Canadian government lobbying Europe not to regulate tar sands oil.

Home / Blogs / Stephen LaFrenie's blog /
By Stephen LaFrenie on 31 May 2011 - 4:50pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/may/31/oil-sands-oil

Canada's crude politics on oil sands

Stephen Harper's government, allied with big oil, is lobbying Europe not to regulate tar sands oil, but the pushback has begun...

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Article in the Independent on the same subject

Submitted by Stephen LaFrenie on 31 May 2011 - 8:52pm.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/pollution-fears-as-uk-blocks-european-ban-on-fuel-from-tar-sands-2291598.html

"The Coalition Government's claim to be the "greenest government ever" has come under fresh scrutiny from politicians and environmental groups who accuse Britain of undermining a Europe-wide forecourt ban on one of the most climate-polluting fuels.   Britain is one of just two major European nations opposing efforts to prohibit sales of petrol and diesel obtained from the Canadian tar sands."

 

This blog reflects my personal opinion. It is not official Green Party Policy. www.departmentofpeace.ca 

http://stephenlafrenie.blogspot.com

Tar sands...

Submitted by Bram Kivenko on 31 May 2011 - 9:28pm.

Even though the tar sands are more polluting than conventional sources, I question the relative benefit of getting oil from somewhere else.

There are two overall issues.  One issue is reducing consumption of fossil fuels.  This is independent from the tar sands, and it can be a separate discussion. But put simply, can we finally agree that the high price of oil has only minimally reduced demand?  In fact it perversely increases demand because the high price increases supply making it easier to acquire on short notice.

The second issue is choosing which fossil fuels we end up consuming -- because we will consume them whether you like it or not.

If we actually factor in the amount of environmental damage associated with middle-eastern oil, I think we would all be surprised that the tar sands would be a wash.  Right now there is a large amount of pollution being dumped on Libya by NATO.  Does anyone think it has nothing to do with its oil production?  Iran's oil production is leading us toward yet more nuclear weapons proliferation.  How much pollution is associated with Gulf of Mexico oil?  Most oil exporting nations have serious human rights problems that require military expenditure to offset.  The US navy is basically a merchant marine protection force for oil shipments.

Germany is going to shutdown their nuclear reactors in a decade (maybe), how do you think they are going to replace their energy production?  If you said fossil fuels, you'd be correct.  If you said fossil fuels from deep sea drilling, you'd have a good chance of being correct.  If you think that's not rife for disaster, then you need your head examined.

Banning tar sands is yet another feel good, but naive message.  What we need is a plan to consume less oil.  The simplest and most tested solutions are more public transit and better train access.  And what we *really* need is to simplify our message.  Getting jurisdictions that don't import tar sand product to ban it is all wasted effort.  It distracts us from a message that might make a bigger difference.