A year or so ago Jit wrote an article about the pitiful mitigation measures offered up by the developers of the Hornsea 3 in respect of the severe detriment their offshore wind farm is likely to cause kittiwake (and other bird) populations in the North Sea.

A few weeks ago some new guidance for offshore wind farm developers appeared on the government website, and it doesn’t appear as though things are improving for displaced (or killed) seabirds.

If you wish to learn more, you will need to be good with acronyms, as the guidance utilises a significant number:

ANSs (Offshore Artificial Nesting Structures)

COWSC (Collaboration on Offshore Wind Strategic Compensation)

LoSCM (the OWEIP Library of Strategic Compensation Measures)

MPAs (Marine Protected Areas)

MRFs (Marine Recovery Funds)

NSIP (Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project)

OWEIP (Offshore Wind Environmental Improvement Package)

SNCBs (Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies)

Reference is also made to various statutes and statutory instruments, including:

Regulation 68 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which provides:

Where in accordance with regulation 64—

(a) a plan or project is agreed to, notwithstanding a negative assessment of the implications for a European site or a European offshore marine site, or

(b) a decision, or a consent, permission or other authorisation, is affirmed on review, notwithstanding such an assessment,

the appropriate authority must secure that any necessary compensatory measures are taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.

Regulation 36 of the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, which provides:

(1) This regulation applies where, notwithstanding a negative assessment of the implications for a European offshore marine site or European site—

(a) a plan or project is agreed to in accordance with regulation 29; or

(b) a decision, or a consent, permission or other authorisation, is affirmed on review in accordance with regulations 29 and 34(3).

(2) The appropriate authority must secure that any necessary compensatory measures are taken to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected….

Within the Guidance, the above Regulations are collectively known as “the Habitats Regulations”.

Natura 2000 is an EU concept, which on the face of it applies only to EU member states, but which in fact includes the UK by dint of having been incorporated in UK Regulations before Brexit and, to the best of my knowledge, not having been subsequently repealed. It describes itself thus:

Natura 2000 is a network of protected areas covering Europe’s most valuable and threatened species and habitats. It is the largest coordinated network of protected areas in the world, extending across all 27 EU Member States, both on land and at sea. The sites within Natura 2000 are designated under the Birds and the Habitats Directives.

To avoid getting bogged down in the detail of Natura 2000, I recommend looking at the map of geographical areas it covers, which can be found here. A quick look confirms that it has potential relevance to offshore wind farms around the UK’s east and south coasts.

The SNCBs are Natural England, NatureScot, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, and DAERA’s statutory advisory body, the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside.

With all that in our heads, we can now consider what the new guidance has to say for itself. The opening paragraph is pretty stark, since it seems to suggest that developers will in the future be able to comply with obligations, not by implementing mitigation measures (which may or not be appropriate and adequate) but by making payment instead into one or more MRFs and that this will suffice for them “to discharge environmental compensation obligations”. [My emphasis] The power granted to the UK government to adopt this approach is contained in the Energy Act 2023, and the plan is to implement OWEIP through secondary legislation and guidance (so watch this space). Of course, we have the last Conservative government to thank for the Energy Act 2023. I criticised it when it was at the Bill stage, here and here.

For now it seems that the prevailing regime must be followed. We are told that applicants “must continue to apply the mitigation hierarchy for their projects” and if it is determined that the mitgation process is exhausted, then they may present a derogation case. If such a case is agreed, then “compensatory measures and/or measures of equivalent environmental benefit are likely to be required” under the Habitats Regulations. Engagement with the SNCBs and Defra, relevant regulators, local planning authorities and other (unidentified) “relevant stakeholders” must continue to comply with relevant legislation and National Policy Statements.

Current approved strategic compensation measures

This section of the guidance is heavy on jargon and deployment of acronyms. The OWEIP “includes development of a LoSCM. This contains measures developed through the Collaboration on Offshore Wind Strategic Compensation”. At this point a footnote tells us that “COWSC has been set up to ensure that the compensation measures being placed into the library of measures are developed as openly and collaboratively as possible.” Important though all this stuff is, the levels of bureaucracy are mind-boggling. COWSC is overseen, apparently at Ministerial and Director/Deputy Director level; it is joint chaired by industry and government; and it involves numerous stakeholders – industry representatives, the Crown Estate, Devolved Governments, SNCBs, eNGOs (apparently they are bodies such as the RSPB and the Wildlife Trusts).

The measures developed via the LoSCM include “appropriate strategic compensation measures for relevant offshore wind activities under certain circumstances”.

This is relevant, because the MRFs (Marine Recovery Funds, just to remind you if, like me, you are suffering from acronym overload) will accept payments only for measures in the LoSCM. Applicants can also choose to deliver measures which have been approved for use in the library themselves. However, the latest guidance is relevant to the use of measures in the LoSCM only.

Developers are encouraged to discuss proposed strategic compensation measures at the earliest possibility with Defra and the SNCBs. The latter can advise whether the proposed measures are appropriate for the planned development’s potential adverse effect and also advise as to the likely required timing for delivering the proposed compensation measure. The advice should be included in the planning application.

As things stand the LoSCM contains approved strategic compensation measures as follows:

First, new MPA designations and/or extensions to existing MPAs to provide benthic compensation. NOAA defines “benthic” as meaning “anything associated with or occurring on the bottom of a body of water. The animals and plants that live on or in the bottom are known as the benthos.” Policy-makers accept that offshore wind farms can be damaging to those animals and plants (see below).

Second, ANSs specifically as kittiwake compensation – subject to this footnote:

This measure was approved subject to the following caveats: it should only be available for projects in English waters up to and including The Crown Estate Leasing Round 4; enhanced monitoring to test efficacy must be put in place by all developers using it; and developers should work collaboratively to ensure larger (and, likely, fewer) towers are placed in optimal sites. Evidence of this collaboration should be included in developer applications.

Third, predator reduction (by way of ornithological compensation) – a measure which “should be delivered strategically with developers working closely with Defra officials and SNCBs.”

We then find more detailed advice specific to each of the three options:

Use of Offshore Artificial Nesting Structures (ANS) for kittiwake ahead of the MRF

As the heading suggests, this section of the advice document applies only until the new MRF is in place. It sounds great – compensation measures, full monitoring and implementation plans, placing in optimal sites, discussion with SNCBs etc – until one reads Jit’s piece and understands how this all works (or fails to work) in practice. Very similar language also appears with regard to “Use of Predator reduction ahead of the MRF”.

Written Ministerial Statement

The section headed “Use of MPA designation and/or extensions of MPAs as benthic compensation” draws attention to a Written Ministerial Statement (WMS) committing “to the delivery of sufficient MPA designations and/or extensions to provide strategic compensation for likely benthic environmental impacts resulting from offshore wind developments”. The advice suggests that developers should refer to it when seeking consent for projects which are expected to have adverse effects on benthic habitats. That being the case I thought I should take a look, and I found the WMS, provided on 29^th January 2025, here. In many ways, the WMS is more important – and certainly more enlightening to the public – than the guidance document, which is aimed at developers. From the WMS we learn that the government does actually recognise that accelerating offshore wind farm developments will cause environmental harms. But they’re not much bothered about it, really. Breezily announcing that “the nature and climate change crises are of equal importance, and we must address them together” they tell us that they “will implement an offshore wind environmental improvement package”. This is what the advice note alludes to. They recognise that there will be “unavoidable impacts” to MPAs, and the plan, it is revealed, is to deliver compensatory measures strategically, rather than on a case-by-case basis. And so we get to the nub of the proposed changes. Dealing with environmental damage by having a strategic approach sounds good. My fear, however, is that it will turn out to be a box-ticking exercise, whereby the developer can make payment into a fund (no big deal, given the profits they stand to make, with incomes guaranteed under the CfD scheme, possibly in the future for 20 rather than merely 15 years), and then they can crack on with constructing their wind farm. Sceptic that I am, I am reinforced in this belief by a couple of factors. The WMS tells us that the library of strategic compensatory measures is being developed in collaboration with stakeholders. Inevitably, those stakeholders include the developers. I don’t think they should be allowed anywhere near this work, as it is in their interests to water it down. I also fear that for all their warm words, the government’s heart isn’t in protecting the environment, since their overriding objective is to build those windfarms at breakneck speed, if they’re to stand a snowball in hell’s chance of hitting their much-vaunted 2030 target. This is evidenced by this little nugget in the WMS, which tells us that Defra is:

consulting on an offshore wind piling noise limit in the first half of 2025, followed by a pilot programme in 2025 and 2026, to reduce the risk of project delays because of the need to limit the amount of underwater noise generated [my emphasis].

And this:

Today I am announcing an action that my Department will take to help accelerate and de-risk the consent of offshore wind projects while continuing to protect the marine environment.

My sceptical mind believes that the word order sets out the government’s priorities – crack on with offshore wind projects, then maybe do something about the harm it causes to the marine environment. Then there’s this:

We anticipate that the total area of new and/or extended MPAs required to compensate for the predicted impacts of offshore wind projects will be small in comparison to the tranches of MPAs previously designated in Secretary of State waters.

And this:

Designating new MPAs and putting management measures in place to protect them will take time. Although work has already begun on this, we are aware that the timelines of some projects mean that they will still be delayed if they are required to wait for MPA designations and associated management to be functioning. Where this is the case, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero and the Marine Management Organisation may consider circumstances in which the adverse effect can occur before compensation is in place….

Clearly, the development is the priority, and environmental compensation is a nuisance that can be worked out later.

Conclusion

The final words of the WMS suggest to me that the government is utterly deluded. Rather than recognise that their programme of rapidly increasing the number and scale of offshore wind farms will cause massive environmental harms that cannot readily be mitigated, whilst damaging the fishing industry to boot, they blithely claim that evrything will be fine, and it’s all in hand:

Alongside designating MPAs for benthic compensation, we will be undertaking a wider review of the MPA network and we will be keeping delivery of the MPA target under review, with the aim of future-proofing the network, for example in terms of climate change adaptation and mitigation, while allowing us to still meet our international commitment to effectively protect 30% of our seas by 2030. A wider network review will also look to provide higher certainty for the fishing industry on the future MPA network.

My announcement today demonstrates this Government’s dual commitment to enabling offshore wind and protecting our precious marine environment, while supporting our fishing industry. The fragile state of our natural environment means that we cannot afford to press ahead without considering the impact on nature—we need to address both the climate and biodiversity crises together.

And then we finish with the usual and inevitably-repeated (but utterly unbelievable) mantra:

Our action will help unlock the capacity needed to meet this Government’s ambitious but achievable target of clean power by 2030, building a home-grown energy system that takes back control and can [can, note, not will] bring down bills for households and businesses for good.

Not for the first time while observing those in charge of the Net Zero project, I am reminded of the queen in Alice in Wonderland:

Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

By Vijay Jayaraj

Having declared carbon dioxide (CO₂) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) to be harmful pollutants, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2009 endangerment finding has been the cornerstone of wrongheaded climate regulation, an impediment to economic growth and destroyer of livelihoods. All the result of rulemaking that puts ideology ahead of science.

Empowered to impose sweeping restrictions on GHG emissions from all manner of human activity, the EPA has been free to impose unreasonable demands on electric generation, transportation, manufacturing and agriculture – just to name more prominent targets. Under the Obama and Biden administrations, with CO₂ emissions being the focus, fossil fuels in general and coal in particular were hammered by this regulatory cudgel.

In the last decade, regulations have contributed to the closing of more than 40 percent of the nation’s coal-fired power plants – one of the most economical and reliable generators of electricity. Job losses hit thousands of plant workers, coal miners and employees of supporting businesses, and both the price of electricity and the risk of blackouts increased.

The endangerment finding was a response to the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which ruled that EPA had the authority to regulate GHGs under the Clean Air Act if they endangered the public. On the basis of flawed analyses, the Obama administration’s EPA concluded that there was such a threat, laying a foundation for some of the agency’s most consequential regulations.

Nationally, the Clean Power Plan, the Affordable Clean Energy Rule and stringent vehicle emissions standards all stem from the endangerment finding.

States point to the regulation to justify their own climate initiatives. California, for instance, has used it to defend its waiver for stricter vehicle emissions standards, while Northeastern states have relied on it to uphold the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program.

Under President Biden, the EPA doubled down, imposing last year even stricter rules for power plants and automobiles, with the goal of achieving “net-zero emissions” by 2050. Notably, critics say that a workable technology to meet emission limits for power plants does not exist.

But EPA ignores much more than the feasibility of technological “solutions.” The endangerment finding disregards complexities of climate dynamics – from solar cycles to clouds to ocean currents – and relies on bad science, including computer models that empirical data have proven false. Even the quality of global temperature records is too poor to support the rule. And though often referenced by supporters of the rule, links between warming and an increase in severe weather have not been found. In fact, there are no trends of weather getting worse over time.

Of all the rule’s absurdities none is greater than the claim that CO₂ is a pollutant catastrophically overheating the planet. More than a century of accepted science has established that the warming potential of CO₂ decreases as its atmospheric concentration rises. This phenomenon of diminishing returns means that even doubling the amount of CO₂ from current levels would have only a modest effect on temperature.

“The models predicting doom from CO₂ have consistently overestimated warming, yet the EPA continues to rely on them to justify its regulations,” says Judith Curry, one of many climate scientists questioning the regulation.

EPA also fails to account for the benefits of CO₂. Higher levels of the gas increase plant growth and agricultural productivity through CO₂’s fertilization effect – a factor in the greening of Earth over the last several decades, as affirmed by NASA. This has significantly improved global food security.

By extension, the EPA brushes aside the enormous contribution that hydrocarbons have made in allowing, through industrialization and modern agriculture, humanity to increase tenfold over the last 250 years. Coal, as well as oil and natural gas, remain critical to the economic development of impoverished nations and the feeding of their people.

President Trump’s EPA administrator, Lee Zeldin, was given 30 days to make recommendations regarding the endangerment finding on “the legality and continuing applicability” of the rule, and the clock is ticking.

Given the scientific shortcomings of EPA’s “greenhouse” rule, the time is past for its repeal. The EPA should acknowledge that CO₂ – two pounds of which everybody exhales daily – is not a threat to the public and should not be treated as such.

This would defang the pseudoscience of fearmongers and the lawfare emanating from the U.N. and anti-human activists and allow a return of common sense and scientific integrity befitting a free society.

This commentary was first published at Washington Times on February 25, 2025.

Vijay Jayaraj is a Science and Research Associate at the CO₂ Coalition, Arlington, 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.