NGOs respond to Norman Baker's tar sands claims
LUSH: Norman Baker Tarnished
Image © Lush Cosmetics
People & Planet recently launched an online campaign action asking Under-Secretary of State for Transport Norman Baker MP, to support the EU’s proposal for its Fuel Quality Directive, which ranks tar sands (one of the most polluting fuels on the market) as 23% more destructive than conventional crude, on average. Baker is a long-time environmentalist, so when he began to sound like the Canadian lobbyists who have been applying pressure on this side of the ocean, we were shocked, to say the least.
Since our friends at Lush Cosmetics ramped things up in Baker’s own constituency last week, in advance of the EU vote on the Fuel Quality Directive this Friday, he has come back with a statement we felt needed addressing, given our support for Lush’s campaign and the action we’ve recently initiated. His defence is printed in full below, with our additions:
“I have made it plain to Lush, and others, that I am seeking to secure the best deal I can for the environment from the discussions ongoing in the EU about the Fuel Quality Directive.”
If this is true, why have you ignored the information that the European Commission and a range of NGOs have given your offices, addressing the concerns you raise below, namely about the supposed ‘singling out’ of Canadian tar sands and not including other carbon-intensive fuels?
“In my view, that means tackling all highly polluting crudes equally, not simply oil sands from one particular country. I simply don’t understand why people who care about the environment can ignore all these other sources of dirty oil. These certainly represent a problem, but so do other crudes, and it makes no environmental sense to ignore these. We want to deal with them all, not just one type, and in a way that is based on robust and objective data, related to their carbon emissions.”
We are not ‘ignoring’ any other high-polluting fuels – and neither is the EU. Other unconventionals such as kerogen, coal to liquids and gas to liquids are already included in article 7a – with their own default values. In the meantime, tar sands derived products (and not only from Canada but Venezuela, Russia and elsewhere) are within the reach of the FQD – and they’re already in large scale commercial production, unlike the majority of the other unconventional fossil fuels identified. The FQD also includes a review clause to address conventional crudes with above average emissions, such as with high flaring, once the data is available. Independent, peer reviewed scientists, commissioned by the EU have concluded, in the face of unprecedented Canadian lobbying, that tar sands oil produces on average 23% more carbon than conventional crude. The FQD should not have to wait until it has all info on all fuels, before it can legislate against those it already knows will make the EU’s target of 6% reductions in transport emissions by 2020 difficult, if not impossible to achieve. If it waits for all information on all non-conventional fuels, it will likely be impossible to realise such emission reductions. We agree that all high-pollutant fuels must be tackled. But preventing tar sands from being tackled immediately, as has been the approach promoted by the tar sands industry, (who until they saw the data was absolutely against them, were arguing against tar sands being labelled a high polluting fuel at all) is not the way to get us there. They know how the EU regulatory system works, and that the longer you can claim the need for ‘more information’, the longer action is delayed at the expense of the local as well as the global environment and the First Nations communities of Alberta, who depend on that environment for their livelihoods.
“I accept that there may be a genuine debate to be had about tactics, but I find it disappointing, and actually a bit insulting, that Lush ascribes motives and explanations to me that are simply wrong. It seems anyone who disagrees with their analysis must therefore be acting in bad faith.”
We imagine it must be a very difficult position to be in, given your amazing track record on environmental issues. But unless you can take a stand on this, your integrity will be seriously damaged in the minds of those of us who believe we must act now to stop catastrophic climate change.
“Firstly, what I am putting forward, if I can make it stick, far from being a wrecking move, will produce a better result for the environment. Secondly, I am not seeking to delay anything, but want a comprehensive package in place in the EU as soon as possible to ensure these aims are met.”
If you are not seeking delays (recent statements have sounded much like those of the Canadian lobbyists), then now would be an ideal time to support the Fuel Quality Directive, given the de facto ban it places on tar sands oil, and its inclusion of a range of other dirty fuels that we want to keep out of the EU, as soon as the reports are produced.
We hope you will send a clear message in Brussels that the UK is not going to be held hostage by the interests of the oil industry or the Canadian Government. Given Canada’s recent move to pull-out of the Kyoto Protocol, the UK should be especially hesitant to align its interests with a country that is increasingly seen as one of the greatest threats in the global effort to combat climate change. Until it is clear that you are representing the people of the UK and the environment, you’ll continue to hear from us.
Sincerely,
Liam Barrington-Bush, People & Planet
Sean Gifford, Lush Cosmetics
Suzanne Dhaliwal, UK Tar Sands Network
Liz Murray, World Development Movement
James Marriot, Platform London
