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
Mark Duchamp +34 693 643 736 (Spain) Skype: mark.duchamp
Executive Director, EPAW
Chairman, World Council for Nature
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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
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.
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.
typo:
HeggHeggs____
I was with you till the last 2 words. What on Earth ….??
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.
My NGO can siphon off more cash than your NGO!!!
Eurocrats!!!!
“…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…
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….
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.
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..?
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.
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://blogs-images.forbes.com/warrenmeyer/files/2012/02/15yr-temps.gif
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.”
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
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Xrj7mAr7S8w/T7hXxZUbotI/AAAAAAAAATs/GJ76gigrsEE/s1600/energy+prices+uk+1987+to+2012.jpg
This looks rather like electricity is increasing at a lesser rate than its prime fuels oil and gas. Is this the effect of windmills?
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.
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.
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…
Kev-in-UK
Let’s not forget the vital role played by our home grown, EUSSR loving and profoundly stupid LibLabCon artists…
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.
Brian H says:
May 19, 2012 at 5:56 pm
Quite! I had thought (and meant to write) ‘self procreation AND procrastination’ !!
A falling out among thieves.
“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.)
franco says:
May 19, 2012 at 10:06 pm
What the heck was that all about?
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.
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.
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.