Oil

Transport written question – answered at on 18 June 2013.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Caroline Lucas Caroline Lucas Green, Brighton, Pavilion

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with (a) his ministerial colleagues and (b) climate scientists on the potential implications of the exploitation of (i) tar sands and (ii) other unconventional fossil fuels which have potential to be used for transport for the UK's international commitment to keep global temperatures below a two degree centigrade rise; if he will make it his policy to support the classification of oil from tar sands as highly polluting under the European Commission Fuel Quality Directive; and if he will make a statement.

Photo of Norman Baker Norman Baker The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport

Department for Transport Ministers and officials have met with various interested parties, including climate scientists, industry representatives, environmental organisations and other Government Departments, to discuss the Fuel Quality Directive.

The Government takes the environmental implications of exploiting high carbon intensity crudes very seriously, and we regard the Fuel Quality Directive as a key tool in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport. The UK Government is seeking a solution that effectively addresses the carbon emissions from all highly polluting crudes. Given that the overwhelming supply of crudes to the EU come from conventional sources, it would be irresponsible environmentally to concentrate solely on unconventional fuels as some advocate.

Does this answer the above question?

Yes1 person thinks so

No8 people think not

Would you like to ask a question like this yourself? Use our Freedom of Information site.

Annotations

Henry Adams
Posted on 22 Jun 2013 1:00 am (Report this annotation)

As a long-standing LibDem voter (voting for Tim Farron) and with 4 years of study of the tar sands which I've collated on my website, I find it extremely disappointing (to put it very mildly), to read Norman Baker's inadequate response:

He firstly uses the now so over-parroted cliche "takes ..[issue].. very seriously" (so typically used by almost every corporate bureaucrat as a "copy & paste" response regardless of the degree of (dis-)honesty), as to be increasingly meaningless (which it always was anyhow due to its ambiguity - as 'serious' could simply mean serious but masked concern about being exposed) and increasingly suggestive of insincerity.

"key tool"? - but he then reveals this tool is to be kept locked in its tool-box until some time in the distant future when every possible "well-to-wheel" sequence has had its emissions determined in detail, by which time new tar sands infrastructure such as the KXL will have been OK'd, built and 'locked in' (to face possible 'asset-stranding'). This is what he means by the word "all" in "all highly polluting crudes" (if you've read his less skimpy responses elsewhere). He then implies that we wait until infrastructure has been built such that the tar sands is already flooding into UK/EU before attempting to stop it (reminds me of the delayed responses to ash dieback - wait until it's here & too late to easily stop if at all). He then finishes off by attacking a "straw-man": as no-one I've heard of advocates concentrating so "solely" on unconventional fuels as to ignore such emissions as flaring - which can occur during conventional as well as unconventional extraction - and which "greens" have been against for many years e.g. in Nigeria - regardless of whether from conventional or unconventional.

Attacking "strawmen" is always indicative of a politician trying to "draw a veil over" some distasteful unspeakable truth, and insults the intelligence of the reader when it's so easy to spot.
Also he keeps repeating the same old long-since debunked statements without addressing the criticisms.

He has been echoing propaganda of the most anti-climate-legislation government on the planet - that of PM Stephen Harper, and also of those oil companies that lobby to defeat climate legislation.

Here is a link to a briefing I emailed to Tim Farron and Simon Hughes a year or so ago which analyses Baker's statements - which still applies now except that Baker has recently more openly opted for the FQD NOT to distinguish the life-cycle emissions of tar sands fuels from conventional fuels despite scientific evidence showing the former to be intrinsically higher (& increasingly so - due to the increasing ratio of 'in situ' to open-cast, the former being more emitive).

http://www.dragonfly1.plus.com/CommentsOnNormanBakerStatemen... & see http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/15/uk-signals...

I'll soon add my email to Tim Farron on EDM 240 re FQD & tar sands.

We cannot trust Norman Baker any longer on this matter that is so vital to millions of lives, especially in poorer countries who suffer most from climate change. We need an effective FQD (ie. one that distinguishes tar sands fuels) urgently NOW - before Obama decides whether to OK the KXL tar sands pipeline ("floodgates" to Europe) - which is also key to the proposed 3 times expansion of tar sands production (a "carbon bomb" for increasing climate change) - which we cannot allow.

Just what "concession" or Faustian Pact or ??? can Baker be secretly using to try and justify to himself his decision to sacrifice so many consequence losses of lives and livelihoods?

Henry Adams
Posted on 25 Jun 2013 4:53 pm (Report this annotation)

For further relevant info I recommend the posts by the UK Tar Sands Network www.no-tar-sands.org eg.:

16may13 'UK caught in battle over Canadian tar sands' http://www.no-tar-sands.org/2013/05/uk-caught-in-battle-over...

This covers: "1. Leading scientists in London today to advise UK government on tar sands damage. 2. Leak reveals government’s pro-tar sands stance, Norman Baker’s response unconvincing. 3. Second Canadian Minister in two weeks visits UK on lobbying mission. 4. Comprehensive new tar sands fact-check website launches."