I am simultaneously a resident of Alberta, home of the tar sands, and a member of Lewes Liberal Democrats. This unique combination gives me a strong interest in the issue of the implementation of the EU Fuel Quality Directive, which should ban tar sands oil from entering Europe, and Norman Baker’s role, which numerous environmental groups have alleged, has been to secretly aid Canada in its attempts to prevent the ban.
In my opinion the campaign against Norman has been febrile and ill-informed, and I would also apply both of those adjectives to Damian Carrington’s reports in his Guardian blog.
I was particularly amused by Carrington’s grudging approval of the UK government’s donation to the Pembina Institute, which he described as an “anti-tar sands” organisation. Pembina, based in Calgary, only calls for a moratorium on new tar-sands developments, not for the tar-sands exploitation to end. In fact, Pembina insists that the tar-sands can be made sustainable (against all the evidence). Essentially it inhabits the same alternative reality as the Canadian and Albertan governments, in which you can have your cake and eat it, exploit tar-sands oil and combat climate change. I can understand why the UK might decide to give Pembina a donation rather than another environmental group. Pembina’s stance means it gets listened to occasionally, meaning it can influence issues such as environmental monitoring, whereas the other environmental groups are regarded with horror and contempt on a par with Al Qaeda; but describing Pembina as “anti tar-sands” is either ignorant or delusional.
But I digress.
Norman has answered the allegations against him on his website and in letters to the Guardian, and I am satisfied that there were no secret meetings and there is no conspiracy. However, I still have some concerns about the UK’s position on the FQD implementation, and Norman’s position in particular. Norman is critical of the methodology which accords a high rating to tar sands oil, but fails to take into account the high emissions of heavy conventional crudes, such as those from Nigeria, Angola or Venezuela. He states:
I persuaded the British government to put to our EU partners a system whereby all fossil fuel sources were placed in either a high, medium or low band, with specific values being advocated as and when the detailed information became available. Under my scenario, such a value would be given to Canadian tar sands right away but within this banding arrangement that captured all other fossil fuel sources from day one.
Lush portray this policy as “attempting to kill this legislation by delaying it for years”. Yet my officials at the Department for Transport advise me that a banding system could be up and running within six months to a year. By contrast, if the EU fails to put a system in place now to cover all crudes, it is unlikely that the matter will be revisited for years, and all we will have is a specific value for one source that at the moment barely exists, as far as Europe is concerned.
My problem with Norman’s stance is as follows: T&E is an environmental organisation I trust. In its briefing on the FQD implementation it states that the methodology criticized by Norman, will only be in place until December 2015 at the latest, when it will be reviewed –
The proposals also include the possibility of allowing additional default values for higher GHG intensity conventional sources, once the data has been established and if it is proven to be scientifically warranted. Furthermore, the review will allow existing default values to be adjusted in line with the latest scientific and technical information.
Norman claims that the banding system he proposes would take just six months to put in place. thus saving just two and a half years on the 2015 review. I’m not convinced that is worth arguing for. Even if little or no Canadian tar sands oil is imported into Europe, the ban, as T&E argue, will have an immediate effect on the perceived viability of tar sands exploitation, and discourage investment.
The environmental groups accuse the British government of conspiring with Canada to kick implementation of the FQD into the long grass. I don’t believe that, and nor do I think that it could do that even if it wanted to. At worst, I think there may be some muddle in the government’s approach, as evidenced by the donation to the Pembina Institute, and influenced by our close relationship with Canada, and the degree of investment in the tar-sands by British companies, including RBS, BP, and HSBC.
Nevertheless, I believe it would be better if the UK votes for implementation of the FQD now, and not be responsible for any further delay
