fossil fuels or to speed up our transition to a clean energy future,” Riley said. “It’s a deal that puts dirty industry interests ahead of citizens and the planet.”

Samantha Smith, leader of WWF’s Global Climate and Energy Initiative, said the new targets are thoroughly inadequate.

“We are facing what is likely to be the warmest year ever, heat waves and flooding are already hitting Europe, and the developing world is experiencing even more dire impacts,” Smith said.

“European countries need to deliver targets that will drive a rapid and just transition out of fossil fuels and into renewables and energy efficiency. Until they have done so, they cannot continue to claim to be climate leaders.”

Right direction for reduced emissions

On Tuesday, the European Environment Agency (EEA) said greenhouse gas emissions in the EU fell almost two per cent between 2012 and 2013. According to an EEA analysis, the EU is likely to cut emissions by at least 21 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020, surpassing its 20 per cent target.

The analysis shows the EU is also ahead of the planned trajectory to hit 20 per cent renewable energy by 2020. Likewise, the EU’s energy consumption is also falling faster than would be necessary to meet the 2020 energy efficiency target.

“Our analysis shows that Europe is on track towards its 2020 targets,” Hans Bruyninckx, EEA Executive Director, pointed out.

“Even against the backdrop of economic recession in recent years, we can see that policies and measures are working and have played a key role in reaching this interim result. But there is no room for complacency. The analyses we are publishing today also highlight countries and sectors where progress has been slower than planned.”

Image Credit: Connie Hedegaard, Commissioner Climate Action via Flickr.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For five long years the federal government and the oil industry have lobbied against the European Union labeling oilsands (also called tar sands) bitumen as ‘dirty oil’ in its Fuel Quality Directive (FQD). A new report released yesterday reveals the recent involvement of the U.S. in the lobby offensive to keep the EU market open for bitumen exports has tipped the scales in favour of oilsands proponents.

“The sustained attacks by the U.S. and Canada on the European Union’s key legislation on transport fuel emissions seem to be paying off,” Fabian Flues of Friends of the Earth Europe, the author of the report, admits.

The report shows the EU Fuel Quality Directive, a piece of legislation designed to reduce global warming greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the EU’s transportation sector, is unlikely to acknowledge fuels from different sources of oil – conventional oil, oilsands, oil shale – have different carbon footprints. Instead all oils will more than likely be treated as having the same GHG emissions intensity 'value' in the Directive. This is exactly what Canada, the oil industy and now the U.S. have been pushing for.

“Europe is again failing to stand up effectively for its own climate policy,” Flues says.

Trade talks, not science, weakening the Fuel Quality Directive

The EU has not fallen for the federal government’s argument that bitumen produces only marginally more GHG emissions than conventional oil in extraction, processing, and use. A European Commission study found bitumen’s carbon footprint is between 12 – 40 per cent higher than conventional oil.

The report reveals trade, not science, is the cause of the EU backing off from implementing the Fuel Quality Directive as it was originally meant to be implemented. To reduce GHG emissions from transportation the Directive discourages transport fuel suppliers from selling fuels with high carbon footprints in the EU. Identifying which fuels have higher carbon footprints was meant to make things easier for fuel suppliers to reduce the GHG emissions output of their product.

“The delay and weakening of the European Fuel Quality Directive once again reveals that agreements like CETA (the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement) are less about trade and more about limiting the ability of governments to effectively regulate in the public interest,” Scott Harris, trade campaigner with the Council of Canadians, says.

Fuel Quality Directive subject of CETA talks

The report argues the U.S. and Canada are using their own ongoing trade negotiations with the EU to undermine the Fuel Quality Directive. Canada and the EU have consistently maintained their trade negotiations for the CETA and the Directive are two separate issues. The evidence indicates otherwise:

“The foreign policy think tank The Polish Insti­tute for International Affairs reported that the FQD had been raised in the CETA negotiations and there have been calls in Canada to suspend the negotiations until the high GHG value for tar sands has been resolved to Canadian satisfac­tion,” the report states.

“While other governments are trying to make communities safer, the Canadian government is using its political muscle to push things in the opposite direction so it can export high carbon tar sands oil as quickly as possible,” Mike Hudema, climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, says.

“It’s astonishing that as we watch the fires spread in the Northwest Territories and the flood waters rise in the Prairies our government still isn’t getting the message – climate change is real and we need action immediately,” Hudema states.

The Globe and Mail reported as earlier as 2011 that anonymous sources had said Canada had threatened “to void the free trade deal” if the Fuel Quality Directive was implemented.

“Even before it is signed, CETA is being used to water down much-needed public policy. Imagine what will happen to regulations on both sides of the Atlantic if the deal is actually implemented,” Harris of the Council of Canadians says.

U.S. joins the lobby offensive

The U.S. in some ways has been more open about its lobbying against the Fuel Quality Directive. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman confirmed he “raised these issues [of the FQD implementation] with senior Commission officials on several occasions, including in the context of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP).” The TTIP is the trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU currently under negotiation.

European Commission documents obtained by Friends of the Earth Europe reveal the U.S. trade missions has “substantive concerns” with the Fuel Quality Directive singling out fuels produced from bitumen as having a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil. Like Canada and the oil industry, the U.S. wants all oil – regardless of GHG emissions – to be treated the same as conventional oil in the Directive.

It appears this new pressure from the U.S. is the straw breaking the camel’s back:

“[Media] reports claim that the system chosen by the Commission is one of averaging of all crudes – exactly what the U.S. mission had requested in its e-mail. If they are correct, the new FQD proposal will be considerably less effective in discouraging the import of highly climate damaging oil, such as tar sands. It might well be the case that the FQD is the first environmental casualty of the TTIP negotiations,” the report states.

Recently eleven members of U.S. Congress sent a letter to the US trade mission expressing their concerns “that official U.S. trade negotiations could undercut the EU’s commendable efforts to reduce carbon pollution.” 

Image Credit: OpenEuropeBlog

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In the coming months, European Union environment ministers are set to vote on the proposed Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), which would label tar sands oil as 'dirty' because of its higher GHG emissions in comparison to other fuels, bringing the Harper government and Alberta's years-long lobbying against the law to a decisive point.

As Jason Fekete writes for Postmedia News, this is "a critical few months for the future of Canada's oilsands industry and the environmental movement that has targeted the development."

It's hardly surprising that two senior Alberta government ministers depart Saturday "for a weeklong trip to Europe to trumpet what they say is Alberta and Canada's solid environmental credentials, and have EU countries reject a proposal that would "discriminate" against oilsands-derived fuels," as Postmedia News reports.

Canada has been actively fighting the EU proposal for years now for its labelling of tar sands oil as leaving an especially high carbon footprint. A July 2011 report by environmental group Friends of the Earth Europe documented over 110 lobbying events organized by the Canadian government on the tar sands and FQD between 2009 and 2011.

For example, in October 2011, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver wrote to the EU Commissioner for Energy, Gunther Oettinger, warning that "if unjustified, discriminatory measures to implement the FQD are put in place, Canada will not hesitate to defend its interests."

In December 2011, David Plunkett, Canadian Ambassador to the EU, wrote to European Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard saying that "Canada will not accept oil sands crude being singled out in the Fuel Quality Directive." He added that the Canadian government would "explore every avenue at its disposal to defend its interests, including the World Trade Organisation."

Hedegaard has called the FQD a "science-based and non-discriminatory proposal," and stressed that “studies on the lifecycle GHG intensity of various fuels have been conducted" for it, in a 2011 letter to Minister Oliver.

A 2013 briefing by Friends of the Earth Europe details more recent instances of Canada's lobbying for the tar sands in Europe, including sending two Albertan government ministers on tour in Europe this January to hand out fliers assuring the 11 countries visited that Canada was showing "global leadership in the fight against climate change" despite leaving the Kyoto Protocol and pushing for the tar sands.

The aggressive lobbying efforts by Canada and its EU supporters like the UK have continued unabated since reduction targets were decided on in 2009, forcing the European Commission to undertake an Impact Assessment on the FQD and delaying the vote on the proposal from June 2012 to later this year.

"It has got to be fair, it can't be discriminatory, and it should be based on the facts and the science – and this is not. This is my definition of bad policy," Minister Joe Oliver said of the FQD in an interview last Friday.

Oliver made a similar claim that the proposal "is not based on science and so discourages disclosures and will not achieve its stated objectives," last month in an email to the Canadian Press.

The repeated refrain from the Canadian government that the FQD is not scientific doesn't address the fact that the proposal is based on a 2011 Stanford University study commissioned by the European Commission. The study found that average lifecycle GHG emissions from tar sands oil are 23 per cent higher than conventional fossil fuels.

Image: 'Upstream greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Canadian oilsands as a feedstock for European refineries,' by Adam R. Brandt.

Since then, research by NGO Oil Change International has indicated that emissions from tar sands oil could be even higher than thought before, because of emissions released by the burning of tar sands refinery byproduct petroleum coke, or petcoke, which is also used as a cheap fuel.

According to the Stanford study, "GHG emissions from oil sands production is significantly different enough from conventional oil emissions that regulatory frameworks should address this discrepancy with pathway-specific emissions factors that distinguish between oil sands and conventional oil processes."

The Pembina Institute also published a June 2013 report confirming that "average oilsands production is significantly more GHG-intensive than conventional oil production," and calling tar sands GHG emissions "the fastest growing source of climate change pollution in Canada."

The FQD sets a mandatory six percent reduction in GHG emissions from transport fuel suppliers by 2020, and assigns default emission values to different fossil fuel feedstocks (the raw material from which the fuels are made).

Tar sands oil production requires more energy than conventional fossil fuels because of its extraction and refining process from bitumen. Because of this, the FQD would give tar sands oil a higher default emission value, making it unattractive to European fuel suppliers, who would be hit with financial penalties and higher carbon offsets if importing it.

The Harper government's plan of making Canada a global energy superpower by opening up the tar sands oil reserves via international trade would be adversely affected by the FQD, which guarantees that the federal government and the Albertan oil industry will continue lobbying against it, and for the tar sands, in full force in the months to come.

Postmedia News reports that EU environment ministers are set to vote on the FQD in mid-October or mid-November. If approved, the proposal would need to be ratified by the European Parliament in 2014.

Image Credit: Pembina Institute / Flickr  

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

With Prime Minister Stephen Harper in New York courting US business leaders and promoting the Keystone XL pipeline, it's perhaps unsurprising to hear that his government has nearly doubled its spending on advertising the Albertan tar sands since last year.

Suzanne Goldenberg writes in the Guardian, that according to the Canadian Press agency, the Harper government "has increased its advertising spending on the Alberta tar sands to $16.5m from $9m a year ago." The government's strategy includes television advertising and "high-profile ad buys" like sponsoring Politico Playbook, an influential political journalism site frequented by administration officials.

Harper was in New York City as part of the push to entice the US into supporting the Keystone pipeline and exports of crude oil from the tar sands. Last week, Harper was at a discussion and question and answer session at the Council on Foreign Relations, with the tar sands and the pipeline high on the agenda.

This onslaught of tar sands promotion by the Canadian government comes at a time when the Keystone project's completion is still uncertain. If completed, the pipeline will pump up to 830,000 barrels of crude oil a day from the Albertan tar sands to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. The Obama administration makes its final decision on whether or not to approve the pipeline later this year.

Aside from winning approval for the project in the US, Canada has also been resisting a EU proposal that would designate fuel from tar sands oil as high polluting compared to conventional fuels because of studies confirming its higher GHG emissions.

Goldenberg quotes natural resources minister Joe Oliver as saying that the EU proposal is "discriminatory, it's not based on science and it would potentially hurt Canada's ability to access markets for its resources." Oliver's claim that the proposal isn't based on science is best refuted by the fact that it is, in fact, based on a Stanford University scientific study. His second claim is probably more accurate, if applied to the resource in question–high polluting tar sands oil.

Oliver reportedly assured CBC Radio that "Canada will keep developing its natural resources for export to the United States in a way that ensures the environment is protected." He also stressed the importance of presenting "key facts on our strong environment record and long-standing energy relationship to American decision makers and opinion leaders."

It's difficult not to think what the $16.5 million being used for tar sands advertising could do to strengthen Canada's "strong environment record" for the future. It remains to be seen whether or not the Harper government's efforts will pay off when it's time for President Obama to make a decision on the pipeline.

Image Credit: Emma Cassidy / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

For a while now, the UK government has been dragging its feet behind other European countries trying to deter future imports of Canadian tar sands oil into the EU. The UK, home to British Petroleum (BP), has an oil industry with vested interests in the Albertan tar sands, and opened a new consulate in Calgary in 2011. Recent papers leaked to the Guardian by Greenpeace may be the clearest sign yet that the UK will support Canada in encouraging tar sands oil imports to Europe.

John Vidal writes in the Guardian, that "in EU negotiations on laws intended to encourage the use of low-carbon transport fuels, the UK has rejected language that would class tar sands oil as more polluting than conventional crude or other fuels."

In its fuel quality directive, the European Commission has proposed that fuel produced from tar sands bitumen be designated "highly polluting," contributing 22 per cent more GHG emissions than conventional fuels. Under the directive, suppliers have to make a 10 per cent cut in GHG emissions from their fuels by 2020. Officially labelling tar sands oil as a high polluter would keep European suppliers away from it to help reach that goal, which the Commission hopes will "cut emissions by a cumulative total of 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020."

Faced with six options to implement the above proposal, the UK reportedly rejected all but "the two that would make no differentiation between the carbon content of fuels," citing these as least likely to lead to "unexpected consequences." It's likely that the UK fears the more expected consequences of the directive–the curbing of tar sands oil trade in European markets.

Norman Baker, a British minister for the Department of Transport, has denied Greenpeace's allegations that the UK government isn't committed to reducing GHG emissions. Vidal quotes Baker as saying that the UK "[wants] an effective solution to address the carbon emissions from all highly polluting crudes, not simply those from oil sands… I take this issue seriously and that is why I have arranged to meet Jim Hansen this week to discuss the matter."

Baker made the same point in 2011, saying that the Commission's proposal "should be tackling all high polluting crudes equally, not simply oil sands from one particular country." This even though, as the Guardian pointed out then, the proposal doesn't single out any one nation. A Stanford University study for the Commission also confirmed tar sands fuel to be a higher polluter by a clear margin.

Former NASA climate scientist Jim Hansen, whom Baker was preparing to meet in London when the papers were leaked, has been a strong opponent of tar sands exploitation. In a 2012 op-ed piece for the New York Times, Hansen said that "it will be game over for the climate" if Canada continues to extract oil from the tar sands.

Despite British Prime Minister David Cameron's claim that his would be the "greenest government ever," it seems the UK will remain a staunch ally of the Harper government when it comes to putting the oil industry above the need for proactive action against climate change.

Image Credit: NFWBlogs / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

The Canadian government's tar sands roadshow was in Europe this week trying to convince the European Union (EU) not to slap a “dirtier oil” label on the tar sands.

Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver visited Paris, London, and Brussels to argue against the EU implementing the latest version of its Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) that would discourage sales of fuels made from tar sands in the EU.  

A very small amount of fuels from tar sands actually reach Europe. European refineries are not equipped to process the tar-like form of petroleum called bitumen. Canada's tar sands industry would not lose a customer if the FQD passed today.

“The fact that the Canadian government is so keen to stop the FQD from going ahead indicates just how important it would be, not just in closing off the European market to tar sands oil but in setting a precedent for other countries to reject tar sands imports,” says Emily Coats, co-director of the UK Tar Sands Network.

“The FQD would be a game changer for the tar sands industry,” Coats told DeSmog Canada.

The row between Canada and the EU over the FQD is now in its fourth year

“It is quite appalling that the EU is not able to implement its own legislation because of intense lobbying of a third country (Canada),” says Nuša Urbančič, a programme manager with the transport policy group Transport & Environment based in Brussels.

“The proposal should have been adopted in January 2011. We are now in May 2013 and we are still discussing the same thing.” Urbančič has been involved in the campaign to pass the revised version of the FQD from day one.

One of the ways the EU is tackling climate change is through the FQD requiring transport fuel suppliers to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of their product by 6% by 2020 (2010 baseline).

The measure encourages fuel suppliers to sell fuels in the EU that have a lower carbon footprint. Due to the extremely energy intensive process to extract and upgrade bitumen the FQD labelled fuels from tar sands as having a higher carbon footprint than conventional oil. The same was done with fuels from oil shale, another unconventional oil.

An EU commissioned report in 2011 by Adam Brandt of Stanford University confirmed GHG emissions from tar sands crude were 12-40% were higher than conventional oil. The EU averaged off their value for tar sands crude at 23%.

A European study released on May 7th shows the FQD will prevent nearly 70 million tons of  GHG emissions from reaching the atmosphere annually. This amount is slightly more than British Columbia's total annual GHG emissions.

Team Tar Sands Operations in Europe

"There have been massive lobbying campaigns by the car industry, by the chemicals industry, banks, food giants, etc.," Satu Hassi, a Finnish Member of European Parliament told Reuters in 2012 about the Canadian lobbying efforts against the FQD.

"But so far I have not seen such a lobbying campaign by any state."

Internal documents released in 2011 revealed the Canadian government had launched a "pan European oil sands advocacy strategy" the year before "to protect and advance Canadian interests related to the oil sands and broader interests in Europe including a Canada's [sic] brand in Europe."

Members of the advocacy strategy included Canadian embassies in Norway (not part of the EU), Belgium, France, Netherlands and Germany and the Canadian High Commission in the UK. Between September 2009 and the summer of 2011 at least 110 lobby meetings took place between Canadian officials and EU decision makers about the FQD.  

Not surprisingly in the last vote on the implementation of the FQD in February 2012 the UK, France, Germany, Netherlands and Belgium all abstained from voting. This was actually seen as an improvement from their previous positions because many had expected these EU countries to vote against the FQD as a result of being intensely lobbied by Canada.

Canadian government fears "discriminatory" dirty oil precedent

“This fuel-quality directive (FQD) is discriminatory towards Canadian oil and not supported by scientific facts,” Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver told the Globe and Mail on May 8th.

Oliver in April publicly stated he believed scientists have exaggerated their claims about climate change and attacked one of the world's leading climate scientists for what Oliver said was “exaggerated rhetoric” about the tar sands.

The EU on the other hand is leading the world in taking action on climate change through its  prestigious scientific institutions and its innovative legislation and policies.

“Europeans are starting to see Canada as a combative and backward sidekick to Big Oil, rather than the progressive and democratic nation it once was,” Coats said in an interview with DeSmog Canada.

There has been some sabre rattling with the Canadian government saying they will take the EU to the World Trade Organization (WTO) over the FQD. A 2011 report by the European legal group Défense Terre found "(t)he Canadian government faces significant obstacles, if not insurmountable hurdles, in a WTO challenge” against FQD.

Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner was quite honest about what the battle over the FQD was really about when he said in 2010:

“It is not because we are protecting a customer base [in Europe], but because we respect the fact that decisions in Europe find their way into other policies around the world.”

The EU's impact assessment of the FQD will be completed by summer. A vote on the FQD by the environmental ministers of EU member states could take place in the fall. Only a “qualified majority” or two-thirds majority against can defeat the FQD. 

For Canadians who disagree with their government interfering with EU democracy and want to help Europeans pass the FQD Coats has this advice:

“If EU politicians visit Canada you could do a solidarity protest, like we did against Keystone XL when US Secretary of State John Kerry came to London.”

“Let the EU know the Harper government does not speak for you.”

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.