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
The first rule of NREAP is that you don’t talk about NREAP.
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….
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.
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!
Streetcred says: May 19, 2012 at 4:49 pm
‘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.’
Peter Hitchens calls them the stupid empire and the evil empire!
[ http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/debate/article-2146903/Why-defeat-evil-empire–embrace-stupid-one.html ]
@ur momisugly Heggs: thanks for the link, it’s a must-see. Copied here.
http://blip.tv/reliveproductions/pat-swords-talks-on-his-challenge-for-freedom-of-information-in-ireland-6020391
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.
this should put the wind up them
This would appear to be Global Governance would it not?
The unelected United Nations telling Europe to change the implementation of its energy policy.
The EUSSR not following the rules I’m shocked, rules are for the sheeple not the rulers.
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…
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.
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.”
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
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.
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.
‘Apocalyptic’ island of waste in the Maldives
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18073917
More Staten island than Island paradise
Tips and Notes will not load
Heres a link that contains a statement from Pat Swords which also includes the video.
http://www.turn180.ie/?p=570
Heggs.
@Malcolm…
Ah, yes. Herbert, my almost favourite science fiction author.
If only he were alive to see how necessary his imaginings have now become.
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.
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.
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
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.
Predicted by Corbyn last week due to solar activity
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/05/20/powerful-quake-kills-at-least-4-in-northern-italy/
pretty amazing
20% by 2020? That’s nothing! I’ll commit to 30% renewable energy by 3030! Of course, I’ll be long dead by then.
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.
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.