EU Oil Sands Debate Continues After Committee Makes No Decision

BRUSSELS (AP) — A European Union committee failed Thursday to reach a definite decision on labeling oil derived from oil sands as worse for climate change than crude oil — a proposal vigorously opposed by officials in Canada, where such oil is produced.

The proposal will now go to the Council of the EU, representatives of the EU's 27 member countries, said a spokesman for EU Commissioner for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard. The spokesman, Isaac Valero-Ladron, said a decision was expected by June.

Canada had threatened to take the EU to the World Trade Organization if it singled out that type of oil as worse for the environment than others. But the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, contends that science justifies its proposal.

The proposal would be a revision of the EU's Fuel Quality Directive, which sets a mandatory target for fuel producers and suppliers to reduce the carbon emitted by fuels by 6 percent from 2010 levels by the year 2020. The proposal, while it would not have banned oil from oil sands from being imported into the EU, would have assigned it a bigger carbon footprint than average crude oil.

However, opponents of the proposal say that, in practice, that would amount to an import ban.

Oil sands, also known as tar sands, are sand and rock that contain crude bitumen, a heavy, viscous form of crude oil.

Under the European Commission proposal, oil extracted from oil sands would be deemed to emit 22 percent more greenhouse gas by weight than the average for crude oil. It would apply to such oil produced in Canada and Venezuela.

Greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are believed to contribute to the warming of the earth's climate.

The vote in the Fuel Quality Directive Committee, composed of experts from the EU countries, was 89 in favor of the proposal, 128 against, while 128 abstained. The vote was by qualified majority, a system in which larger countries have more votes than smaller ones, and 255 votes were needed for the committee to either approve the proposal or reject it.

Friends of the Earth Europe, an environmentalist group, bemoaned the stalemate.

"Intense pressure from the Canadian and oil lobbies means we have missed a chance to keep high-polluting sources of fuels, such as tar sands, out of Europe," Darek Urbaniak, a representative of the group, said in a statement. "This further delays a decision on tar sands, but could represent an opportunity for a more responsible decision by environment ministers in June."

But Greenpeace, another environmentalist group, took comfort from the fact that the proposal was not defeated, saying that would have been "a victory for an industry that produces the dirtiest oil on Earth." The group called for the proposal to be adopted by EU environment ministers in June.

Hedegaard, the climate action commissioner, also was heartened that opponents had failed to kill the proposal.

"Thanks for all your support e-mails from Canada, US & rest of the world! Hopefully EU MS will listen," she tweeted, referring to EU member states.

_____

Don Melvin can be reached at http://twitter.com/Don_Melvin

Also on HuffPost:

Comments

[Kenz300]

11:03 PM on 02/26/2012

The era of cheap oil is over.

Rising demand from China and India is outpacing supply.

Global oil discoveries peaked over 30 years ago.

Global oil production is not increasing enough to keep pace with rising demand.

The cheap and easy oil is in production. Deep water, tar sands and shale are very expensive to produce.

The price of oil is going up. Unless we find an alternative transportation fuel we will continue to see higher and higher prices at the pump. Bring on the electric, flex-fuel, hybrid, CNG, LNG and hydrogen fueled vehicles.

[FaceReality2]

08:00 PM on 02/26/2012

Truly a nightmare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwoRivP17A&feature=player_embedded#!

[FaceReality2]

07:55 PM on 02/26/2012

Even some well paid tar sands workers are quitting out of moral disgust:

http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/canadas-tar-sands-so-destructive-it-makes-its-well-paid-workers-want-quit-video.html

[markkocaldo]

04:23 PM on 02/26/2012

Initially the plan to clean up Tar Sands Oil was to replace the GHG spewing gas producing process steam with 4 big zero environmental cost zero GHG nukes greening up the sands. Big Oil and Canada's Dear Supreme Fascist and Spiritual Leader for Life St Stephen the Pious who's religion views nuclear as the "devil's Fire" persuaded Bruce Power that that plan would never get through their wholly owned captive regulator - the fix was in.

The current plant is to get the wholly owned captive regulator to force Alberta Tax payers to build a $16B power line to Montana, Big Oil will install gas generating plants selling the electricity south and using the waste heat as process steam.

That way the it's the gas power plant that gets tagged with the CO2 not the tar.

Obviously far better economically to export the tar sands process gas as LNG at 5 times the going rate but Big Oil is deathly afraid of nukes as it is the only energy source that can replace it. They've paid Supreme to make sure that it doesn't happen.

[AlonzoQuijana]

03:45 PM on 02/26/2012

I had to endure a dinner party with a Canadian blathering on about how everything is better in Canada while my Liberal table companions all lapping it up and apologizing for America. So, if Canada is such a leftist utopia, and we want to imitate them, let's bring on the Tar Sands, and let's adopt their 15% corporate tax rate.

[AlonzoQuijana]

03:40 PM on 02/26/2012

I love it. Leftist / socialist Canada is getting a taste of their own medicine -- meddling enviro-activists trying to harm their economy.

[7dr361]

02:14 PM on 02/27/2012

Is that why President Obama put a hold on the pipe line for more studies.....Rightie

[Mailman]

01:39 PM on 02/26/2012

Don't worry about it, just let your gas prices go to $10.00 a gallon, that'll keep the economy strong.

[Roadrun]

09:03 AM on 02/25/2012

Oddly, the country pushing this oil on the world has a great deal to loose in the Yukon and Northwest Territories from this oil being used.

I would ask "what are they thinking" but I have already concluded that they aren't.

[robodawa]

03:21 PM on 02/24/2012

You can't trust the EU. They are the first and last word in colonialism.

[El Justiciero]

01:39 PM on 02/24/2012

There are no "oil sands" . . that's a PR word made up by oil companies as an improvement over "TAR sands." I love that past generations left us with the great pyramids, massive stone temples, cathedrals, paintings and sculpture. What mark will we leave on earth? Toxic sludge lakes that can be seen from space, millions of acres of toxic deforested wastelands, rivers so saturated with pollution, infecting the food chain, flattening mountain tops and planting foreign invasive grasses that are completely un-edible to local wildlife....

[Anne Mccormick]

12:29 AM on 02/24/2012

Canada will just sell it's oil to China which seem to want as much as it can get. then there's the trade war with the European Union that Canada has threatened.

[artleads]

10:55 PM on 02/23/2012

Go EU. Keep those tar sands out. The world will respect (and reward) your stand.

[celcius232]

09:04 PM on 02/24/2012

Sure because it is easier for them to buy conflict oil from the Middle East.

When US oil companies pulled out of Libya to condemn the Kadhafi regime in the 80s the Europats lined up in droves to fill the voids.

[artleads]

11:14 PM on 02/24/2012

The point is them keeping the tar sands out, not what they do in Lybia

[celcius232]

10:40 AM on 02/25/2012

My point is the Euros are hypocrites and Canadian adn US oil will doom the Middle East despots. Do you ever consider that?

[AlonzoQuijana]

03:42 PM on 02/26/2012

AGIP and Total have big Libyan concessions, so it is to their advantage to keep out Canadian oil. There is nothing honorable about this.

[artleads]

05:13 PM on 02/26/2012

My position has nothing to do with any possible economic advantage. I'm primarily motivated by environmental concerns. Over time, I've come to find that you can't separate environmental health from social justice and *sustainable* economy. I respect the fact that you get thoroughly into the weeds, but my perspective is broader--the forest--which those who are invested in the "realism" of status quo see as fanciful.

[T-Haight]

06:42 PM on 02/23/2012

The problem for the EU is that the WTO rules don't allow for countries to justify import bans due to perceived harm (regardless of evidence). If Canada takes the issue to court, they will almost certainly win - at which point, Canada can impose punitive tariffs. Does a EU that hasn't yet reached its pre-recession levels want to start trade wars? That doesn't seem like a very savvy decision, especially given that their ban won't prevent the tar sands from being sold - China is more than happy to buy them.

It would be silly to ship tar sand oil farther (to China) and send other sorts of oil farther to Europe for the ostensible purpose of avoiding climate impact when the only result will be burning more carbon fuels to move the oil around the globe.

[Kathleen Wood]

12:24 PM on 02/23/2012

This story highlights the ineptitude of bureaucracy. Regardless of whether or not the EU decides to label it as such, oil derived from tar sands IS more environmentally destructive than conventional crude. The argument should not be on how to label it, but on how to ban it entirely. www.killingmother.blogspot.com.

[NWBrunette]

04:56 PM on 02/23/2012

Hear, hear!

[freedom1947]

11:02 AM on 02/23/2012

Maybe after canada destroys its water sheds the PUBS will be willing to back away from their views. And addmit that it is just so they can build up their bank accounts.