| The UK Tar Sands Network objected to an article published by PE Unconventional on 24 June 2011. We stand by the article, but invited the group to write an opinion piece stating its position. |
PE Unconventional recently ran an article, Protesters admit oil sands issues not clear cut, that we feel misrepresented the campaign to keep tar-sands [oil-sands] oil out of Europe. It is the UK government’s position, not ours, that it is “not clear cut”. We would like to set the record straight.
Tar-sands fuel should, unquestionably, be included in the EU Fuel Quality Directive (FQD), a measure designed to green the continent’s transport sector. The FQD would effectively ban future tar-sands imports in Europe. An independent, peer-reviewed study from Stanford University says that oil derived from tar sands is responsible for 23% more carbon emissions than conventional oil. So it cannot be ignored by legislation aiming to reduce emissions.
The UK Tar Sands Network (UKTSN) is not alone in arguing that the FQD should address the tar sands. The European Commission has reintroduced tar sands into the directive with the overwhelming support of the European Parliament, and as the Commission prepares formally to present its proposals to EU member states for agreement it would appear the vast majority also support its inclusion.
The UK government, however, does not. UKTSN is part of a coalition of non-governmental organisations on both sides of the Atlantic concerned that the UK is threatening its own and the EU’s climate-action targets; and irrationally bowing down to Canadian and industry lobbying.
For this reason, we seized the opportunity to direct the 18 June London protest – part of the International Stop the Tar Sands Day that took place in over 20 countries – to focus specifically on challenging the UK’s stalling tactics on the FQD. Part of the protest involved creating a petition to take to the Department for Transport’s (DfT) Norman Baker, the government minister responsible for the UK’s position.
On 20 June, we delivered petition by hand to Baker's secretary at the DfT. This meeting gave us the impression that the position of the government, which from our research so far had seemed firmly opposed to including tar sands in the FQD next month, now seems more shaky.
As an organisation, the research we rely on includes government statements and input from MEPs, highly respected academics, scientists, non-governmental organisations and members of directly affected communities. When challenged, however, the DfT did not seem comfortable defending its position, suggesting it might be prepared to shift.
At a time when the UK government is being equivocal, it is essential that activists continue to pressure it. Public opinion supports the UK to come around to the majority EU position – a recent online petition achieved over 40,000 signatures in 36 hours; and even in Canada, those concerned with the tar sands have been directing their anger at Baker.
Opposition to the industry is building globally. Tar-sands fuel ultimately cannot answer the pressing question of energy security: it poses too grave a threat to the climate, acting as a dangerous diversion during a key time for developing alternatives to fossil fuels. Unconventional, carbon-intensive fuels are not part of a safe, sustainable future and must be prevented from expanding into Europe.
If the UK budges on its position and the FQD comes into force with the inclusion of tar sands, this should be regarded as a welcome blow to the long-term viability of the world’s most destructive industry.