Bishop Hill See you in court
Aug 22, 2012 Climate: Parliament Energy: wind This press release, issued by Communities Against Turbines Scotland, has just been sent to me.
In respect of the Scottish Government's target based renewable energy programme, a serious complaint has been filed to hold both the UK and the Scottish Government to account via the United Nations. It should be appreciated that both the EU and the UK are now being held to account by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in respect of their non-compliance with the Aarhus Convention.
A Communication lodged by a Scottish Community Council with UNECE’s Aarhus Convention Compliance team has been accepted as valid for consideration (Ref. ACCC/C/2012/68). This is important because it strikes at the flawed consultation process at the heart of the Government's renewables programme. Also, Ref. ACCC/C/2010/54 has found public participation arrangements related to the NREAP (Nation Renewable Energy Action Plan) to be deficient.
This Communication has been filed on behalf of the Avich & Kilchrenan Community Council, under the Aarhus Convention which provides for access to information in environmental matters. Broadly, it requires Governments to make available the scientific justifications for programmes which are said to affect the environment in which we all live. Again broadly, the Scottish and UK Governments have not done this.
In the Communication in the UNECE case, the purpose is to demonstrate that the justification for the programme, namely the emissions savings attributed to wind energy, are false in that both the EU and the UK have systematically made claims which are neither transparent nor valid. The consequence has been that planning approvals and consents under the Electricity Act have been fatally undermined, since they have proceeded on an entirely false prospectus supporting wind farm development across the UK and the European Union.
To clarify further, this Communication seeks to demonstrate and prove that the CO2 and harmful pollution savings figures used to justify the whole programme are false and that the manner in which the EU is bringing through its Directives (for example by country-by-country Renewable Energy Strategies), is unlawful. Secondly, proper compliance with planning procedures at the local level is being by-passed as these projects are being taken through the consenting system.
An easily understood link to the draft UNECE findings may be below.
The finalised ruling will be out shortly. It will hold that the EU and the UK are in breach of the Aarhus Convention, and that the EU has by-passed the vital democratic accountability which the Convention requires. The consequence is that the EU must go back, and bring in the necessary measures, so that the public is provided with the necessary information and the opportunity to participate in decision-making when all options are open and effective public participation can take place, rather than after programmes and targets are presented in a final form to the public.
Further issues of particular importance for Scotland which, bearing in mind the current concentration of public interest in subsidy payments, are relevant in respect of what the subsidies are actually funding in the way of environmental damage, for example:-
1. This is the same wind farm and access route cited in the complaint. The local Wild Life Crime Officer, together with RSPB are investigating the report received of nest abandonment of the schedule 1 species, Red Throated Diver within the construction site of Carriag Gheal wind farm in Argyll. Details can be obtained from Scottish Natural Heritage P.R. at Clydebank on 0141 951 4488.
2. There is a further incident involving disturbance of golden eagle (also schedule 1) nesting sites adjacent to the wind farm access - which is the Forestry Commission’s West Loch Awe Timber Haul Route currently under construction. In respect of a past complaint relating to this route and the likelihood of disturbance, the EU Ombudsman has opened an Inquiry into the EU handling of this case and other linked matters.
3. Regarding recent Forestry Commission (Scotland) policy changes, now that developers have exclusive investigative rights of search for the entire FCS estates, it has exposed the actual level of developer and FCS intentions under their new policy for hosting renewable energy projects. We have a public authority, with vast tracts of land held in National trust, engaged in multiple developments of a commercial nature in the field of energy, all of which as individual projects fall under Annex II of the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive, for which this same public authority is the competent authority for purpose of development consent. There may well be legal grounds for considering this as a plan or programme, for which the Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive should apply.
In addition, before consents are given to individual projects, the whole plan / programme of development of the FCS estate in this new area should have been subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment, particularly as it is clearly obvious that this plan / programme for development of the forestry estates is associated with significant environmental effects.
4. That Scottish Natural Heritage can no longer object to proposals unless they impact upon areas of National Interest is a further retrograde step. It cannot fail to impede the ability of that organisation to carry out its remit to the same extent as previously witnessed. Particularly within this new FCS area of activity, the removal of SNH's ability to object could be of major public concern.
STOP PRESS.
In respect of Ref. ACCC/C/2010/54 the earlier and associated complaint to UNECE, demonstrating how this programme by-passed proper assessment and democratic accountability, the ruling is now finalised and finds the EU in breach of the Convention. Furthermore in the 27 Member States the renewable programme has now to undergo proper assessment to provide the necessary information to the public, this then has to be followed by proper public participation, in which the public's input has to be taken account in the finalised decision. Please find relevant links below:
Note the EU's reply on the middle right
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getAllAnswers.do?reference=E-2012-005651&language=IT
UNECE has put the following article up on their website: http://aarhusclearinghouse.unece.org/news/1000416/
Reader Comments (30)
"Furthermore in the 27 Member States the renewable programme has now to undergo proper assessment to provide the necessary information to the public, this then has to be followed by proper public participation,"
What happens in the meantime, are all greenie projects put on hold?
Blimey!
How long will it be before the BBC and the Guardian report on this development?
I answer my own question, with: "Sadly not."
The EU says: "These findings are still provisional; they do not constitute the final findings of the ACCC, let alone have the Parties to the Aarhus Convention endorsed them. The Commission has provided the ACCC with comments and further information which might lead the ACCC to reassess the case(1). It is therefore premature to indicate any consequences of the draft findings."
Well done, Pat Swords!
Blimey indeed!
Pat Swords strikes again !!!!!
Wow!....Is this for real? I've just finished arguing against this lack of transparency, at an enquiry to consider a proposal under section 36 of the Electricity Act, and been stonewalled at every suggestion of it not meeting the acts requirements for installed capacity even, let alone actual emissions savings. The developers has been using 'In the National interests' to ride over all residents concerns. And has even been happy to admit themselves that there are unacceptable impacts on some people....But that is 'not the point'....The point being the development is in the 'national interests'
..If this press release is correct, how will it affect the inspectors still awaited assessment?
It'll be like EU referendums: the EU will keep right on until they get the answer they want.
The EU Commission's comment (see Niels's post) that the findings (1) are "draft", (2) relate specifically to Ireland, (3) are "provisional" and (4) "do not constitute the final findings of the ACCC" or the "Parties to the Aarhus Convention" and that "further information ... might lead the ACCC to reassess the case" are, it seems, ample reason for not getting too excited about this. Apart from anything else, the EU Commissioners are masters at deferring almost indefinitely doing anything about matters they find inconvenient. (Just consider, if you have the patience, the multitude of ghastly complications set out here.) In other words, experience says that dearieme is right.
However, it's interesting that the STOP PRESS (above) specifically states, "the ruling is now finalised and finds the EU in breach of the Convention". But unfortunately there's no link confirming this. I'm not holding my breath: I doubt if it's "for real" yet.
I don't expect the collective noun for quaking eurocrats has been derived yet. Perhaps now's the time?
Sadly I have little doubt that the EU equivalent of Sir Humphrey Appleby will find a way to kick this into the long grass while they work out how to neuter it completely.
I suppose this won't be retrospective, will it? I Wouldn't it be great if they had to pull the existing windfactories down and start again.
Please see response I have had from the despicable Tim Yeo's constituency agent with respect to conflicts of interest.
Says it all.
Tim’s approach, and that of his Committee, to these issues is strictly evidence based. He are also concerned to keep electricity prices for consumers as low as possible, consistent with meeting Britain's greenhouse gas reduction targets and with maintaining security of supply.
The evidence shows that onshore wind turbines generate electricity more cheaply than offshore wind, tidal or wave power. For that reason he has called for onshore wind to be part, but only part, of Britain's energy mix. However he has also always made clear that onshore wind turbines should only be built where they are acceptable to the local community.
For that reason when applications for wind turbines are made in his constituency he treats each one strictly on its merits. If the impact on the local community is unacceptable he will support the objectors.
Don
Every constituency office has a machine with about a dozen buttons on it which you press then turn a handle and out comes the requisite answer. I think this one is C439/2A.
But I may be wrong.
My very best wishes to all of you pursuing this.
Cheers,
Bob
@Mike Jackson. Thanks for this observation- probably true.
I have replied saying that his response is inadaequate and I intend to take the matter up with the
HoC Standards and Privileges Committee..
The ruling has come just in time. Today's Daily Telegraph has an article about how developers seeking permission for wind turbines attempt to mislead the public about their visual impact.
Wind farm developers using 'tricks' to make turbines look smaller
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/9438774/Wind-farm-developers-using-tricks-to-make-turbines-look-smaller.html
"Wind farm developers make turbines look smaller than they actually are when applying for planning permission in order to 'trick' councils into giving them the go-ahead, a leading architect has warned."
Another article added to the Telegraph website today tells how the SNP is plotting against the Scottish public to undermine opposition to wind turbines.
SNP proposes wind farm 'propaganda' for the classroom
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/9490886/SNP-proposes-wind-farm-propaganda-for-the-classroom.html
"SNP minsters are planning to undermine community opposition to wind farms by having teachers tell schoolchildren that turbines benefit the environment, according to official guidance just published."
wind farms are next to useless,a blight on the country side,produce bugger all power,cost a fortune,someone getting rich for no gain.wake up to the scam
Repeal the Climate Change Act Prime Minister Cameron, it is your duty and your job. Please do not continue to preside over this country if you are not willing to meet this challenge head on. Wind-turbine developments are wrong and developing monstrousities all over our beautiful country that are not fit for purpose MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY!!!
My blog got stitched badly, so repeating for clarity:
Wow!!!, fact is fact, we the public have not been consulted in a proper manner over wind-turbine developments, we have been ridden ruffshod over this renewable energy policy. There is absolutely no foundation that building any more wind-turbinRepeal the Climate Change Act Prime Minister Cameron, it is your duty and your job. Please do not continue to preside over this country if you are not willing to meet this challenge head on. Wind-turbine developments are wrong and developing monstrousities all over our beautiful country that are not fit for purpose MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY!!!
1. Experiment shows that there can be no CO2-AGW once RH is >~10%.
2.. Experiment shows that above 10% wind energy as a proportion of fossil grid demand, there is no further CO2 saving.
3. Therefore, the windmills are government-sponsored rape of our country and their purpose is purely extra taxation.
My 100% support. I wrote a letter to the Scottish Executive about this very issue 5 years ago and received a snotty letter in return. I only wish I had been as eloquent and proactive as you guys. My parents are members of the Kilchrenan community and it makes me proud that you are fighting yoru corner.
<I>"Every constituency office has a machine with about a dozen buttons on it which you press then turn a handle and out comes the requisite answer. I think this one is C439/2A.
But I may be wrong."</I>
I don't think you are. I exchanged a few emails with my MP around the time of Climategate. It was only some months later (when I read them again at the same time) that I suddenly noticed striking similarities. After copy/pasting to Wordpad documents, and opening them side by side, I found that 80% was the exact same wording, just re-arranged somewhat.
I recommend that all of you do the same in any communications you might have with your MP's!
I notice that the EU "it's only a draft" reply is dated July 5th. It sounds like things may have moved on, but I daresay it will take them a bit longer to reply this time.
Congratulations to Mr Swords - swords by name and swords by nature, it would appear.
Re Don Keiller's post:
Tim Yeo states that: '...onshore wind turbines should only be built where they are acceptable to the local cummunity'.
What crap. They are almost ALWAYS unacceptable to the local community - but get approved on appeal by the Planning Ombudsman.
So much for democracy - local and national...
I wonder how the money men will regard this ruling even if it is still open to challenge, does it make the funding of windfarm development more risky. If it does, good, a step in the right direction.
I cannot believe that this will come to pass, not one of the Windy/Solar installations could pass a public "cost benefit audit", private "cost/benefit" is of course a much different matter, ref; Mr Camerons father in law.
best wishes to all truth finders.
PS. does this post have to be approved by the White House?
"the EU Ombudsman"
Not a job I'd want...
Well done to those who have raised this action, but even money says that it will be ignored. The Aarhus Convention flag was run up the mast several years ago to no avail. The village idiots who run this country have no intention of listening to the electorate - remember the million people who marched through London in protest against the invasion of Iraq? Unless the RO legislation is repealed the anti-windfarm lobby is wasting its time. I'm basing this statement on my 10 years of campaiging at every level. You don't stop wind farms, you only delay them. I live in the NE of Scotland and I doubt if I can drive 15 minutes in any direction without seeing a turbine. In a word Scotland is stuffed!!!