Clark Cross: Britain is in breach of UN rules on wind farms

Posted: January 12, 2013 by tallbloke in Legal, Politics, wind

From the Scotsman:

CHRISTINE Metcalfe – a member of Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council – is determined to halt the relentless march of Britain’s wind turbines. She was recently given a hearing before the Compliance Committee at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva (Unece). She is mounting a legal challenge against the UK Government and the EU, claiming they have both breached UN laws over their green energy policies. She told the committee that Holyrood and Westminster have failed to ensure the public is given accurate information about the adverse impact of wind power, claiming green energy plans have denied the public the right to question the alleged benefits of wind power in reducing harmful emissions, or to raise the negative effects of wind power on health, the environment and economy.

She said no British-based wind farm developer has ever been required to explain the benefits of wind power. The question of the Scottish Government’s Renewables Routemap came up. The committee was shocked to discover that, despite the pronouncements of Fergus Ewing MSP and First Minister Alex Salmond, the Scottish Government’s Renewables Routemap 2020 and Energy Policy Statement are still officially only drafts. So officials have relied on these drafts in giving the go-ahead for more than 3,500 wind turbines, granting planning without proper scientific justification based on a draft. In addition, many authorities did not prepare an independent Strategic environmental assessment but meekly accepted those submitted by the developer.

Read the rest here:
http://www.scotsman.com/news/clark-cross-britain-is-in-breach-of-un-rules-on-wind-farms-1-2733382?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

 

Comments
  1. At enquiry it is not possible to challenge the development itself or it’s benefits. Any challenges are answered by the developer anyway, and accepted by the inspector without question, and it is stressed that enquiries are not to be used as forums for debating energy policy.

  2. oldbrew says:

    The last line of the Scotsman report:

    ‘The UNECE Aarhus Compliance Committee is expected to rule soon.’

    If the Pat Swords case is anything to go by, Christine Metcalfe has a good chance of success.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/19/eu-violates-aarhus-convention-in-20-renewable-energy-by-2020-program/

  3. Phillip Bratby says:

    fenbeagle: It is possible to challeneg the benefits of a development and I have done so at several public inquiries. The inspector has to weigh the benefit against the harm when making his decision. However, Inspectors invariably fall back on the argument that any benefit, no matter how small is making a valuable contribution (as laid down in paragraph 98 of the National Planniing Policy Framework). The Inspector can then conclude that in his opinion, this minute benefit outweighs the huge harm to the landscape and all the other harms. Hence the Government can push renewable schemes through against massive local opposition. This undemocratic and autocratic behaviour of the Government, where one Government appointed Inspector can make an illogical decision against what we are told in the Localism Act is decisions should be made locally, will come back to haunt this Government.

    At inquiries it is not possible to challenge Government policy, whether it is the crazy energy policy or the crazy climate change policy.

  4. Philip Bratby. I spent a great deal of time at a recent enquiry challenging the benefits and claims of a development. That was claiming to be above 50MW, but because of the distances between turbines was so far short of recommendations, even the 6 times rotor recommendation of the government in the direction of the prevailing wind, would have suffered wake loss across the array. The bottom line though was the Developers are not obliged to decide upon a particular Wind folly model at this late stage, and so we were discussing hypothetical situations of no relevance throughout…..Despite a lot of work that I did with visuals and measurements, the final details could change anyway.

  5. P.G. Sharrow says:

    Wind farms always make money for the developer/constructor and the scrapper. Save the trouble and cost of operation, As soon as they are finished, scrap them. In twenty years they will be scrap anyway. The rate payers should not have to pay for this deliberate government boondoggle to line the pockets of the well connected. pg

  6. Greg Goodman says:

    “CHRISTINE Metcalfe – a member of Avich and Kilchrenan Community Council – is determined to halt the relentless march of Britain’s wind turbines. She was recently given a hearing before the Compliance Committee at the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe in Geneva (Unece). She is mounting a legal challenge against the UK Government and the EU, claiming they have both breached UN laws over their green energy policies.”

    Damn the wind turbines , since when has UN been in charge of UK, British or Scottish energy policy ?!

    “UN rules” , “UN law”, “legal challenge”? What the hell is this?