In From Rights to Wrongs I took aim at the current Labour government’s plans to ride roughshod over the human rights of anyone objecting to national infrastructure projects. I suggested that there is some inconsistency in a government led by a former human rights lawyer being so happy to trample over human rights. There is, however, another aspect to this exercise in hypocrisy.

Last month the BBC website published an article with the title “International law ‘at heart’ of Starmer’s foreign policy, says Hermer”. And while the heading referred to foreign policy, the content of the article very much suggested (as it should) that the government’s respect for international law also extends to how it deals with domestic issues:

He [Hermer] continued: “Is international law important to this government and to this prime minister? Of course it is.

“It’s important in and of itself, but it’s also important because it goes absolutely to the heart of what we’re trying to achieve, which is to make life better for people in this country.

“And so I am absolutely convinced, and I think the government is completely united on this, that actually by ensuring that we are complying with all forms of law – domestic law and international law – we serve the national interest.”

The Aarhus Convention (to which the UK is a signatory) seems to be something to which the UK government only pays lip service when it comes to the environmental impact of its rushed proposals to impose massive renewable energy programmes on communities up and down the country. That Convention, which dates back to June 1998, purports to be a convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.

Article 6 (which deals with public participation in decisions on specific activities) confirms (via its paragraph 1(a)) that it applies to the activities proposed in Annex I. Unfortunately Annex I seems to be massively out of date, given the glaring absence of renewable energy infrastructure projects from the annex. In referring to the enrgy sector, it refers to mineral oil and gas refineries; installations for gasification and liquefaction; thermal power stations; coke ovens; and nuclear power stations (including their dismantling and decommissioning, reprocessing of nuclear fuel etc). It also cpvers production and processing of metals; mineral and chemical industries; waste management and waste-water treatment plants; various industrial plants; transport links including roads, railways, waterways and ports; groundwater extraction etc, including dams; extraction of petroleum and natural gas, including pipelines and storage connected therewith; quarries and opencast mining; agricultural processing and so on.

The absence of renewable energy projects seems to constitute a glaring omission. Is this because in 1998 large-scale renewable energy projects were barely a glint in the eye of legislators? Is it because they were always intended to have a free pass (as I fear may be the case with the Scottish Ecocide Bill)?

Fortunately, a couple of paragraphs within the Annex suggest that renewable energy developments should perhaps be caught by the Treaty nevertheless. Paragraph 17 of the Annex covers “Construction of overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kV or more and a length of more than 15 km.” And paragraph 20 covers “Any activity not covered by paragraphs 1-19 above where public participation is provided for under an environmental impact assessment procedure in accordance with national legislation.”

Having come to power only in July 2024, Sir Keir Starmer’s government can’t really be blamed for the fact that last year the Compliance Committee to the Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus Convention) its “First progress review of the implementation of decision VII/8s on compliance by United Kingdom with its obligations under the Convention” in terms which were less than satisfactory. However, the final paragraph of that review required action, and it insisted on it by 1^st October 2024:

The Committee reminds the Party concerned that all measures necessary to implement decision VII/8s must be completed by, and reported upon, by no later than 1 October 2024, as that will be the final opportunity for the Party concerned to demonstrate to the Committee that it has fully met the requirements of decision VII/8s.

That date has been and gone almost ten months ago. Given the UK government’s apparent determination to comply with all forms of law, including international law, one might have expected to discover what its proposals are to correct the UK’s shortcomings with regard to compliance with the Aarhus Convention. Yet, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the best it has managed is a Call for Evidence which ran from 30^th September 2024 to 9^th December 2024:

The UK is one of 47 Parties to the Aarhus Convention, an international treaty under the auspices of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The Convention sets out obligations on Parties to make provisions for the public to access environmental information, to participate in environmental decision-making and to access justice when challenging environmental decisions. One of the Convention’s core aims is to ensure access to justice in environmental matters. The Convention’s monitoring body, the Aarhus Convention’s Compliance Committee, has found the UK to be non-compliant with the Convention and has made several recommendations about matters on which the UK must take action to bring its policies into compliance with the Convention.

The government is committed to ensuring that the UK upholds its international law obligations under the Aarhus Convention. In publishing this call for evidence, the Government aims to gather views on the Compliance Committee’s recommendations regarding access to justice to determine the best way to reach compliance. The government is seeking views on whether the recommendations should be implemented in England and Wales in light of the potential implications, or whether there are suitable alternatives which could better deliver the desired effect of bringing the UK into compliance.

As is the way of these things, the Call for Evidence document runs to 42 pages. I have been unable to discover the outcome of this process. So much for the claim that “The government is committed to ensuring that the UK upholds its international law obligations under the Aarhus Convention.”

Meanwhile, the same lack of urgency appears to apply north of the border at Holyrood (where the Scottish government has responsibility for ensuring compliance). The Equalities, Human Rights and Civil Justice Committee held a session on 12^th November 2024 as to what should be done to ensure compliance. It concluded that “The Committee will consider the evidence it has heard at today’s session in private and agree on next steps.” Since then the issue appears to have been kicked into the long grass, with silence prevailing.

It’s all a bit of a mystery. A Scottish government that wishes to get back into the EU fold, happily ignoring a Treaty that is very dear to the European Commission. A UK government that claims to be committed to complying with all forms of law quietly ignoring a finding of breach of an international treaty, a finding that is almost a year old. One might almost think that the interests of renewable energy companies are more important than compliance with international law. The “green blob”, it appears, trumps the public’s legal rights.

By Vijay Jayaraj

Simple narratives are employed to seduce a populace, and none is more seductive today than the promise of “carbon-free” energy. In California, a state often touted as a green pioneer, Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated an “achievement” whose announcement was free of nuance and deficient of truth.

“Two-thirds of California’s power now comes from renewable and zero-carbon electricity generation,” he said as if announcing an earthshaking milestone. This declaration, however, was a master class in deception.

Newsom glosses over critical distinctions: First, the term should be carbon dioxide-free, not carbon-free because the objective of the climate-obsessed is eliminating emissions of CO₂ from human activity. Carbon, which evokes images of black soot, and carbon dioxide, an invisible, beneficial gas, are different molecules with their own chemical properties.

And there is nothing renewable about Earth’s finite stores of metals, minerals and fuels necessary for making “green” energy’s equipment and infrastructure.

Also, wind and solar systems, the darlings of California’s energy policy, may not emit carbon dioxide while generating electricity. However, their production, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal are energy-intensive and emit copious amounts of carbon dioxide, as does virtually every other industrial enterprise.

Copper for wiring and electricity transmission lines is mined and smelted using fossil fuels. Transport and installation of these systems require diesel-powered trucks and other heavy machinery. Batteries used to back up intermittent wind and solar systems require lithium, cobalt and nickel, all mined with the support of internal combustion engines and often by ethically questionable methods.

The steel of the modern wind turbine and of the massive pillars supporting them are forged in coal-based blast furnaces. The gigantic blades are made of fiberglass and resins with heat and feedstock derived from petroleum. Foundations for these behemoths require vast quantities of cement whose manufacture releases significant quantities of CO₂.

China produces over 80% of the world’s polysilicon that make up solar panels. Polysilicon is often made close to coal-fired power plants because the manufacturing process requires so much energy. So, when a Chinese solar panel is installed in a California desert, it arrives with a massive carbon debt. Solar panel users, in effect, export their carbon emissions to China while patting themselves on the back for their green virtue.

Although direct imports from China to U.S. have been reduced to insignificant levels due to U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar modules, Chinese-linked firms have simply moved their operations to Southeast Asian countries like Malaysia, Vietnam, Thailand and Cambodia.

These nations – and more than 131 solar producers there – now account for over 80% of all solar modules imported into the U.S. It is likely that four in five solar modules installed in the U.S. come from Chinese-affiliated firms in southeast Asia, which depend on carbon-intensive energy sources.

No honest engineer – or careful speaker – would call wind and solar “carbon-free.”

The cost of this green facade is a burden that California’s politicians refuse to acknowledge. California consistently ranks among the top five U.S. states for highest residential electricity prices. As of 2025, the average Californian pays over 30 cents per kilowatt-hour – nearly double the national average. Other areas served by grids with a significant presence of wind and solar suffer from high prices as well.

Claims that these “green” technologies are cheap are supported by a pricing calculation that does not count the costs of expensive backup power and the technical complexities they introduce to power systems. Consumers pay for the enormous costs of subsidies, infrastructure upgrades, storage systems and alternative generation for windless and sunless periods.

California also has been plagued by power outages and grid emergencies, especially during periods of high demand. Grid operators have had to issue repeated alerts, entreating residents to reduce electricity consumption to avoid rolling blackouts.

The state’s so-called green leadership is supported by the deceptive advertisement of “zero-carbon” and false claims of low costs that ignore life-cycle environmental effects and the billions of dollars paid to compensate for the technical shortcomings of wind and solar.

Every steel beam, copper coil, and polysilicon wafer tell the real story: Fossil fuels are still the backbone of modern electricity – even in so-called renewable systems that cannot perform independently of them.

Announcements about “clean energy” are just smoke and mirrors backlit by the glow of a coal-fired furnace in Asia and paid for by overcharged consumers.

This commentary was first published by California Globe on July 21, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Fairfax, Virginia. He holds an M.S. in environmental sciences from the University of East Anglia and a postgraduate degree in energy management from Robert Gordon University, both in the U.K., and a bachelor’s in engineering from Anna University, India.