The European Union will not label fuel from Alberta’s oilsands as highly polluting despite years of efforts to distinguish the crude and other unconventional fuels for their high environmental impacts.

A proposal released Tuesday by the European Commission lifts a requirement forcing refiners to identify when supplying fuel from unconventional sources such as oilsands or oil shale. The commission will lift the requirement even though internal estimates show these fuel sources contain higher carbon emissions than conventional sources.

The dropped requirement within the European Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) comes after years of intense lobbying on behalf of the Canadian and Albertan government.

"The Harper government, in collaboration with the major oil companies, unleashed an unprecedented assault on clean fuels legislation in Europe even as they gutted environmental laws at home,” Keith Stewart, energy and climate campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, told DeSmog Canada. 

“I think the question Canadians should ask themselves is: Do we want our diplomats to operate as a lobbying arm of Big Oil?" he said.

Stewart also noted the federal government's Pan-European Oil Sands Advocacy Strategy labelled oil companies as "allies" while environmental and Aboriginal groups were listed as "adversaries."

According to EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard, pressure also came from member states siding with Canada on the issue.

“It is no secret that our initial proposal could not go through due to resistance faced in some member states," she said in a statement.

"The Commission is today giving this another push, to try and ensure that in the future, there will be a methodology and thus an incentive to choose less-polluting fuels over more polluting ones like, for example, oil sands," she said.

Greenpeace EU energy and transport policy director Franziska Achterberg said without strong measures limit heavily-polluting fuels from entering the EU market the measure “will fail to meet the law’s objective of cleaning up Europe’s transport fuels.”

Achterberg added that international trade deals like the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TIPP) are being used to “undermine the EU’s environmental legislation.”

The commission’s report came the same day as a federal audit from Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development which confirmed Canada has failed to implement any policies to limit greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector.

The report from commissioner Julie Gelfand found it is unclear what role Environment Canada will play in reducing oilsands emissions after 2015 because no long-term plans are currently in place.

Amin Asadollahi, oilsands director at the Pembina Institute, said the EU’s weakened proposal undermines the Fuel Quality Directive. Without measures to list the emissions values of different fuels, the directive will have “lost its original purpose.”

“It will have little influence on the actions of other countries and corporations that seek to supply fuels to the European Union,” Asadollahi said in a statement.

“Regardless of whether or not the latest proposal is adopted, the fact remains that crude from the oilsands is a high-carbon-intensity fuel source. Moreover, the sector’s emissions intensity has not improved significantly over the past decade, even as overall production and emissions continue to grow.”

The Alberta oilsands are Canada’s fastest-growing source of emissions and the sole reason Canada will not meet its emissions-reduction targets under the Copenhagen Accord.

“Canada’s oilsands sector remains exposed to actions by other countries seeking to limit the use of high-carbon-intensity fuels,” Asadollahi said.

“That will be the case until we implement credible policies that directly address emissions from the oilsands.”

Image Credit: Alex MacLean for the Pulitzer Center for Journalism.

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.

A new film on tar sands extraction going global premiered at European Parliament in Strasbourg, France last week.

The documentary 'Tar Sands – Ends of the Earth' is by Friends of the Earth Europe and features Holly Rakotondralambo, an environmentalist from Madagascar as she journeys to northern Alberta to see the environmental devastation caused by the tar sands industry. Madagascar is home to the fourth largest tar sands bitumen deposit in the world.

“It was very sad to see the tar sands (in Canada) and I'm worried that something like this could happen in Madagascar. Canada is a developed country. In Madagascar we don't have the capacity to regulate the extractive industries,” says Rakotondralambo.

Rakotondralambo learns about the tar sands from First Nations leaders and activists in Alberta and European politicians in Brussels before returning to the region of Bemolanga in Madagascar. French oil company Total Oil owns the majority of the tar sands projects in the region.

Bemolanga is a drought region of Madagascar. Communities are dependent on one river for all their water needs. The locals are either cow herders or subsistence farmers. The large volumes of water necessary to process bitumen could threaten the communities of Bemolanga's existence.

At community meetings in Bemolanga, Rakotondralambo presents pictures of tar sands operations in Alberta. Community members look on with disbelief at images of moon-like landscapes left by tar sands open pit mines and tailings ponds the size of large lakes.

Rakotondralambo explains in the film it is important for the communities of Bemolanga to know the facts about the tar sands because it will be like “going to war” with the Madagascar government supported by international oil companies to stop the tar sands projects. She will also translate the film into Malagasy for local communities to view.

“They have no voice or education to oppose or understand. They are so poor that if you give them just a little money they will accept anything without any idea about what the impacts will be,” Rakotondralambo said about Bemolanga's communities in a 2011 interview with The Ecologist.

Following the screening in Strasbourg, Members of European Parliament (MEP) vowed to ensure the EU Fuel Quality Directive will discourage the selling of bitumen in the EU. Liberal democrat MEP Fiona Hall said the film showed “why action now is so important” and pledged to keep fighting for a higher greenhouse gas (GHG) value of oil derived from bitumen in the FQD.

The Canadian government has lobbied intensely against the EU setting a GHG value for oil from tar sands bitumen that is higher than the value set for conventional oil in the FQD. Canada fears this would set a precedent that bitumen is 'dirty oil' and other countries will follow suit.

"We as MEPs have been fighting to have the tar sands properly labelled. We label other things as they are, such as food. They should be labelled just as they are," says social democrat MEP Linda McAvan.

Total Oil temporarily shelved its Bemolanga tar sands projects in 2010 following political and economic instability in the aftermath of Madagascar's 2009 coup. Madagascar Oil's tar sands projects in the neighbouring Tsimiroro region are underway.

There is also speculation Total Oil is waiting on the outcome of the FQD before it proceeds with further tar sands extraction in Madagascar.

“The final result of the Fuel Quality Directive may be a stop or a go ahead for the tar sands,” says director of Friends of the Earth Europe Magda Stoczkiewicz in the film.

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.

As promised, multiple protests against the tar sands greeted Prime Minister Stephen Harper Thursday in London, where he became the first Canadian prime minister to address British Parliament since 1944. Harper has been using his UK trip to lobby against the proposed European Union (EU) fuel quality directive, which would label oil from the Albertan tar sands as 'highly polluting' to deter imports into Europe.

Linda Solomon writes for the Vancouver Observer, that "50 campaigners representing 30 environmental groups gathered outside the UK Parliament [to] greet Prime Minister Stephen Harper's car with anti-tar sands banners, placards and chants." One of them, Suzanne Dhaliwal, was dressed as Bridgette DePape, the Senate Page who was fired in 2011 for holding up a "Stop Harper" sign on the Canadian Senate floor.

The group protest outside Parliament was organized by the UK Tar Sands Network (TSN). Jess Worth of the TSN is quoted as saying that Thursday's protests "demonstrate just how strongly people in the UK feel about the Harper government's attempts to force their dirty tar sands oil onto Europe."

The TSN posted a YouTube video of the protest.

In a separate protest, members of an activist group calling themselves "Love Canada, Hate Tar Sands" (LCHTS) attempted to "block the Sovereign's Entrance Gate to the room where Harper was speaking," and scaled the roof of the Parliament building to try and interrupt Harper during his speech.

According to the BBC, "shouting was heard" inside, but the "speech went ahead." They also report that two women were arrested outside "on suspicion of criminal damage," and three others "detained" by Parliamentary security for trying to get into "non-public rooms."

On their tumblr blog, LCHTS posted videos of their protest on the rooftop of Parliament. They also posted a statement, saying:

"From further marginalising historically shunted Indigenous people, to muzzling world class climate scientists, Prime Minister Harper has shown time and again that nothing will stand between him and developing dirty tar sands, even though tar sands will create unprecedented global warming. Now Harper brings his circus of oil peddlers to Europe to interfere in EU climate legislation, to push his monstrous industry onto Europeans."

They add that by staging Thursday's protest they "have acted, in solidarity with those resisting Harper everywhere, to STOP CLIMATE CRIMINAL HARPER."

British Prime Minister David Cameron's government has proven a staunch supporter of Harper's tar sands push. But some in the UK government are pushing back.

The TSN reports on their site that British MPs have tabled an Early Day Motion to recognize the damaging effects of tar sands exploitation, resist Canadian lobbying against the EU fuel quality directive, and keep tar sands oil imports out of Europe. 7 MPs from 4 different parties have signed. Solomon notes that "other MPs will now be encouraged to sign, in the run-up to an EU Member States' vote later this year."

Harper's final destination in Europe is the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland this week. At G8, Harper is expected to continue lobbying against the EU fuel quality directive. He's also likely to advocate for the Canada-European Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) which, according to citizens' organization the Council of Canadians, could support tar sands expansion by "[empowering] European corporations to attack environmental and health measures" and "[restricting] our Internet freedom [by criminalizing] certain online behaviour."

Image Credit: Rajan Zaveri / No Tar Sands Facebook Page

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.

As Prime Minister Stephen Harper prepares to give a speech to the British Parliament this Thursday, a coalition of environmental groups prepares to greet his arrival at Parliament in London with protests against the tar sands.

Jason Fekete writes for Postmedia News, that "Canada's bitumen production [from the Albertan tar sands] will likely be a popular topic during Harper's eight-day trip to Europe."

Harper left for Europe on Tuesday, along with Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and International Trade Minister Ed Fast. The trip will end with the G8 Summit in Northern Ireland on June 17-18. At G8, the somewhat contradictory goals of championing the tar sands and touting Canada as a dependable leader in clean energy will likely be high on Harper's agenda.

The Harper contingent will also be looking to use the trip to lobby against the proposed European Union (EU) fuel quality directive which would label tar sands oil as high-polluting.

The European Commission hopes the fuel quality directive will help "cut emissions by a cumulative total of 500 million tonnes of carbon dioxide by 2020" by preventing tar sands oil imports into Europe, to reach the goal of a ten per cent cut in GHG emissions by that year. Canada has staunchly resisted the directive, claiming it unfairly targets tar sands oil over other fuels.

Fekete quotes Harper's spokesman, Andrew MacDougall, as saying that the Canadian government wants tar sands crude "judged on science and in fair comparison with other sources of oil," rather than "arbitrary standards." The Harper government hasn't addressed the fact that the EU directive is based on a Stanford University scientific study that confirms tar sands oil as highly polluting in "fair comparison" with other fuels.

It's also likely that Harper will try to meet with President Obama at G8 to discuss the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline linking tar sands crude from Alberta to Texas Gulf Coast refineries. Obama is set to make a decision on whether to approve Keystone XL by the end of the year.

But before G8 is Harper's London stop, where he will be the first Canadian prime minister to address the British Parliament since 1944. The UK Tar Sands Network, who are organizing Thursday's protest, note that addressing parliament is "normally reserved for the most highly-respected dignitaries," and that "Harper does not deserve this honour."

That Harper was bestowed this honour is unsurprising, considering that British Prime Minister David Cameron's government has been a loyal ally in Canada's push against the EU fuel quality directive. The UK Tar Sands Network cites this "destructive 'special' relationship" between the two countries as one of the reasons for Thursday's protest. They aim to show Harper that "there is huge opposition to tar sands in the UK."

Suzanne Dhaliwal, a Canadian citizen and member of the UK Tar Sands Network says "Harper may be coming here hoping to escape the multiple controversies dogging him at home, but the tar sands are a scandal of global proportions, because the industry's emissions could tip the world over the edge into runaway climate change."

"The Canadian government's campaign of misinformation against the EU Fuel Quality Directive is particularly outrageous," she added.

"They are actively trying to prevent Europe passing effective climate legislation by claiming it is arbitrary, unscientific and unfair. In reality, it is none of these things. It is non-discriminatory, based on solid peer-reviewed science, and covers all types of fuel. So we will be protesting Harper's visit, in solidarity with Indigenous communities and all those opposing the tar sands in Canada."

On their website and a Facebook page for the protest, the group raises concerns that the Harper government's "unprecedented lobbying campaign in the EU, with the energetic support of the UK government and British oil companies like Shell and BP" have stalled the fuel quality directive, and may entirely squash it.

In tandem with efforts in Europe, Fekete observes that Harper's government has also been "launching a public relations advertising offensive on American lawmakers in recent weeks — running ads in Washington D.C. newspapers, along with the launch of a new government website" to drum up US support for Keystone XL. The new government website announces that Canada is "one of the few major suppliers of crude oil…taking concrete action to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions," and boasts a "world-class  environmental  monitoring system…founded on science and transparency."   

The website doesn't mention Canada's opposition to the EU fuel quality directive to reduce GHG emissions, or accusations that the Harper government is muzzling scientists from speaking out on climate change. The government will be spending 16.5 million dollars on tar sands advertising in the upcoming year.

But despite what Jess Worth of the UK Tar Sands Network calls "absolutely extraordinary and relentless" lobbying by the Harper government, the divide between Canada's advertised image as "world environmental leader" and its aspirations towards being the chief global exporter of high-polluting tar sands oil seems clear to those preparing to protest in London on Thursday.

Image Credit: David Hoffman / 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.