|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
The Carbon Credit Scam
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| The Carbon Credit Scam
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| NCMike06 |
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f3...0b5df10621.html
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
Quote: By Fiona Harvey and Stephen Fidler in London
Published: April 25 2007 22:07 | Last updated: April 25 2007 22:07
Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.
A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.
Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.
The growing political salience of environmental politics has sparked a “green gold rush”, which has seen a dramatic expansion in the number of businesses offering both companies and individuals the chance to go “carbon neutral”, offsetting their own energy use by buying carbon credits that cancel out their contribution to global warming.
The burgeoning regulated market for carbon credits is expected to more than double in size to about $68.2bn by 2010, with the unregulated voluntary sector rising to $4bn in the same period.
The FT investigation found:
_ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.
_ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.
_ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
_ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
_ Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found “serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months.
“The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.
These concerns led the bank to ignore the market and fund its own carbon reduction projects directly.
Some companies are benefiting by asking “green” consumers to pay them for cleaning up their own pollution. For instance, DuPont, the chemicals company, invites consumers to pay $4 to eliminate a tonne of carbon dioxide from its plant in Kentucky that produces a potent greenhouse gas called HFC-23. But the equipment required to reduce such gases is relatively cheap. DuPont refused to comment and declined to specify its earnings from the project, saying it was at too early a stage to discuss.
The FT has also found examples of companies setting up as carbon offsetters without appearing to have a clear idea of how the markets operate. In response to FT inquiries about its sourcing of carbon credits, one company, carbonvoucher.com, said it had not taken payments for offsets.
Blue Source, a US offsetting company, invites consumers to offset carbon emissions by investing in enhanced oil recovery, which pumps carbon dioxide into depleted oil wells to bring up the remaining oil. However, Blue Source said that because of the high price of oil, this process was often profitable in itself, meaning operators were making extra revenues from selling “carbon credits” for burying the carbon.
There is nothing illegal in these practices. However, some companies that are offsetting their emissions have avoided such projects because customers may find them controversial.
BP said it would not buy credits resulting from improvements in industrial efficiency or from most renewable energy projects in developed countries. |
Since AlGore's carbon offsets are a scam, I wonder if he is going to reduce his carbon footprint by scaling back his energy use.....? ummm yeah, right. |
|
|
| tourette_ticker |
| A scam?!? I for one am shocked! |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker
A scam?!? I for one am shocked! |
:lol:
The 'carbon credit' scam does serve one useful purpose....it helps hypocritical alarmists assuage their guilt over using tremendous amounts of energy, while preaching conservation to the masses. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
I had no idea you hated the "free" market so much...... Seems to me the entire concept should be perfectly acceptable to a free market whore like yourself....
Maybe this is your way of admitting the "free" market is a crock? I mean how could anyone be corrupt in a system like that?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carbon Trading Heats up Capitol Hill
April 6, 2007
Ken Silverstein, EnergyBiz Insider
Editor-in-Chief
Carbon emission constraints are creating quite a stir in Washington. Convinced that the country must act, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are seeking direction from members of the European Union on how to establish an emissions trading scheme.
Trading carbon emissions is a free market approach to controlling such greenhouse gases that are tied to climate change. European representatives along with participants in the trading program established there testified before a congressional panel that the system covers 45 percent of all carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions while giving industry a reasonably-priced solution to reducing their carbon levels.
"The initial three-year learning period has proven to be extremely valuable ...," says Jos Delbeke, environmental commissioner for the European Union, before the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. "The learning period means that both regulators and companies are much better prepared for the trading period 2008-2012."
The establishment of an emissions trading plan could be critical to cutting CO2 levels. As governments around the globe continue to restrict the release of harmful pollutants, cap-and-trade systems involving carbon will take root. The thinking is that by trading credits, a "price" for emission levels is set that will send the proper investment signals to those who have to decide how to cut their emissions. Installing environmental controls, for example, may or may not be cheaper than buying carbon credits.
In the case of the European Union, it began its emissions trading scheme in January 2005 with 27 participating nations. At present, the cap only covers CO2 but other greenhouse gases may eventually be included. The program runs in two phases: The first one started in 2005 and ends at the end of this year. The second phase runs from 2008 through 2012. Each country has submitted a "national allocation plan" that is now under review by the European Commission.
Currently about half the trading volume occurs on exchanges and the other half over-the-counter, according to Resources for the Future. The market has grown from $8 billion in 2005 to $25 billion in 2006. The think tank expects that figure to hit $30 billion by year-end 2007. The current spot price of credits is cheap, about $1; current credits will expire at the end of phase one this year and cannot be renewed thereby diminishing their market value. The future value of those credits set for December 2008, however, is $20.25.
Can U.S. companies afford this? "I do not think it would be politically acceptable to start with high credit prices," says Ray Kopp, a scholar with Resources for the Future. "Some areas of the country would take a big hit. The economy has to absorb this price rather slowly. We need to put in a program that is robust and that is able to sustain itself. Carbon will be priced and energy prices will rise."
Under Attack
To be sure, Europe's trading scheme is under attack in some corners. Some business groups are saying that government is still too heavy-handed and the added expenses will make compliance difficult while some environmental organization are saying that trading gives a government-sanctioned license to heavy polluters who simply choose to buy credits rather than implement new technologies.
According to the conservative think tank, Competitive Enterprise Institute, all of the emissions allowances should have been auctioned off at competitive market rates and not freely handed out. It also says that the scheme is complicated and has imposed high administrative burdens that are costly to some manufacturing enterprises.
More significantly, the Washington, D.C.-based organization says that European nations are falling short of their obligations, under the Kyoto Protocol, to cut carbon emissions. While that agreement calls on participating countries to reduce their CO2 levels by at least 5 percent from 1990 levels and by 2012, they are failing to do so, it says. The U.N says that figure is likely to be in the area of 3.5 percent.
"Despite the caps on carbon dioxide emissions, nearly every Western European nation has higher carbon emissions today than when the treaty was signed in 1997, and these increases show no signs of leveling off," says Richard Morrison, of the institute.
European leaders have acknowledged that the transport sector is the greatest challenge. But, they add that industry, generally, is up to the task. Once member nations get approval for their emission allowance plans and during the next phase of implementation, they will make critical decisions that include which companies and which industries are eligible for the credits. Under the rules, governments can provide, free of charge, 90 percent of credits while auctioning off 10 percent.
Progress is ongoing. A liquid market for the trading of carbon emissions has been established while the infrastructure to facilitate such activity is functioning. Point Carbon, a market intelligence company, says that such advances along with an increasingly stable regulatory framework have promoted investor confidence. It is predicting a cut in greenhouse gases of the equivalent of 2 billion metric tons by 2012.
"Together with monitoring, reporting and verification procedures were put in place," adds Jean Caneill, project manager for Electricite de France, before U.S. lawmakers. Vital data can be gathered and quantified, he adds, which enables not only more effective oversight, but also a more transparent process.
So, the stage is now set for Europe to enter the second phase of its emissions trading scheme. Both policymakers and industry have climbed the learning curve while the private exchanges have responded by developing vehicles to create a liquid market and robust trading platform. The notion of carbon constraints and energy efficiency, meantime, are now firmly embedded in the European industrialization sector -- all critical to future success here in the United States.
http://www.energycentral.com/center...tail.cfm?id=305 |
|
|
| NCMike06 |
Sorry bud...there is nothing analogous between the current carbon credit scam where liberals send a few extra dollars to 'investment' companies, ect......to feel better about themselves and a system where carbon credits are traded between companies.
No surprise though that you do not understand the difference, OR try to lie and mischaracterize carbon credits and the current scam system. |
|
|
| VacateTheWord |
The Catholic church used to sell indulgences, but it stopped after people figured out it was a scam.
Eventually people will see through Al Gore's "carbon credit" bullshit, along with his doomsday scenario.
So to the Al Gore-ites here - do you agree with your climate messiah that a carbon tax should be levied against every American. Hey, Al Gore doesn't mind - he's rich and can offset all of his trips on his private jet and the energy he uses in his multiple homes. |
|
|
|
|
|
