SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
EU Vote on Canadian Tar Sands Ends in Stalemate
Decision to label Alberta's oil 'highly polluting' will take place this summer
Feb 23, 2012
An EU vote today to determine whether imported Canadian tar sands would be categorized as a 'highly polluting fuel' ended in stalemate, giving a cautious short-term victory to green advocates, and pushing a final decision to the European Council which will now vote on the matter this summer.
The CBC reports:
Experts from the EU's 27 member countries voted 54 in favour and 128 against, but weighting by population gives some countries a bigger vote, leading to the tie Thursday. Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy all carry extra weight.
As a result, the proposal will move up to the European Council, which will vote on it in late spring or early summer.
The EU's so-called fuel-quality directive -- part of Europe's attempts to reduce CO2 emissions by encouraging the use of cleaner fuel -- ranks fuels based on their carbon footprint. It calculates a fuel's entire life cycle of emissions, then assigns it a number.
Under the directive, Canadian oil derived from oilsands would get a higher number than conventional oil because it uses more energy to extract and refine.The fuel quality directive would make Alberta's main export more expensive for European customers. Canada doesn't export much oil to Europe, but could in the future.
Canada and the oil industry have lobbied against the proposal, while environmental groups have supported it.
Greenpeace's transport policy adviser in Europe Franziska Achterberg said in response to the decision: "Now that the tar sands issue is finally in the hands of publicly accountable ministers, we will see who's pulling the strings in Europe. The evidence is clear: tar sands are the world's dirtiest fuels. The decision is even clearer: ministers should stand up to the oil industry and ban them from Europe."
###
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
An EU vote today to determine whether imported Canadian tar sands would be categorized as a 'highly polluting fuel' ended in stalemate, giving a cautious short-term victory to green advocates, and pushing a final decision to the European Council which will now vote on the matter this summer.
The CBC reports:
Experts from the EU's 27 member countries voted 54 in favour and 128 against, but weighting by population gives some countries a bigger vote, leading to the tie Thursday. Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy all carry extra weight.
As a result, the proposal will move up to the European Council, which will vote on it in late spring or early summer.
The EU's so-called fuel-quality directive -- part of Europe's attempts to reduce CO2 emissions by encouraging the use of cleaner fuel -- ranks fuels based on their carbon footprint. It calculates a fuel's entire life cycle of emissions, then assigns it a number.
Under the directive, Canadian oil derived from oilsands would get a higher number than conventional oil because it uses more energy to extract and refine.The fuel quality directive would make Alberta's main export more expensive for European customers. Canada doesn't export much oil to Europe, but could in the future.
Canada and the oil industry have lobbied against the proposal, while environmental groups have supported it.
Greenpeace's transport policy adviser in Europe Franziska Achterberg said in response to the decision: "Now that the tar sands issue is finally in the hands of publicly accountable ministers, we will see who's pulling the strings in Europe. The evidence is clear: tar sands are the world's dirtiest fuels. The decision is even clearer: ministers should stand up to the oil industry and ban them from Europe."
###
An EU vote today to determine whether imported Canadian tar sands would be categorized as a 'highly polluting fuel' ended in stalemate, giving a cautious short-term victory to green advocates, and pushing a final decision to the European Council which will now vote on the matter this summer.
The CBC reports:
Experts from the EU's 27 member countries voted 54 in favour and 128 against, but weighting by population gives some countries a bigger vote, leading to the tie Thursday. Germany, France, the U.K., and Italy all carry extra weight.
As a result, the proposal will move up to the European Council, which will vote on it in late spring or early summer.
The EU's so-called fuel-quality directive -- part of Europe's attempts to reduce CO2 emissions by encouraging the use of cleaner fuel -- ranks fuels based on their carbon footprint. It calculates a fuel's entire life cycle of emissions, then assigns it a number.
Under the directive, Canadian oil derived from oilsands would get a higher number than conventional oil because it uses more energy to extract and refine.The fuel quality directive would make Alberta's main export more expensive for European customers. Canada doesn't export much oil to Europe, but could in the future.
Canada and the oil industry have lobbied against the proposal, while environmental groups have supported it.
Greenpeace's transport policy adviser in Europe Franziska Achterberg said in response to the decision: "Now that the tar sands issue is finally in the hands of publicly accountable ministers, we will see who's pulling the strings in Europe. The evidence is clear: tar sands are the world's dirtiest fuels. The decision is even clearer: ministers should stand up to the oil industry and ban them from Europe."
###
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.