Canada Bullying The European Union Over Tar Sands, Threatening To Scuttle Trade Agreement

Mon, 2011-02-21 13:56TJ Scolnick
TJ Scolnick's picture

Canada Bullying The European Union Over Tar Sands, Threatening To Scuttle Trade Agreement

Canada is using Alberta’s dirty tar sands as an excuse to bully the European Union (EU) into watering down its climate change policies, leaving the Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) in serious doubt.

This brewing transatlantic dispute over the tar sands stems from the likelihood that the EU could officially block the sale of Alberta oil in Europe given its high carbon content. 

The European Commission is reportedly “readying its defenses for a legal fight with Canada.”

According to Reuters:

Last year, the EU appeared to be backing down on tar sands, but sources say negotiators for the 27-member bloc are becoming bolder as their scientific evidence becomes more robust.

“We are saying ‘be careful’, because Canada will not hesitate to take us to the WTO, so we have to have something rock-solid,” said an EU official.


Briefing notes prepared for EU Climate Change Commissioner Connie Hedegaard discussing European climate change goals and the CETA attest to Canada’s firm opposition to any European tar sands definition which negatively characterizes Alberta’s so-called ‘ethical oil’:

Canada has been lobbying the Commission and member states intensively to avoid a separate default value for fuel derived from tar sands.”


Although Europe receives very little of Alberta’s dirty oil at present, Greenpeace reports that exports are on the rise [pdf] (and particularly via US ports which may soon receive much more dirty oil from the Keystone XL project).

What worries European leaders is the mounting body of evidence which shows that tar sands oil has a carbon footprint somewhere between 23% [pdf] and 82% [pdf] higher than regular dirty European and US oil.

A deepening reliance on dirty energy sources also contradicts progressive EU policies, mainly: efforts to reduce carbon emissions by 20-30% below 1990 levels by 2020; and a new Fuel Quality Directive [pdf] which is being updated to require a reduction in the carbon content of transport fuels by 6% below 2010 levels by 2020. Additionally, recently released European Commission data shows that aggressive climate change objectives are achievable, ‘cost effective’ and will promote economic growth across Europe.

EU leaders like Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard and Britain’s Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne are speaking out for immediate and significant action to reduce global warming pollution.

There are many groups that oppose the CETA, and probably even more groups that oppose the tar sands. The fact that Canadian negotiators are prepared to cancel negotiations over the Alberta tar sands shows that dirty energy lobbying efforts are not effective and that strong climate change policies are winning out in Europe. With mounting evidence showing that the tar sands are not an ethical project and that drilling for this oil is extremely destructive to the environment and climate, European leaders should both feel emboldened to stand up to fossil fuel lobby threats and to increase their commitments towards stronger carbon reduction goals.

Comments

Harper is so totally beholden to the oil lobby that he is willing to anything to support their interests, no matter how much harm it causes both Canada and the world at large, not that scuttling CETA is a bad thing.T

He knows that his policies are adding to climate change, hence his demonetization of refugees. There will be millions of climate refugees looking for a safe haven in the years to come and he has no interest in offering them refuge

In discussions like this, CO2 does not really matter. It does not matter if it is AGW or just GW. The extraction of energy through this technology and others such as fracking is revolting from any view point beside a greed that renders me speechless. Compared with the utter destruction caused to water, soil and air QUALITY in addition to GM produce due to other aspects of pollution and cynical practices, AGW sounds almost cuddly.

I would happily stand up and support ANYONE that widens the areas of concern, irrespective of view on the scope and role of man made CO2.

I am also concerned over that maybe big western industry does not have reasons to worry about whatever happens with the climate change. If no controls gets into place, its business as usual. If controls, growing or potential competitive markets like Asia and Africa will be kept at bay on environmental grounds. I admit I am a novice on the political aspects and is perfectly happy to be corrected on this point. That international politics is involved can be seen in the claims in The Hindu 21 Jan 2011 (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/article1107174.ece).

[x]

Two Colorado legislators announced they are introducing a ballot initiative aimed at punishing cities and towns that vote to ban fracking within their borders.

Rep. Frank McNulty of Highlands Ranch and Rep. Jerry Sonnenberg of Sterling, both Republicans, announced they will attempt to get an initiative on the ballot to block local jurisdictions from getting severance tax revenues or...

read more