URGENT re FQD: upcoming plenary vote on the Fuel Quality Directive
(FQD)
The Fuel Quality Directive contains
important climate change legislation which has been watered down by the EU
Commission as a result of increased lobbying pressure from oil interests
during the TTIP and CETA negotiations. I am writing to strongly recommend
you vote to restore the effectiveness of the FQD and thus against the
Commission’s recent ineffective version, in the upcoming plenary vote for
MEPs – which I understand is this coming Wednesday 17th December (please
check).
Why the FQD is important
(also see appended postscript for other factors)
1.
Europe’s transport sector emits 31% of the EU’s total CO2 emissions
[1] and will become the biggest source of climate-changing emissions
within the EU soon after 2020 [2]. The
FQD's Article 7a obliges transport fuel suppliers to reduce the carbon
emissions intensity of transport fuel by 6% by 2020 (relative to 2010), as
part of the EU's wider goals to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by
2020. To be effective in achieving this modest reduction of GHG’s it is
essential that the FQD distinguishes between different sources of
transport fuels as data shows that they vary greatly in lifecycle
emissions. However the EU Commission yielded to oil lobbying pressure to
remove this essential distinction between sources and to discontinue the
measure beyond 2020 – when it should if anything be increased in
effectiveness.
2.
Tar sands: Scientific data shows clearly, as would be expected,
that the life-cycle GHG emissions of fuels from tar sands is significantly
higher than from conventional sources. For example, the EU-commissioned
and peer-reviewed report by Adam Brandt of Stanford University showed
life-cycle emissions averaged 22% or 23% higher for tar sands fuels [3].
The EU Commission agreed to incorporating this distinction in the FQD in
2011 and should have stood firm against lobbying from oil interests
(including Canada and the US during the TTIP and CETA negotiations).
3.
Climate: It is now widely accepted from work by Carbon Tracker, the
International Energy Agency and others that we can only burn a quarter to
a third of global fossil fuel reserves to have any good chance of keeping
temperature rise to below the +2 degrees threshold agreed internationally,
yet we are now on a +4 to +6 degrees trajectory which would be disastrous
(we are now at +0.8 degrees, and even +2 degrees is now considered
unacceptable). Bank of England chief Mark Carney accepts this and its
consequences on the value of fossil fuel investments when global climate
agreements will make such assets worthless [4]. It is clear that at the
very least, such dirty high-lifecycle-emissions sources as coal and tar
sands must remain in the ground.
I therefore urge you to push and vote
for an effective FQD that distinguishes high emissions transport fuels
including from tar sands sources from conventional sources. Such an
important piece of climate legislation should not be allowed to be
rendered useless as a mere bargaining chip for reaching agreements on
“free trade” with the US and Canada.
Please inform me your voting decision
for this and your reasons.
Yours sincerely,
P.S. An effective FQD would also bring
other benefits worth bearing in mind, for example:
• Exploiting
tar sands has other negative consequences that need to be stopped,
including ecocide (a crime under proposed international law), due to the
extensive loss and damage to habitat, wildlife and environment, including
extensive pollution; also disregards to social justice, such as the
flouting of legal treaty rights of the indigenous peoples, also of their
basic human rights for freedom from ill-health and death from
pollution-induced cancers via water and air from the tar sands (example:
from the leaking and evaporating "tailing ponds").
• Avoidance
of financial losses not just due to the stranded assets referred to in 3
above but also on purely economic grounds: oil from tar sands costs at
least $80 per barrel to produce; global oil prices have now plunged to
below $65 per barrel, making the tar sands industry uneconomic.
Endnotes / references
[1]
Refers to: 'EU energy in figures - statistical pocketbook 2014' http://ec.europa.eu/energy/publications/doc/2014_pocketbook.pdf
[2]
From Transport and Environment’s:
http://www.transportenvironment.org/press/meps%E2%80%99-rejection-weak-fuel-quality-rules-sends-strong-signal-post-2020-cleaner-fuels-plan
[3]
Emissions from extraction-production of oil from tar sands are 3 to
5 times higher than for oil from conventional sources [e.g. 4.9x if
calculated from Brandt’s report] and if expressed "wells-to-wheels" for
the combusted fuel end-product i.e. "life-cycle emissions" the emissions
are 22 or 23% higher [107g vs 87.5g, or 107.3 vs 87.1g CO2/MJ] – figures
taken or calculated from peer-reviewed EU-commissioned report by Brandt.:
https://circabc.europa.eu/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/06a92b8d-08ca-43a6-bd22-9fb61317826f/Brandt_Oil_Sands_Post_Peer_Review_Final.pdf
[4]
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/189f21d8-7737-11e4-a082-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3LYl59KxS