An EU committee has failed to decide on a proposal to label so-called oil sands as worse for climate change than average crude oil.
A spokesman for EU Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said the proposal will now go to the European Council—representatives of the EU’s 27 member countries.
Canada had threatened to take the EU to the World Trade Organization if it singled out oil sands as dirty. But the European Commission contends that science justifies the proposal.
The EU committee vote was 54 for the proposal, 128 against and 128 abstaining. The vote was by qualified majority, a system in which larger countries have more votes than smaller ones, and 255 votes were needed for the committee to approve or reject the proposal.
For more from the Canadian Press, scroll down The Tyee's main page or click here.
5
Login or register to post comments
Phay
13 weeks ago
EU Vote
One for Bill McKibbon and Greenpeace.
JudyCross said... Instead of taxing its production, we should be rewarding it. (in another article)
For carbon Dioxide to be beneficial to trees, you should have trees.
PS. The Hook.. why are comments closed within 24 hours?
judycross
13 weeks ago
I am amazed that one would think the Warmists won
The EU does not dare open the can of worms that is the so-called scientific basis for rating cleanliness on how much CO2 is produced. The AGW hypothesis has been falsified in a number of ways and the IPCC shown to be little more than an elaborate public relations excercise rather than a scientific body. As was said recently about Peter Gleick's crude attempt at a smear of the Heartland Institute,
""After you have convinced people that you fervently believe your cause to be more important than telling the truth, you've lost the power to convince them of anything else"
The funny thing about Canada's stance on the oil sands at the EU, is that Canada is also protecting Venezuela's oil sands production.
“If the final measures single out oilsands crude in a discriminatory, arbitrary or unscientific way, or are otherwise inconsistent with the EU’s international trade obligations, I want to state that Canada will explore every avenue at its disposal to defend its interests, including at the World Trade Organization,” Plunkett said in a letter, sent in December to Hedegaard."
http://business.financialpost.com/2012/02/23/eu-experts-vote-against-dirty-label-for-oil-sands/?__lsa=3d11737f
news
13 weeks ago
A throughful analysis of propaganda
desmogblog
Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science
news
13 weeks ago
About the climate cover-up
About the climate cover-up
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy. There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
Although all public relations professionals are bound by a duty to not knowingly mislead the public, some have executed comprehensive campaigns of misinformation on behalf of industry clients on issues ranging from tobacco and asbestos to seat belts. Lately, these fringe players have turned their efforts to creating confusion about climate change. This PR campaign could not be accomplished without the compliance of media as well as the assent and participation of leaders in government and business.
The world’s best-qualified scientists agree that climate is changing and that the burning of fossil fuels is mostly to blame. Although there is no debate in peer reviewed science journals, the well-funded and highly organized public relations campaign has left the impression – in mainstream media – of a lively and continuing scientific controversy.
Scientists from within the fossil fuel industries’ own organizations raised red flags about climate change as early as 30 years ago – and they specifically dismissed the credibility of deniers by 1995. Yet the fossil fuel industry has continued to support efforts to subvert the science, attacking real scientists and promoting a cast of “skeptics” in their place. DeSmogBlog looks behind these deniers to test their credentials and to search out their source of funding.
People have a right to know who is paying the deniers. It is difficult to deceive or confuse a well-informed person. DeSmogBlog exists to clear up the PR pollution around fossil fuels and climate change.
judycross
13 weeks ago
You are so funny, "news"
Who do you think is fooled by Desmogblog given the reputation of its prime bank roller.
http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/look-whos-paying-global-warmings-top-bloggers.html
It looks as though the good ship DSB may be heading into troubled waters:
"Richard Littlemore, of DeSmogblog, has already defiantly refused to remove the material Gleick admits is fake. The most egregious lie in Gleick's mendacious memo was the claim that skeptics were out to repress science, the kind of fakery Littlemore has form for promoting.
DeSmog Blog, laughingly claiming its mission is to “clear the PR pollution that clouds climate science,” is suspected of being implicated in the Gleick fraud. It is now in line to suffer defeats in three climate libel lawsuit - adding to the two vexatious claims against Canada’s most popular climatologist, Dr. Tim Ball, a vociferous campaigner against climate criminals."
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=9157&linkbox=true&position=2