UN ruling: EU must reassess renewables’ policy

The Compliance Committee of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), which enforces the Aarhus Convention, has released its final findings and recommendations regarding the case presented by Mr. Pat Swords, a chemical engineer from Ireland (1). In a nutshell, the UN is saying that if the EU wants to be in compliance with the said Convention, to which it is a party, it must have its 27 Member States properly reassess their National Renewable Energy Action Plans (NREAP), and submit them to popular consultation. The Aarhus Convention requires that, in matters affecting the environment, the citizens be consulted in a transparent manner before any policy is embarked upon. The Convention applies principles adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro.

The NREAP’s of the 27 EU countries, each calling for huge subsidised investments in wind power, and for the industrialisation of most of their heretofore tourist-friendly landscape, are in breach of the Convention. They have been imposed from the top down without properly informing and consulting the people. Worse: the programmes were not even properly assessed by the governments themselves, who took at face value the information provided by the wind industry.

Says Pat Swords, author of the complaint to the UN: “the Compliance Committee has shown that the EU’s renewable energy programme is proceeding without ‘proper authority’.” This is no trifle matter: the EU presently has about 60,000 wind turbines and related infrastructure, which have cost some €180 billion. This figure is about to be multiplied, yet no assessment has been made of the effectiveness of this investment, e.g. are fossil fuels actually being saved, by how much, etc.”

The European Platform Against Windfarms (EPAW), and the World Council for Nature (WCFN), are also concerned about the lack of legitimacy of the EU’s energy policy, which has been riding roughshod over both the health of its citizens (the infrasound issue) and the protection of natural reserves known as SPA’s and Natura 2000 areas, within which windfarms have been built as if they were causing no harm.

Conservationist Mark Duchamp, speaking in the name of both organisations, states: “The UN has ruled that the EU’s renewable energy policy is in violation of the Aarhus Convention. This implies that it is also violating EU laws that have been voted in order to adapt EU legislation to the Convention. Legal counsels will have to determine if this is a case of breach of legal duty, and if personal responsibilities may be sought.”

In the meantime, notes Mr. Swords, “the 27 Member States’ renewable energy plans(NREAP) should be suspended, and proper assessments conducted to address precise issues, e.g. what quantity of harmful gasses, if any, will be saved by the large number of windfarms being planned. Indeed, a number of studies by independent engineers have shown that they may be saving none.” (2)

Also, he adds, public participation has to take place ‘when all options are open’. “In essence one cannot adopt a target, such as 20% of renewables by 2020, and then gloss through public participation. The assessments have to be done first, followed by public participation, with these inputs effectively taken into account in the final decision. The target is the final outcome of the process, not the starting point.”

EPAW insists that “proper assessment” does not mean accepting as facts the questionable claims vaunted by salesmen, as has been done to date. The conflict of interest is only too evident. Truly independent experts must be appointed to evaluate the effectiveness of windfarms in reducing the use of fossil fuels.

Duchamp, speaking specifically for WCFN, claims it is equally unacceptable to entrust the preparation of environmental impact studies to the windfarm promoters themselves. “It is an insult to intelligence, and a lack of respect for any and every citizen of the EU”, he warns. “Yet this is what has been done to date, with disastrous results for protected species of birds and bats.”

Pat Swords concludes: “the EU’s renewable energy programme has by-passed proper assessment and democratic accountability, and the EU has been found to be in breach of the Aahrus Convention. The National Renewable Energy Action Plans of the 27 Member States must be suspended and submitted to objective assessment. The public must be informed in a transparent manner, invited to participate in the elaboration of the NREAP’s, and their input must to be taken into account in the finalised decision. The Aarhus Convention protects the people’s democratic rights; this is why it is so important to uphold it”.


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


(1) – Letter and attachment sent by UNECE to the EU Commission and to the plaintiff, Mr. Pat Swords, chem. engineer.

(2) – The latest independent study, based on actual data from official sources, shows only 4% of fuel savings realised by wind turbines as compared to their installed capacity. When wind energy exceeds 20% of the national energy mix, the savings turn negative – Dutch engineer C. (Kees) le Pair: http://www.epaw.org/documents.php?lang=en&article=backup14

49 thoughts on “UN ruling: EU must reassess renewables’ policy

  1. Using the EU’s requirement for a set amount of CO2 reductions by set time limit provides the necessary cover for those engaged in the IWT scam to make the money they want to make out of this scam. All that is needed for an excuse to install IWTs is to refer to the EU mandate and then say that individual countries have no say in this process so IWTs must be installed whether the people like it or not.

  2. This is good news. United Nations’ pronouncements don’t keep me awake at night, but this institution is usually revered by Gang Green. Let’s see if they can demonstrate some intellectual consistency and give the environment the respect they yammer on about.

  3. Oh Really???…..An actual UN ruling!!!!…..WOW that is highly unusual. That toothless UN tiger farted and now all the wind scammers are supposed to get religion. Ya…likely. It’ll be business as usual. We can only hope it will make a tiny difference, but somehow I think not.

  4. The total repeating farce of McGuinty requiring public consultation meetings in our towns that sees thousand upon thousands of protesters appear — and then get ignored and/or threatened with police type goons has got to stop.

    McGuinty’s compliance with New World Order types is more than obvious. It is time to ask::

    Is McGuinty’s cabinet and/or McGuinty himself being paid off with many millions?

    It is time to ask this!!

    • Victor you say: “It is time to ask this!!”
      Would you really expect any kind of a legitimate answer??

  5. I’m saying that on these forums — it is time to suggest criminality is involved. Of course, I don’t expect an answer from these people!

    After 14 years producing Toronto Street News we’ve found there is other very high corruption happening which of necessity includes police protection for these people.


    • Agreed! McGuinty and his predecessors before him all have committed out and out crimes yet when they find out they have broken the law they just re-write the legislation or call in “their own” to delay, cover and basically obscure the legal consequences. Bryant is a good example!

  6. Until everyone realizes that the United Nations is the “guiding force” behind this renewable Green Scam, nothing will change. The UN crafted this renewable destruction of the world and now has the absolute gall to question the participants in it?………….more “controlled opposition” thank you very much!!!!

  7. Probably impossible to prevent McGuinty and his goons from collecting their tax paid pensions and riding off into a golden retirement unless someone gets real about attempting to impeach politicians for criminal activity. However, are private for profit companies similarly ‘protected’?
    Why aren’t Gillespie and others seeking action against the wind energy companies for ‘criminal negligence’? Look at the legal definition………………..
    Does the Green Energy Act really protect anyone involved from legal action based on criminal behaviour?
    Just asking,
    Andrew Watts

    • If you can catch private companies using influence peddling, fraud, cronny corruption in obtaining governmnet contracts then they can be charged but this is done by law enforcement and not private attorneys.
      The Green Energy Act does not protect those who flaunt/break the law to obtain governmnet contracts.
      An impeachment vote would be needed but it has to be a majority vote.

    • No one is stopping you, Andrew, from contacting Eric in regard to your question. Not sure who you are referring to when you say “others”. You could be “the others”. The other “others” are working on other angles. I can assure you that hundreds of people are doing what they can.

      Eric is working very hard on behalf of many people.

  8. According to a report given to us by a reliable source::

    The CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland lent $10 million to a federal Liberal Party member to institute wind turbine projects in Ontario.

    What is McGuinty’s connection with this?

      • Hello – is the CEO available – for a chat

        ‘[excerpt] On 30/05/12, Robin headed to the Royal Bank of Scotland’s Annual General Meeting in Edinburgh. Following a £45.5bn bailout in 2008, RBS is now 82% owned by the taxpayer. The bank announced a loss of £2bn this year, but still paid a shocking £800m in bonuses. Robin’s giant arrow, wielded by public sector workers, reminded all of us: RBS owes YOU!

    • Were they not involved in the financing of IPC Energy(?). Which was owned by the originally by the then President of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario). Mike Crowley if my memory serves me.

      The RBS financed the takeover of the Ontario company into a European company. It was connected to the fellow who ran the Climategate inquiries. It’s all so circular. Creepy Crawley if you ask me.

      • There is a connection path from RBS Board to IP in the UK.

  9. Maybe the EU greenies should just mandate all apliances run off a micro watt of power per year then we could all stick a copper penny and a silver nickel into a lemon and be good for the year. Or rub 2 stones together.

    • That’s where it’s heading. Unfortunately, at they same time they’ll probably outlaw lemons and pennies =O

      • Copper comes from mining activity.

        Lemons — and all the transportation involved — would offend the locavores. Naughty, naughty, big carbon footprint. Take your scurvy like a real man!

        Guess you’re right! 🙁

  10. BTW:

    I wonder if Germany is being re-assessed…

    It is amazing how biased the international media is when it comes to reporting on energy generation, specifically electricity.

    In mid-August, Germany opened a new 2200MW coal-fired power station near Cologne, and virtually not a word has been said about it. This dearth of reporting is even more surprising when one considers that Germany has said building new coal plants is necessary because electricity produced by wind and solar has turned out to be unaffordably expensive and unreliable.

    In a deteriorating economic situation, Germany’s new environment minister, Peter Altmaier, who is as politically close to Chancellor Angela Merkel as it gets, has underlined time and again the importance of not further harming Europe’s – and Germany’s – economy by increasing the cost of electricity.

    Of course they are terribly green — so it’s OK — eh?

    • Appears Germany is going to try using both renewables and fossil backup and the public can pay for both so who cares?
      There are now so many Germans making money off from renewables that they now are a large voting bloc. The money comes from IWTs, solar roof, biomass, etc. So now it’s almost impossible politically to turn this around and cut the money off from those with vested interests in renewables.
      Then there are those employed in the solar industry who will lose their jobs who also vote.

    • Over the last 10 years Germany has gotten a productivity level from wind of ~16.3% and not the 30% they expected. Turned out to be a bad investment!

  11. Ontario turbine jobs are pretty scarce. BILLION$ go to foreign manufacturers.
    Why isn’t money invested here for building these structures? Seed money used to create these structures would create local jobs. They can’t be that difficult to invent and create here. Billions are involved. Are Ontario’s industries that stupid? Something wrong here.

    • In the long run there won’t be enough towers,blades,generators needed in Ontario to warrant that kind of investment here unless there is a world maket to sell them in. the world market for renewables products already has too many companies producing these same products. Result is bankruptcy for some right now. Example is the world solar panel industry right now.
      It’s like setting up a car company that’s only going to produce 7,000-10,000 units and then cease operation due to lack of demand.

    • If McGuinty had the ability to disengage his head
      from his rectum periodically, he might just realize
      that he has been buffaloed by the wind industry.
      The selling point of the ‘green scam’ was that it
      would have little impact on our overall electricity
      prices and that it would create a green economy.
      Wrong on both accounts.

      • It’s difficult to warm up – to Mr. McGuinty.
        Put simply –
        his record in public service is not a desirable one;
        disastrous for the economy.

        Green fantasy – Simplified!

      • The McGuinty ‘theme’ –
        “It’s all about health,” Ontario Energy Minister Chris Bentley said of his government’s stance on wind and solar. Coal-plant emissions are costing Ontarians billions of dollars in health care, he said, and the plan is still to decommission coal-produced energy by 2014.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *