The carbon credit industry "smokescreen"

[sonorakitch]

Looks like the little offsetting carbon credit scheme some of you are so fond of turns out to be a swindle. I remember a couple threads related to this not too long ago.

Question now, is AlGore's carbon footprint still Z E R O?

~Chris

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Even of the carbon credit industry was legit I would be against it. Producing excess C02 and then purchasing credits reminds me of the drug lords who use their ill gotten gains to fund local schools.

 

[Leonel]

I get the impression carbon credits is basically the same as paying someone to exercise for you.

 

[MobBoss]

Looks like the little offsetting carbon credit scheme some of you are so fond of turns out to be a swindle. I remember a couple threads related to this not too long ago.

Question now, is AlGore's carbon footprint still Z E R O?

~Chris

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

I really dont like Al Gore. Now I like him even less.

 

[mrt144]

problem. al gore's heart is in the right place. his actions arent. what to do?

 

[Ecofarm]

Economic competition for emission efficiency (funded by a federal government) will produce far greater results than unenforceable and non-inclusive international "treaties" (aka United Nations rhetoric).

Al Gore needs to read his old book and quit trying to be a movie/propaganda star. He never did anything for the environment. Clinton and he created a few 'national monuments' of very few hectares (typical for a charasmatic trait leader) and an arsenic bill that everyone knew would not stand up to the next administration/lobby. The last two environmental presidents were republicans: Teddy (national parks and John Muir) and Nixon (clean air, clean water, and endangered species acts). Carter donating the Panama canal to "indigeneous folks" notwithstanding.

 

[azzaman333]

Carbon Credits are like saying if your rich you can just pay us and you can pollute and waste energy all you want, so of course its bs.

 

[sonorakitch]

I just wish I got my hand in this industry before the whistleblowers stepped up...man I would have made money big time...

It is true capitalism to exploit big hearted and small brained people.

~Chris

 

[Hygro]

I really dont like Al Gore. Now I like him even less.

Of course you feel this way. You're a reactionist who has programmed yourself to use all evidence to support your already held view.

 

[Hygro]

Even of the carbon credit industry was legit I would be against it. Producing excess C02 and then purchasing credits reminds me of the drug lords who use their ill gotten gains to fund local schools.

Your analogy's wording makes you more against funding schools than drug lords ill gotten means.

 

[Ecofarm]

Carbon credits allow small business (unable to upgrade to new technologies that meet new emissions standards - right now) to stay in business, while big companies focus on research and developement to sell credits to smaller, less advanced businesses. All in an effort to lower total emissions while maintaining productivity and competition (with minimal communist/facist regulatory tools).

It is true communism to exploit small hearted (no belief in individual responsibility/power) and big brained (western schooled/ivory tower/intellectual) people.

Evidence:
www.*anypublicschool*.edu/tenure

 

[Urederra]

Carbon credits allow small business (unable to upgrade to new technologies that meet new emissions standards - right now) to stay in business, while big companies focus on research and developement to acquire credits. All in an effort to lower total emissions while maintaining productivity and competition (with minimal communist/facist regulatory tools).

In theory sounds great, but the FT investigation found that it doesn't work.

Evidence:
www.*anypublicschool*.edu/tenure

Your evidence is broken

And good luck with making cheap steel, or any steel at all, without using coal.

 

[El_Machinae]

Looks like the little offsetting carbon credit scheme some of you are so fond of turns out to be a swindle. I remember a couple threads related to this not too long ago.

Question now, is AlGore's carbon footprint still Z E R O?

~Chris

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

Could you quote the part of the article you find to be important? In general, I've noticed that's what people here do.

I'm guessing, though, that the article shows how a lot of the carbon offsetting attempts were not effective or people were abusing the system on purpose. Firstly, this happens with any system, and is to be condemned whenever we see it. I'm not make a Tu quoque, it's something we should stomp on whenever we can!

That said, the idea of selling carbon offsets is a viable product and a viable business idea: it's a service. There is a lot of room for mom'n'pop businesses in this area; almost anyone can come up with a few good ideas to scrub CO2. Maybe buyer beware applies (it always does), and that should not exempt people from having their corruption pointed out, but it's still a viable idea.

I get the impression carbon credits is basically the same as paying someone to exercise for you.

I don't think so. It's more like hiring someone to clean up after you. When Boy Scouts go camping, they're supposed to leave a spotless campsight when they leave. When a family goes camping in a for-profit campground, they pay a premium for someone to clean up the campsites and the litter (not that they should be littering).

To explain the idea, we all should realise that the Earth can sustainably scrub a certain amount of CO2 each year. For 'fairness' some people suggest that we allocate this amount in a per capita basis. (I think it should be determine by country, and how much biomass they have under their jurisdiction). At that point, each person has a fair amount that they're allowed to pollute; if they don't pollute, they should be allowed to sell this amount.

It's no different from owning any other asset. The people who should be condemned are those who try to pollute past their per capita allotment without compensating the people that they're stealing from.

 

[EzInKy]

It's no different from owning any other asset. The people who should be condemned are those who try to pollute past their per capita allotment without compensating the people that they're stealing from.

It seems to me that it would be far better for those who are exceeding their "allotment" to invest in finding actual solutions to the problem. The "per capita" system drains resources from the very nations who have the technological capability to research methods of controlling atmospheric CO2 levels. One avenue that is being explored with some success was announced on PhysOrg recently:

The carbon capture technology was developed by GRT and Klaus S. Lackner, a professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute and the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences. The Tucson-based technology company began development of the device in 2004 and has recently successfully demonstrated its efficacy. The air extraction device, in which sorbents capture carbon dioxide molecules from free-flowing air and release those molecules as a pure stream of carbon dioxide for sequestration, has met a wide range of performance standards in the GRT research facility.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, the alternative to paying others to not pollute (or scrub pollution) is to pay for research to reduce your own pollution. As time goes on, it will be more and more expensive to scrub CO2 from the atmosphere as all the 'easy' techniques are taken and as time goes on it will be more expensive to pay others to not pollute. So the financial attractiveness of reducing your own pollution increases.

The goal is to get the world to pollute less; that means you need financial incentives for this type of research to be implemented, as well. Additionally, the people selling pollution credits also have motivation to innovate and increase their ability to scrub CO2

 

[sonorakitch]

Could you quote the part of the article you find to be important? In general, I've noticed that's what people here do.

I'm guessing, though, that the article shows how a lot of the carbon offsetting attempts were not effective or people were abusing the system on purpose. Firstly, this happens with any system, and is to be condemned whenever we see it. I'm not make a Tu quoque, it's something we should stomp on whenever we can!

That said, the idea of selling carbon offsets is a viable product and a viable business idea: it's a service. There is a lot of room for mom'n'pop businesses in this area; almost anyone can come up with a few good ideas to scrub CO2. Maybe buyer beware applies (it always does), and that should not exempt people from having their corruption pointed out, but it's still a viable idea.

I think El we are seeing the beginnings of a very widespread fraudelent scheme, just as I thought. The whole issue of buying carbon credits is a farce, as you really cannot know if you are buying anything or not. It is akin to the televangelists collecting money over TV to "help the starving children"; time and time again they are proven to be ineffective to downright scandelous. The purchase of carbon credits cannot be verified easily by the buyer, and certainly the government lacks interest in probing deeper because of the political ramifications of challenging global warming theories and the industries revolving around them. Only the private skeptic watchdogs can find these little schemes and expose them.

Incidentally, I believe the whole article is important, but I also believe this is only the first rumblings of a wider problem: the carbon credit industry is a sham. The tax credits are there, the big companies need them, and there are several very crafty people that sell a good hearted idea. Put the three together and you get mischief...every time.

We'll read more of this soon.

You and I went around this bush before. I simply think the whole idea is illogical and dishonest. If one must live green, live green. Don't pay another entity to live green for you.

~Chris

 

[El_Machinae]

What do you do, then if everyone must live green? Do you pass legislation preventing anyone from polluting more than their per capita allotment? It can't work. We're best off treating CO2 buffer as a commodity.

The truth is that you can pay someone to live green for you, it just needs to be done intelligently. The sum effect of paying others to live green is the same sum effect as living green yourself.

(I don't deny your parralel to tv preachers, I think it's a good one. That said, it is possible to give to overseas charities in an intelligent manner. Keep in mind, the idea of CO2 pollution is very different from charity)

 

[Whomp]

Thanks for the article since I would've never have seen this.

March 1st I bought ordinary shares in Climate Exchange PLC (CXCHF) @$18 US and it's showing me a US quote @ $30.60 US.
It looks like it's trades London as CLE @ 1425 down 52.75 (3.57&#37

I'm going to take some gains today but I still think monetizing CO2 credits makes sense. What do you guys think?

 

[Masquerouge]

But does the fact that there have been abuses invalidates the principle of carbon credits? I'm not sure.
Should we have stopped the railroad industry because of the robber barons? Energy trading because of Enron?
I completely agree that currently the carbon credit is rotten to the core, but that does not imply the idea is flawed.

 

[El_Machinae]

From the article

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.

Here's what I'm a bit nervous about in this analysis, is how objective the reporting is being. It's no secret that a business attempts to maximise profits, not just 'get a profit' - for some reason, when it comes to Global Warming everybody gets all communist and insists that people merely make what money they need instead of making what they can.

Blue Source was able to carbon sequester and dig up oil, and still generate a profit. I get that. What isn't mentioned is whether carbon sequestering is the most efficient way of getting up that oil from the ground (I suspect not, since there are many older technologies such as steam injection); surely Blue Source had alternatives. If any of these alternatives were more efficient than carbon sequestering, they would have done those alternatives (thus maximizing their profits).

If they sold 'carbon sequestering' credits, these provide an incentive to use that technology. The article mentions only that they could have used that technology at a profit, but it does not mention whether Blue Source would have used carbon injection anyway. Was the system convincing companies to use carbon input instead of alternatives, so that they could maximize their profits?