EU violates Aarhus Convention in ‘20% renewable energy by 2020’ program

Emblem of the United Nations. Color is #d69d36...

Emblem of the United Nations.  (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

UN: EU violates Aarhus Convention

 

The Compliance Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which enforces the Aarhus Convention to which the EU is a party, has issued draft findings and recommendations which criticize the European Commission for failing to abide by the terms of the Convention with regards to the determination of its renewable energy policy (1). Today the plaintiff, Mr. Pat Swords, a chemical engineer critical of the way the EU imposes its “half-baked policy” to Members States, communicated the Committee’s decision to the European Platform against Windfarms (EPAW). Draft recommendations are unlikely to be substantially modified when, after an ultimate input from the parties, they are converted into final ones.

 

The Compliance Committee found that the EU did not comply with the provisions of the Convention in connection with its programme “20% renewable energy by 2020”, and its implementation throughout the 27 Member States by National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP). In particular, the Committee opines that the EU did not ensure that the public had been provided with the necessary information within a transparent and fair framework, allowing sufficient time for citizens to become informed and to participate effectively in the decision process.

 

 

Says Pat Swords: “this is an important decision, because the EU’s renewable energy programme as it currently stands is now proceeding without ‘proper authority’. The public’s right to be informed and to participate in its development and implementation has been by-passed. A process will now be started to ensure that the Committee’s recommendations are addressed; if ultimately they are not, then UNECE has the option of requiring the EU to withdraw from the UN Convention on Human and Environmental Rights.”

 

The Aarhus Convention requires that public participation occur when all options are still open, not when policies are already set in stone. Furthermore, the authorities have to ensure and document that in the resulting decision, due account is taken of the outcome of public participation. “In the EU,” remarks the engineer, “what we’ve had is a travesty of public participation in a policy having hugely negative impacts on the environment and the economy.”

 

Mark Duchamp, Executive Director of EPAW, points that Mr. Swords initiated his recourse one and a half years ago, as it was already obvious that the European Commission was imposing an enormously costly and ineffective policy to EU Members States without properly investigating the pros and cons. “It is high time that Brussels be held accountable for the hundreds of billions that have been squandered without a reality check on policy effectiveness” says Mark. “To spend so much money, a positive has to be proven. – It hasn’t.”

 

Duchamp, who also happens to be an environmentalist and is chairman of the non-conformist NGO World Council for Nature, remarks that never has Europe’s environment been the object of so much destruction in so little time. “Even natural reserves, set up at great cost to the taxpayer, have been allowed to be invaded by industrial wind turbines,” he laments. “I presented objections to a number of eagle-killer wind projects, but the impression I get is that they were not even read. The Aarhus Convention is only being given lip service in Europe. The UNECE findings confirm this.”

 

Finally, there is another ‘twist to this tale’, says Pat Swords: “as the Convention is part of EU law, there is now a legal ruling that this law has not been complied with. There are long established legal procedures where if a Member State does not comply with EU law, the citizen can seek ‘damages made good’ (2). A can of worms has been opened,” warns Pat.

 

He continues: “Electricity costs are soaring to implement these dysfunctional policies, which have by-passed proper and legally-required technical, economic and environmental assessments. Not only is the landscape being scarred as thousands of wind farms are being installed, but people in the vicinity are suffering health impacts from low frequency noise, while birdlife and other wildlife is also adversely impacted. It is long overdue that a STOP was put to this type of illegal and dysfunctional policy development and project planning.”

 

Contacts:

 

Pat Swords, BE CEng FIChemE CEnv MIEMA

 

Chemical engineer

 

+353 1 443 4831 (Ireland) Skype: pat_swords

 

pat.swords.chemeng@gmail.com

 

Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736 (Spain) Skype: mark.duchamp

 

Executive Director, EPAW

 

www.epaw.org

 

Chairman, World Council for Nature

 

www.wcfn.org

 

save.the.eagles@gmail.com

 

References:

 

 

 

(1) - Draft findings of 29 April 2012, communicated on May 4th by the Compliance Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE): http://www.unece.org/env/pp/compliance/Compliancecommittee/54TableEU.html Last items at the bottom of the page (as at this date), namely “draft findings” and “letters to the parties”

 

Short video explaining the Aarhus Convention: http://www.unece.org/env/pp/vid-presentation.html

 

(2) – http://ec.europa.eu/eu_law/infringements/infringements_dommages_en.htm

 

About these ads

95 thoughts on “EU violates Aarhus Convention in ‘20% renewable energy by 2020’ program

  1. Another reason for the US to leave the UN. It’s all politics and corruption and the sad thing is everybody knows it and does not do a single thing about it. It’s like a bad fart in a crowd, everyone smells it but no one will say anything about it.(snip)

  2. WIBD! Look at Para 84, 86, 87, and 97 and 98.
    http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/env/pp/compliance/C2010-54/Correspondence with Party concerned/C-54_EU_Draft_Findings29Apr12.doc

    Para 84:

    84. Nevertheless, the Committee finds that the public consultation by Ireland was conducted within a very short timeframe, namely two weeks. Public participation under article 7 of the Convention must meet the standards of the Convention, including article 6, paragraph 3, of the Convention, which requires reasonable time-frames. A two week period is not a reasonable time-frame for “the public to prepare and participate effectively” taking into account the complexity of the plan or programme

    What penalties will practically result is anyone’s guess, but this Don Quixote struck a hit, very palpable hit.

  3. While I agree that these energy mandates are, on whole, economically and environmentally destructive, I have to smile at a title like “Chairman, World Council for Nature”. It is so modest.

  4. Hehe. What happens if the EU court issues a temporary moratorium on all EU wind projects pending further decision. That would be so sweet to watch.

  5. says Pat Swords: “as the Convention is part of EU law, there is now a legal ruling that this law has not been complied with. There are long established legal procedures where if a Member State does not comply with EU law, the citizen can seek ‘damages made good’ (2). A can of worms has been opened,” warns Pat.

    No kidding?

    In more ways than can be unravelled by anything other then collapse and re-construction.

  6. Pat Swords is indeed his real name. As an Irishman I am very happy at this result.
    here is the man himself..

    Pat, Go n-éirí an bóthar leat !!!

    Heggs.

    p.s. Dem = them, Dis = this etc, we don’t pronounce h’s much :)

  7. There’ll be more of this. The UK Climate Change Act is so ridiculous that people of the UK could prevent almost any long term building project from going ahead simply by requiring the project to demonstrate how it can reduce its emissions by 80% by 2050 (ie emit only 20% of the CO2 any current development emits). I’ll bet nothing much in the way of housing development can be done with that millstone around its neck.

  8. the sooner the sponginge beaurocrats in brussels are disbanded the better………bunch of sycophantic ar$e licking tw&ts almost to a man/woman….
    sorry, but until someone can show me a single benefit from the EU – it’s a no-no from me – and everything they have ever done has been for self procrastination……..

  9. Simple really, move the entire entity of the United Nations to a luxury liner so that they can legislate and meet in a style befitting their lofty positions. They can ply the waters of the world and conduct meeting after meeting in the warm tropical waters, free from the image of being a US pawn that they get from having their headquarters in New York.

    Then all it would take are a few Harpoon ASCMs to get rid of the problem.

  10. The EU ‘government’ is typically socialist … at all costs don’t involve the People, just order them to the Socialist thinking. There’s a striking resemblance the conduct of the EU comrades and the old USSR.

  11. @ jack morrow,
    “Another reason for the US to leave the UN”

    Indeed.

    If the USA left the UN, it would guarantee at least two things;

    1. NYC could kick out a lot of career foreign criminals [delegates], thugs – ['bodyguards'] and despotic loons [UN staff] – though the NYC sex industry would be screaming blue murder.

    2.Without funding [from the US taxpayer] the UN would have to be wound up.

    Double whammy.

  12. Billy Liar says:
    May 19, 2012 at 4:18 pm

    There’ll be more of this. The UK Climate Change Act is so ridiculous that people of the UK could prevent almost any long term building project from going ahead simply by requiring the project to demonstrate how it can reduce its emissions by 80% by 2050 (ie emit only 20% of the CO2 any current development emits). I’ll bet nothing much in the way of housing development can be done with that millstone around its neck.
    =======================================
    Lol, it is highly questionable that even the windmills do that. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/13/new-science-study-demonstrates-futility-of-soft-renewables/

    There’s quit a bit of CO2 emissions going into building whirly gigs. So, if they include that in their calculations, 80% reduction in 38years seems a bit of a stretch.

  13. “then UNECE has the option of requiring the EU to withdraw from the UN Convention on Human and Environmental Rights.”

    Can someone explain how this would hurt the EU in any way, shape, or form?

  14. tell the left wing socialist fascists to jump in the lake with a lead weight strapped to them.

    [Figuratively speaking, of course. ~dbs, mod.]

  15. “Illegal and dysfunctional”; a good description of the EU, which is a fascist power bloc that exists to make a single nation of its member-states, something that Napoleon and Hitler failed to do.

  16. The UN wanted to create fear of a catastrophe and it did. Frightened out of their wits, governments proceeded with projects to save the world. Their various projects resulted in environmental, economic and social catastrophes. Now the UN is supposed to be trusted to settle things?

  17. Wow. Oh please, let this go on. I hope this doesn’t just sit there while the EU carries on as though nothing is amiss. The whole pack of CAGW con-artists seem to do nothing else but ignore everything chucked at it, advancing their agenda no matter what. Time to stop these crazies.

  18. imoira says:
    May 19, 2012 at 5:09 pm
    “Now the UN is supposed to be trusted to settle things?”

    No, of course the UN and the Eu will somehow wiggle out of this contradiction. But it will take a lot of contortions and will be fun to watch.

  19. GeoLurking says:
    May 19, 2012 at 4:34 pm
    “Simple really, move the entire entity of the United Nations to a luxury liner…”

    My counter proposal is that UN Headquarters be moved to any of the following, Mogadishu, Niamey, Kinsha, Maputo or another nearby African capital city.

  20. “US out of the UN, and UN out of the US!!” The current United Nations is bad for all free peoples of the world. We don’t want the US to evolve into an EU type system.

  21. “The Compliance Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which enforces the Aarhus Convention to which the EU is a party,,,,,,,”
    ====================
    Enforce it how ?
    With words ?
    Check your history.

  22. Left hand gives the right hand a middle finger.

    One resignation forthcoming. With a note that the incoming will strive to establish processes that would prove more constructive and inclusive that those of recent years.

  23. davidmhoffer says:
    May 19, 2012 at 5:00 pm

    “then UNECE has the option of requiring the EU to withdraw from the UN Convention on Human and Environmental Rights.”

    Can someone explain how this would hurt the EU in any way, shape, or form?

    The ruling now means damages (individual or collective or corporate?) can be claimed for improper procedure (inadequate notice, no cost-benefit analyses). The Emperor’s Kevlar Clothes have been breached. Watch the video Hegg posted, above.

  24. typo: Hegg Heggs
    ____

    Kev-in-UK says:
    May 19, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    the sooner the sponging beaurocrats in brussels are disbanded the better………bunch of sycophantic ar$e licking tw&ts almost to a man/woman….
    sorry, but until someone can show me a single benefit from the EU – it’s a no-no from me – and everything they have ever done has been for self procrastination……..

    I was with you till the last 2 words. What on Earth ….??

  25. Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive on a global scale.

    All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  26. “…In particular, the Committee opines that the EU did not ensure that the public had been provided with the necessary information within a transparent and fair framework, allowing sufficient time for citizens to become informed and to participate effectively in the decision process…”

    That’s always been their double-edged sword. One one hand, they want to inform the people about the evils associated with CO2, they’ll vote for anything. But on the other hand, the more informed they become, the more they realize it’s all a fraud, and will reject it.

    It looks like their alarmism has a fairly short shelf life…

  27. Brian H;
    The ruling now means damages (individual or collective or corporate?) can be claimed for improper procedure >>>>

    Yes I get that. But what harm arises out of being delisted from the UN Convention on Human and Environmental Rights? I listened to the video, and Heggs seemed to take the position that the decision opened the door to law suits, but that being delisted would simply be an embarrasment.

    In my view, belonging to anything associated with the UN is the embarrasment….

  28. It looks to me as though the UN has seen the writing on the wall and is trying to retain some semblance of respectability. Maybe they’re even looking at severing the whole rotten limb that is EU green policy in order to save something before the whole UN ship goes down. One can only hope.

  29. The US is also part of this fiasco…

    I wonder why we have not been called on the carpet?

    Better still, why have we not sued the UN for their stance on CAGW and ask for a court proof of its existence and cause..?

  30. The Global Malfeasance crisis is getting worse. All the models produce a hockey stick curve showing corruption in government and NGOs has increased radically over the last three decades, which strongly correlates with the increase in environmental activism. This activism is made worse by the positive forcing of socialism causing a global dimming of IQs. Science has considered every variable and there is no other possible cause that can explain this. There is a consensus. The science on this is settled. If we do not do something the planet will catch on fire and all of the polar bears will die. Think of the children. What we need is a tax on environmental activists. And we also need to build large prisons to put all of the politicians and bureaucrats in them. The only way we can save the planet is if we go back to the pre-activist level of government. First step – abolish the EU and disband the UN.

  31. The extreme environmentalism movement does not care about the science or the economic viability of the Western countries. The extreme AGW issue has become a fundamental issue in the next rounds of elections in the Western Countries. All Western countries will fail if the extreme AGW movement and extreme environmentalism is not stopped.

    If I wanted America to fail.

    The extreme AGW issue is a mania with no basis in fact.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

    “The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”

    The science does not support the extreme AGW position. The planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback, planetary clouds increase or decrease in tropics which reflects more or less sunlight off into space which resist the a forcing change to warm or cool the planet) as opposed to amplify the forcing changed (positive feedback). If the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the forcing change a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which results in the biosphere expanding. The IPCC models assume the planet amplifies the CO2 forcing change which creates the 3C to 5C predicted warming. Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation compared to ocean temperature data supports the assertion that planet’s feedback response is negative (earth resists rather than amplifies forcing changes).

    Richard Lindzen’s Lecture Feedbacks

    http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/100210Lindzen/f.htm#

    http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

    “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data
    Richard S. Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi
    Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
    Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Climate feedbacks are estimated from fluctuations in the outgoing radiation budget from the latest version of Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) nonscanner data. It appears, for the entire tropics, the observed outgoing radiation fluxes increase with the increase in sea surface temperatures (SSTs). The observed behavior of radiation fluxes implies negative feedback processes associated with relatively low climate sensitivity. This is the opposite of the behavior of 11 atmospheric models forced by the same SSTs. Therefore, the models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE…

    1)The models display much higher climate sensitivity than is inferred from ERBE.

    2) The (negative) feedback in ERBE is mostly from SW while the (positive) feedback in the models is mostly from OLR.

    Finally, it should be noted that our analysis has only considered the tropics. Following Lindzen et al. [2001], allowing for sharing this tropical feedback with neutral higher latitudes could reduce the negative feedback factor by about a factor of two. This would lead to an equilibrium sensitivity that is 2/3 rather than 1/2 of the non-feedback value. This, of course, is still a small sensitivity.”

  32. Strange I cannot see where “Electricity costs are soaring to implement these dysfunctional policies, which have by-passed proper and legally-required technical, economic and environmental assessments. ”
    here’s the plot of fuel costs for the UK

    This looks rather like electricity is increasing at a lesser rate than its prime fuels oil and gas. Is this the effect of windmills?

  33. No,no, Mr Swords,you don’t undertstand. The Aarhus convention was supposed to allow the WWF and other NGO’s to stop coal, gas, and nuclear generation of electricity, it is not intended to apply to wind and PV. The UN has made a mistake and no doubt will soon reverse itself./sarc off

    Seriously, it is nice to see the green’s own regulations used against them.

  34. jjthoms;
    This looks rather like electricity is increasing at a lesser rate than its prime fuels oil and gas. Is this the effect of windmills?>>>

    Nice graph. Two problems.

    1. Hydro and nuclear are not on the chart.
    2/ The price index is for energy use by the consumer which is a different price curve than bulk energy use by generating stations.

    Regardless, wind mills are THE most expensive way there is to generate power, so no matter how you cut it, electricity prices are higher than they would be if wind mills were not in use.

  35. ALIEN ARE YOU? ASK. BRITISH PETROLEUM(BP). Dear BP… Why are the pretty dolphins and birdies dying…we know it doesn’t make sense that only two kinds of animals are dying close to where your so called clean up and rehab is taking place…isn’t it strange that its happening close to the Gulf, just down stream actually…What chemicals did you use to dissolve the oil and make it took like a cleanup when actually it was just a cover up…Dear Tony Blair…please ask the kind gentle to give the alien assuming individuals some schooling and let them explain to all the Dolphin Loving Boys & Girls what they have done and think their getting away with by not owning up for the mistake…The should Open breading aquariums to re populate Dolphins…I’m sure mother nature will somehow Bit*h Slap some unfortunate Thailand or Natural. Disaster hot spot area so you can see how imbalance caused by capitalism turns the wheel of sweet Justice…

  36. So the pan-governmental agencies who each dream about an altogether larger taxpayer-funded trough take the gloves off. Regulate a jab. Spin a fend. Dodge an upper cut. Such fun.

  37. Brian H says:
    May 19, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Quite! I had thought (and meant to write) ‘self procreation AND procrastination’ !!

  38. “the EU’s renewable energy programme as it currently stands is now proceeding without ‘proper authority’”

    What a fine and perfect phrase – “proceeding without ‘proper authority’”.Four words which describe to perfection the “proceedings” of the EU, the UN, and any and all of the other international “authorities” which presume to claim authority over us although we are allowed no control over them. From where I watch, every one of them is “proceeding without ‘proper authority’” and requires either democratising or (preferably) elimination.

    (Nice to see the ‘follow-up comments’ box is unchecked again. Thanks, WordPress.)

  39. The European Union was originally a sound concept where member states belonged to a free trade zone.

    Then it morphed into something horrendous with a hugely expensive, unaccountable bureaucracy in Brussels routinely spewing out pointless regulations to make businesses more difficult and expensive to operate – hence the high regional unemployment levels and low to zero economic growth rates; this situation is often referred to as ‘Euro-sclerosis’.

    Then some bright sparks thought monetary union, without political union and enforceable fiscal controls would be a good idea; hence the Eurozone’s problems today.

    The European Union’s energy policies are insane and guaranteed to provide economic ruin. The imminent brownouts and blackouts in the UK and Germany should provide the ammunition for their dismantlement and to remind people that ‘green’ is usually goofy.

  40. jack morrow, GeoLurking and Athelstan have got this back to front. The UN is criticising, and maybe preventing, the undemocratic actions of the EU. Three cheers for the UN.
    WUWT may well be the world’s best blog, but it’s sadly let down by the ranting right wing commenters who think anything to the left of the Republican Party is a Stalinist plot.
    This article may – perhaps – be the best news on energy policy we Europeans have ever had.

  41. The corrupt, unaccountable, and undemocratic EU will just ignore this.
    Frank Herbert said it decades ago (But where is Jorj X. Mckie when we need him?)
    from wikipedia:

    In Herbert’s fiction, sometime in the far future, government becomes terrifyingly efficient. Red tape no longer exists: laws are conceived of, passed, funded, and executed within hours, rather than months. The bureaucratic machinery becomes a juggernaut, rolling over human concerns and welfare with terrible speed, jerking the universe of sentients one way, then another, threatening to destroy everything in a fit of spastic reactions. In short, the speed of government goes beyond sentient control (in this fictional universe, many alien species co-exist, with a common definition of sentience marking their status as equals).

    Founded by the mysterious “Five Ears” of unknown species, BuSab began as a terrorist organization whose sole purpose was to frustrate the workings of government in order to give sentients a chance to reflect upon changes and deal with them. Having saved sentiency from its government, BuSab was officially recognized as a necessary check on the power of government.

  42. GeoLurking says:

    “Simple really, move the entire entity of the United Nations to a luxury liner so that they can legislate and meet in a style befitting their lofty positions. …Then all it would take are a few Harpoon ASCMs to get rid of the problem.”

    Do it cheaper.
    Get the Italians to provide the Captain….

  43. This is one pseudo-EU giving the real EU a telling-off. WUWT? Both organisations are behaving illegally. Neither has a mandate from the people. In France, we voted against the EU at the start but were completely ignored by our own ‘leader’ and are still being ignored.

  44. jack morrow says:

    May 19, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    It’s like a bad fart in a crowd, everyone smells it but no one will say anything about it.

    Soryy it was me!

  45. @ Heggs: thanks for the link, it’s a must-see. Copied here.

    I’m not sure if Swords is a sceptic on the science of CAGW (although he may just be keeping his cards close to his chest) but he’s certainly highly sceptical of the economics of it all, and is asking for some accounting and accountability, as well as representation and transparency. As Monckton has always said: when the cost of the premium exceeds the cost of the risk: don’t insure.

  46. This would appear to be Global Governance would it not?
    The unelected United Nations telling Europe to change the implementation of its energy policy.

  47. The EUSSR not following the rules I’m shocked, rules are for the sheeple not the rulers.

  48. Spending billions of deficit dollars on “green” scams will obviously bankrupt Western Countries and make their industries less and less competitive with Asia.
    As cloud cover in the tropics increases and decreases to resist forcing changes (negative feedback) a doubling of atmospheric CO from 0.028% to 0.056% will result in less than 1C warming with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes which will result in an expansion of the biosphere.

    Carbon dioxide is not a poison. Commercial greenhouses inject carbon dioxide into the greenhouse to maintain 1000 ppm to 1500 ppm to increase yield and reduce growing time. Cereal crop yields increase 30% to 40% with a doubling of atmospheric CO2. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to the environment. A slight increase in high latitude temperature is beneficial to the environment.

    The wheel is turning. A scam is a scam. Deficit spending on scams is not job creation. The question is not if but rather when the mania will implode.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1361316/250bn-wind-power-industry-greatest-scam-age.html

    Why the £250bn wind power industry could be the greatest scam of our age – and here are the three ‘lies’ that prove it:

    Scarcely a day goes by without more evidence to show why the Government’s obsession with wind turbines, now at the centre of our national energy policy, is one of the greatest political blunders of our time.

    Under a target agreed with the EU, Britain is committed within ten years — at astronomic expense — to generating nearly a third of its electricity from renewable sources, mainly through building thousands more wind turbines….

    …The first is the pretence that turbines are anything other than ludicrously inefficient.
    The most glaring dishonesty peddled by the wind industry — and echoed by gullible politicians — is vastly to exaggerate the output of turbines by deliberately talking about them only in terms of their ‘capacity’, as if this was what they actually produce. Rather, it is the total amount of power they have the capability of producing.

    The point about wind, of course, is that it is constantly varying in speed, so that the output of turbines averages out at barely a quarter of their capacity. This means that the 1,000 megawatts all those 3,500 turbines sited around the country feed on average into the grid is derisory: no more than the output of a single, medium-sized conventional power station.
    Furthermore, as they increase in number (the Government wants to see 10,000 more in the next few years) it will, quite farcically, become necessary to build a dozen or more gas-fired power stations, running all the time and emitting CO2, simply to provide instant back-up for when the wind drops….

    When a Swedish firm recently opened what is now the world’s largest offshore windfarm off the coast of Kent, at a cost of £800million, we were told that its ‘capacity’ was 300 megawatts, enough to provide ‘green’ power for tens of thousands of homes.

    What we were not told was that its actual output will average only a mere 80 megawatts, a tenth of that supplied by a gas-fired power station — for which we will all be paying a subsidy of £60million a year, or £1.5billion over the 25-year lifespan of the turbines….

    The third great lie of the wind propagandists is that this industry is somehow making a vital contribution to ‘saving the planet’ by cutting our emissions of CO2. Even if you believe that curbing our use of fossil fuels could change the Earth’s climate, the CO2 reduction achieved by wind turbines is so insignificant that one large windfarm saves considerably less in a year than is given off over the same period by a single jumbo jet flying daily between Britain and America.

    Then, of course, the construction of the turbines generates enormous CO2 emissions as a result of the mining and smelting of the metals used, the carbon-intensive cement needed for their huge concrete foundations, the building of miles of road often needed to move them to the site, and the releasing of immense quantities of CO2 locked up in the peat bogs where many turbines are built.

    When you consider, too, those gas-fired power stations wastefully running 24 hours a day just to provide back-up for the intermittency of the wind, any savings will vanish altogether…

  49. geoffchambers says:
    May 20, 2012 at 12:31 am
    “WUWT may well be the world’s best blog, but it’s sadly let down by the ranting right wing commenters who think anything to the left of the Republican Party is a Stalinist plot.”

    Socialist tendencies always amplify. Every failed intervention needs a bigger intervention to fix the damage. The smarter leftists, like Rahm Emmanuel, who said that one should never let a crisis go to waste, or the top Eurocrats, are using this to drive market economies off the cliff and profit from it, the dumber ones seem to genuinely believe their interventions could have positive effects for the economy.

  50. Without in any way trying to diminish what Pat Swords has achieved here, the reality is that even if the EU’s Court of Justice gave a hearing to a case about this it would not give what most of us would consider a fair hearing.

    Its decisions are invariably weighted towards furthering the process of “ever closer union” mandated in the first line of the treaties; and in this instance it would no doubt refer to Article 191 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which commits the EU member states to:

    “… promoting measures at international level to deal with regional or worldwide environmental problems, and in particular combating climate change.”

    On page 132 here:

    http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:EN:PDF

    That last phrase, “and in particular combating climate change”, was deliberately introduced as part of the package of treaty amendments in the Lisbon Treaty, and indeed quite a lot was made of it when drumming up support for that treaty during the campaign of the second Irish referendum in the autumn of 2009.

    As just one example of many, from the Irish Times of July 15th 2009:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0715/1224250692873.html

    “Lisbon Yes will make EU fit for global challenges”

    “If we want the European Union to respond effectively to international financial, energy and climate change crises we must empower it to do so”

    “Energy solidarity and the tackling of climate change are included as treaty objectives.”

    “In the early stages of the 21st century catastrophic climate change confronts humanity unless global warming is tackled at an international level.”

  51. A similar case should, and if I ever get the time will, be made against all Aarhus parties that are also members of the IPCC. As discussed at CA and Bishop Hill, at the 33rd and 34th Sessions of the IPCC, by classic chicanery, Thomas Stocker tricked the IPCC in adopting confidentiality rules that contradict the IPCC Principle of openness and transparency. Under Aarhus article 3(7) all parties, which includes all EU countries are legally bound to

    promote the principles of the Aarhus Convention in international environmental decision-making processes within the framework of international organisations in matters relating to the environment

    The same parties are also all in breach of of the Convention for failing to publicise proposed decisions of the the IPCC before they are made and for failing to allow for any public consultation. Aarhus parties should not vote to accept AR5 until their public have had a chance to see what they propose to accept.

  52. This won’t change EU’s behavior. It might cause EU to spend more money on litigation while it continues doing everything the same way. That will help to some extent. This monstrosity will only end after it has used up all available money, and it’s already approaching that point.

  53. @Malcolm…
    Ah, yes. Herbert, my almost favourite science fiction author.
    If only he were alive to see how necessary his imaginings have now become.

  54. I predicted 3 months ago that Europe would collapse in 3 to 4 months. I mean total collapse Depression style forget Eurozone or even European union the whole thing will dissappear with Germany leaving when they realize that they have been had/milked dry for years.. Fortunately left Europa 35 years ago and living in a continent with a real future. Would not even go back as a Tourist at this stage. BTW as a reminder it is said that Spain’s position now was mainly due to vast investments in “renewables” and of course real estate gone awry.

  55. Justitia says:
    May 20, 2012 at 4:35 am
    “I predicted 3 months ago that Europe would collapse in 3 to 4 months. I mean total collapse Depression style forget Eurozone or even European union the whole thing will dissappear with Germany leaving when they realize that they have been had/milked dry for years.”

    Technically we can leave at any moment now. In March 2012, Germany has charged up a banking recapitalization funds, the Soffin 2, with 500 bn EUR. We also implemented legislation that allows us to leave the Eurozone without leaving the EU. No other Euro country is allowed to do that. Probably Merkel blackmailed the rest of the gang to get that.

    ” Fortunately left Europa 35 years ago and living in a continent with a real future. Would not even go back as a Tourist at this stage.”

    Yes. The southern Eurozone countries became too expensive after introduction of the Euro. Many german tourists go to Turkey now.

  56. i can’t even bear to watch this video:

    (VIDEO) 20 May: ABC Australia: Radio National: Off Track: The science of a changing climate
    Presented by Joel Werner
    Climate change remains one of the nation’s most divisive issues.
    But have you ever thought about what climate scientists actually do? How they know what they know?
    This week, Off Track takes climate science back to first principles.
    How do you build a climate model?
    What goes into compiling a report for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?
    How will Australia’s native bushland respond to elevated atmospheric CO2 in the future?
    Join Professors David Ellsworth, Andy Pitman, and Neville Nicholls for a discussion of the science behind the politics.
    (also) Steve Wohl, Senior engineering officer, EucFACE Experiment

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/offtrack/the-science-of-a-changing-climate/4017696

  57. In countless lawsuits in the USA and Europe, green groups insist on government and business following the letter of the law with respect to pollution control, endangered species, etc. Funny how tight the shoe is when on the other foot.

  58. 20% by 2020? That’s nothing! I’ll commit to 30% renewable energy by 3030! Of course, I’ll be long dead by then.

  59. pat says:
    May 20, 2012 at 5:43 am
    “i can’t even bear to watch this video:”

    “(VIDEO) 20 May: ABC Australia: Radio National: Off Track: The science of a changing climate”

    “Off track”? Yeah, that’s a good start, lol.

    “But have you ever thought about what climate scientists actually do?”

    Why, sit on their asses in front of an Xbox, counting a stack of dollar bills.

    ” How they know what they know?”

    They know how to pretend to be scientists. Probably they learned it at an acting school. Or from a youtube tutorial.

    “This week, Off Track takes climate science back to first principles.”

    Gavin’s first principles! First principle number 1: Pretend cloud formation doesn’t matter.

  60. jjthoms says:
    May 19, 2012 at 8:12 pm

    Strange I cannot see where “Electricity costs are soaring to implement these dysfunctional policies, which have by-passed proper and legally-required technical, economic and environmental assessments. ”…..
    This looks rather like electricity is increasing at a lesser rate than its prime fuels oil and gas. Is this the effect of windmills?
    _______________________________
    Nice try, but we know that electricity from solar and wind mills is very heavily subsidized from tax payer money. You have to include all that tax money to see the true cost. That does not include all the jobs shipped to China as an additional cost.

  61. GeoLurking says:

    “Simple really, move the entire entity of the United Nations to a luxury liner so that they can legislate and meet in a style befitting their lofty positions. …Then all it would take are a few Harpoon ASCMs to get rid of the problem.”
    _______________________________

    Dodgy Geezer says:
    Do it cheaper.
    Get the Italians to provide the Captain….
    ________________________________
    You guys just made my day. ROTFLMAO.

  62. One undemocratic institution used against another undemocratic institution. It had to happen. But what fun!
    ===============

  63. As referenced by some previous posters, the funniest part about this complaint is that the EU itself will probably cease to exist sometime in the next few months.

    Promise the moon in 2020! why not? There isn’t going to be any EU to make good on any of it, so who cares? Just keep the dog and pony show going for a few more days.

  64. So an entity that has always wished to impose unelected rule of “law” (their law) on member nations, is now trying to do that to an entity that has always wished to impose unelected rule of “law” (their law) on its people.

    Pass the popcorn and I’ll have a beer with that.

    Be verwy verwy afwaid of benevolent institutions and benevolent individuals. Or put another way, if you seek my good, nothing good will come of it. Many politicians seeking high office on both sides of the isle in the US think their destiny is to seek our good. Either through Republican party planks or Democrat party planks. Refuse both. This is the reason for Ron Paul. He does not seek our good. He seeks our freedom as individuals to seek our own good.

    Maybe the people of EU nations need to be throwing some tea into the harbor in protest of both these “benevolent” entities. Let us hope that the people of EU nations have not grown weak on the teat of governmental “benevolence” and can instead lay hold of the freedom to make their own individual lives, be they happy or sad, free from the fetters and handcuffs of religious dogma, out-of-control business restriction, and tyranny masqueraded as Gaia worship.

  65. The underlying question to all this is: why are politicians from all major political parties
    so enthralled by wind energy? These people are not stupid, so there must be an over-riding
    reason. And it’s not because of the polls: public opinion is molded by government propaganda,
    which in turn is spread by “mainstream” media (read: politically-correct media, feeding from
    the same trough as mainstream political parties). Thus, if they wanted, governments could
    turn public opinion against silly energy policies.

    The answer lies in the financing of these political parties: Big Wind makes large contributions to their election campaign funds (there are ways to circumvent the caps put on individual contributions), and in return elected officials vote the enormous subsidies required by Big Wind. A book has been published on the first Obama campaign, revealing how the same people who were canvassing for money to finance the campaign, are now holding top positions in the Obama administration’s department in charge of delivering permits, loans and loan guarantees etc. to renewable projects: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/how-obama-s-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html

    I call this legal corruption (it is legal to make campaign contributions, and legal to vote subsidies, grant loan guarantees, etc.). Democracy has evolved into a system where politicians are bought in broad daylight. Witness what is happening in the US Senate these days: the extension of the Production Tax Credit for windfarms, which expires at year end, has been rejected three times. Yet it is up for vote a fourth time, and already some Republican Senators have indicated they will vote in favor. What does that tell you?

    Can Romney forego large campaign contributions from Big Wind? – Only at the risk of being
    outspent by Obama in TV ads, and thus losing the elections. European politicians are in the same fix. So it appears we are locked solid into this corrupt system. Any ideas as to how to defeat it? My own recommendation would be that we all make this analysis public, educating people on what’s happened to our democracies. It’s a first and necessary step.

    Any feedback: send to save.the.eagles@gmail.com

  66. @ saveextremadura says:
    May 20, 2012 at 9:40 am

    My own recommendation would be that we all make this analysis public, educating people on what’s happened to our democracies. It’s a first and necessary step.

    *******************************************************************************
    Given the state of what passes for education these days, I have zero confidence in trying to ‘educate’ the majority of people who seem to have zero interest in becoming educated, and a government education system that appears to be perfectly satisfied with turning out uneducated ‘consumers’. Educated people tend to be difficult to control.

  67. Fraud ! it is all Fraud and Hokum

    Put the bleeders on trial for FRAUD

    Let a Jury of their peers judge them.

    They must justify their actions to the satisfaction
    of a duly sworn Jury and if not then that Jury must
    find them Guilty of Fraud.

    Please can Lord Monckton be the Judge ….. pretty please.

  68. Indeed, it sounds like an impossible task. However, reversing a “consensus” starts with making rebel facts and dissenting opinions public. To date, what we have done is try and prove that CAGW is a fallacy, and that wind and solar energies are both ineffective and very expensive. Well done!
    I am merely suggesting now that we should also expose the wicked part played by the financing of political parties, as shown in my posting of May 20, 2012 at 9:40 am

    Mark Duchamp

  69. Lots of indications here that the sun has an effect on global climate.

    As far as I know I have previously presented here and elsewhere the only currently available plausible description as to how it could work.

  70. wws says:
    May 20, 2012 at 8:06 am
    “Promise the moon in 2020! why not? There isn’t going to be any EU to make good on any of it, so who cares? ”

    About 10 or 12 years ago the EU commission declared their goal was to turn the EU into the most competitive region on the planet within 10 years. This might just come to pass, but not in the way they meant it. (The promise has not been heard for a long time now BTW)

  71. So, have I got this right? As a citizen of the EUSSR I can sue them because they haven’t provided sufficient time for me to be rolled over with this CAGW scam. And if I win they pay damages which are ultimately paid by the taxpayers of the EUSSR – including me.
    So. win or lose, I lose and the lawyers get paid either way.
    Mmmmm, its worse than we thought!

  72. @ saveextremadura says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:56 am

    Indeed, it sounds like an impossible task. However, reversing a “consensus” starts with making rebel facts and dissenting opinions public. To date, what we have done is try and prove that CAGW is a fallacy, and that wind and solar energies are both ineffective and very expensive. Well done!
    I am merely suggesting now that we should also expose the wicked part played by the financing of political parties, as shown in my posting of May 20, 2012 at 9:40 am

    ***************************************************************************
    All well and good, however I doubt more than 5 or 10% of the (global) public has more than a passing acquaintance with the entire subject, let alone any rebel facts and dissenting opinions. Far more pressing issues are occupying hearts and minds. Even in the first world countries the amount of attention paid to anything of consequence is miniscule, and polls show that AGW is at the bottom of the list of attention getters.

    Many in the US (likely approaching 50% of adults) can’t tell you who the Vice-President is without consulting their “smart” phone. That doesn’t bode well for relatively obscure information about CAGW, even if you put up it on every billboard ( electronic or otherwise ) in the country. Charts and graphs are as unintelligible as ancient hieroglyphics to most people, and forget statistics and probability statements.

  73. Cutting through the comments, mainly because I haven’t read them all, it seems to me that all these massive bureaucracies are for one thing, and one thing only, and that is power over people like you, and me.
    The whole AGW scare edifice is crumbling, but hang on, there’s more to come! Our food, water and even the air that we breathe is under control. The EU, those unelected people who are now controlling us in Europe, and have the longest holidays in the world, are now dictating how we should treat our own children. (Google Christopher Booker).
    There seem to be so many of these clubs (Rome) or groups of people (Greenpeace, WWF et al) that seem to be friendly on the outside but sinister inside that it beggars belief that we can condone the situation. The reason could possibly be that there are an awful lot of gullible people around.

  74. At the end of the day it is up to the warmists,aka publically funded climate scientists, to demonstrate that:
    1. The earth is warming, and it will do us all serious harm.
    2. We are the cause of this warming.
    3. We can economically do something about it.

    Fail anyone fo these then there is a no cause for alarm.

    Fail all three then it is tantamount to fraud.

    Yup…I reckon it is a fraud by the egotistical and incompetent, upon the gullible and otherwise trusting public.

  75. I sincerely hope that Pat Swords gets somewhere with this.

    Of course, on the face of it, it should be easy-peasy. The actual costs must be known and so are the actual generation figures. Some bureaucrat will also know the cost of running fossil powerstations at less than maximum efficiency (let alone the ones on “spinning reserve”!) and the cost of rebuilding the grid connections. The Government takes good care to hide most of that information and to have tame pundits declaring that the ‘actual cost to consumers’ is only a Groat per Year, or something equally absurd.

    But you don’t need to be a genius to work out that projects that are costed in hundreds of Billions of Pounds don’t get paid for by getting a few tens of Millions of consumers to cough up an extra Groat.

    Information which is already readilly available is sufficient to demonstrate that BigWind is ludicrously expensive.

    But how many senior politicians (or bureaucrats) are there, across Europe, who will admit to this? I doubt if you could round up enough to form a football team.

    So, I fear that a successful outcome to Pat’s effort is about as likely as getting Joe Stalin to pay a parking fine.

  76. Catweasel says:
    May 20, 2012 at 11:14 pm

    Yup…I reckon it is a fraud by the egotistical and incompetent, upon the gullible and otherwise trusting public.

    Incompetent? Judging by the payouts received to date, they are very competent fraudsters indeed!

  77. Kev-in-UK says:
    May 19, 2012 at 11:02 pm

    Brian H says:
    May 19, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Quite! I had thought (and meant to write) ‘self procreation AND procrastination’ !!

    Is that the logical consequence of following the suggestion, “Go F’ yerself!”?
    May I gently suggest “promotion” or something similar? ;)

  78. Friends:

    Physical reality prevents the EU from maintaining its existing energy consumption while fulfilling the Aarhus Convention which requires the EU to adopt “20% renewable energy by 2020”. Simply, “20% renewable energy” is a physical impossibility for the EU (or any other developed economy) without closure of most of the EU’s economic activity.

    To understand this one needs to recognise the difference between political reality and physical reality.

    Please note that this difference is NOT a pedantic point because:
    • it is the basis of the AGW-scare,
    • it is the justification for the imposition of so-called ‘renewables’, and
    • it enables politicians to pretend that reality is whatever they want it to be (e.g. the EU is complying with UNECE when it is not).

    Political reality is whatever politicians assert it to be.
    Physical reality is the way the universe is.

    Politicians choose the political reality which suites their political objectives as and when they desire. And politicians work in (and with) political reality. Indeed, politicians pay pseudoscientists to provide misrepresentations of physical reality (e.g. hockey sticks) which they can use to justify their chosen political reality.

    Scientists observe physical reality with the intention of discerning the nearest available approximation to ‘truth’. Hence, although physical reality is whatever it is, scientific understanding of physical reality is changed (n.b. is ONLY changed) by new observations of physical reality and/or new interpretations of the observations.

    So, politicians can and do discuss ‘renewable energy’. But ‘renewable energy’ does not exist in physical reality.

    All usable energy derives from the “big bang” which initiated the universe. All energy flows capable of conducting work are stages in the process from that event to the heat death of the universe. Energy cannot be ‘renewable’ because a sampled energy flow cannot be raised to its original condition without use of a greater flow of energy (i.e. entropy).

    But political reality does include ‘renewable energy’. Simply, ‘renewable energy’ is a source of an energy flow which is used at a rate no greater than the flow of energy into the source.

    Therefore, the availability of so-called ‘renewable energy’ is constrained by the rate(s) at which physical reality replenishes the flow of energy into the ‘renewable’ energy source. And physical reality determines those rates which political reality cannot affect.

    Hence, physical reality prevents the EU from maintaining its existing energy consumption while fulfilling the Aarhus Convention which requires the EU to adopt “20% renewable energy by 2020”. Simply, “20% renewable energy” is a physical impossibility for the EU (or any other developed economy) without closure of most of the EU’s economic activity. I explain this as follows.

    Fuels are stores of energy. They are commodities which can be stored, transported when and where desired, and used as required. Thus, they can be used to provide energy which can be distributed as electricity when and where it is wanted.

    Electricity is a form of energy. It is not a commodity. It cannot be stored in significant amounts and must be used at its existing distribution system when generated.

    Only three processes provide energy flows which can be sampled by humanity. They are
    • the residual energy which was concentrated in ancient – now dead – stars,
    • the residual energy from the formation of the solar system, and
    • the energy flowing from the sun.

    Processes which initiated during the lives of ancient stars have generated radioactive substances notably uranium. Amounts of these substances were part of the material which accreted to form the Earth, and they may be utilised as fuel in nuclear power plants.

    Residual energy from the formation of the solar system is observed in the power of the tides and geothermal forces. Indeed, it can be argued that the Earth and Moon system is still forming because these processes still continue.

    Energy flowing from the sun consists of radiations and particles. To date, only sunlight and solar heat have been utilised as energy sources by humans.

    All the three sources of energy have been suggested for provision of so-called ‘renewable’ energy.

    But their supply of energy into their ‘renewable’ sources is very small. Hence, physical reality decrees that ‘renewables’ can only provide a trivial (and insignificant) replacement for fossil fuels.

    For example, biomass is solar energy collected by photosynthesis and is ‘renewable’ when the rate of biomass harvest in a year is no more than the amount of biomass growth in that year. But fossil fuels are solar energy collected by photosynthesis over geological ages and available in a compressed, dried form. Similar differences ensure that all suggested forms of ‘renewable’ energy can only provide a trivial (and insignificant) displacement of fossil fuels.

    Simply, physical reality decrees that “20% renewable energy” is not possible for the EU (or any other developed economy) without closure of most of the EU’s economic activity.

    Richard

  79. Since the EU has failed to meet its renewable energy obligations, the UN has delivered the biggest most powerful punishment in its vast arsenal of punishments. It has given the EU a good glare!

    That’ll teach em.

    So don’t mess with the UN. Let that be a lesson to all of you.

  80. The whole fiasco of wind energy and the EU would be funny if it was not destroying communities and peoples lives and peace of mind.

    Are you disillusioned by rising electricity prices, over dependence on the “green” dream [especially uneconomical and inefficient wind farms] and the destruction of our countryside then please object to the Government at

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/22958

    or by GOOGLING “E-PETITION 22958″ and following the link.

Comments are closed.