Carbon in court

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on July 2nd, 2017 at 09:16 am

This could be entertaining:

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) alleges car manufacturer GM Holden has breached the Trade Practices Act by claiming that one of its products is carbon-friendly.

Holden supplies and markets Saab motor vehicles in Australia and in an advertisement says 17 native trees are planted for every Saab sold, as a carbon offset.

The ACCC is taking legal action, saying the claim is misleading as the trees would not offset the emissions from any vehicle.

Australia’s ridiculous carbon neutral industry – last year business was up 300 per cent – will be watching with interest.

(Via Kaboom)

Posted by Tim B. on 01/18/2008 at 12:36 PM
    1. Hmmmmm.

      ACCC loses.

      Carbon friendly <> carbon neutral.

      Liberal reading comprehension = NULL.

      Posted by memomachine on 2008 01 18 at 01:26 PM • permalink


    1. Yeah, maybe “carbon friendly” means “produces more carbon”.

      Posted by paco on 2008 01 18 at 01:29 PM • permalink


    1. Uh oh.  Some unpleasant truths are about to come out.  Get your raingear ready.  Lefty heads will be exploding all over the place.

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 01 18 at 02:24 PM • permalink


    1. Lord Goreacle™ will smite the ACCC for their heresy!

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 01 18 at 03:52 PM • permalink


    1. There has got to be a way that I can make a fortune off gullible tree-huggers.

      Posted by Latino on 2008 01 18 at 04:16 PM • permalink


    1. #5 Sorry Latino, I think that niche has been more than adequately filled.

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 18 at 04:24 PM • permalink


    1. From the last link:

      Regardless of the program, you can be sure that for every tonne of greenhouse gas that your flight produces, a tonne of greenhouse gas is prevented from being produced somewhere else on the planet


      Something about this dot-point just doesn’t sound right.
      I thought it was meant to absorb the Gaia raping carbon produced by the flight, not cancel someone else’s carbon production.

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 18 at 04:45 PM • permalink


    1. Mebbe it’s finally time to incorporate the “Extraordinary Popular Delusions” series of mutual funds.

      I think one long and one short would do, to let people put their monies where their mouths are, either way. I especially look fw to the contributions from university pension funds.

      Posted by localharbor on 2008 01 18 at 05:55 PM • permalink


    1. I had a look about a year ago, nearly every tree farming operation (greenies traditionaly hate them, because they tend to be “monoculture” and worst of all, good for the timber industry) had an offshoot selling carbon credits. And why wouldnt they? Its profit on top of what they were allready doing anyway.

      One example of their previous opposition is here.
      However they seem to have gone quiet on the issue since then? Dont want to hurt a nice little earner Id imagine.
      Some highlights
      “..Claiming credit for carbon stored in trees is a blatant attempt by some countries to cheat on their Kyoto commitments,” said Bill Hare, Greenpeace International Climate Policy Director. “This report shows that it is also bad for the environment, leading in some cases to the destruction of old-growth forest to make way for ‘carbon-sink’ plantations…”


      “..The threat to forest conservation will be exacerbated if decisions on Kyoto’s “Clean Development Mechanism” promote ‘carbon sinks’ projects by industrialised nations in developing countries, where gathering of accurate data on forests would be considerably more difficult than in Tasmania..”

      And the worlds biggest seller of Carbon Credits (outside paco anyway) Is China.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 01 18 at 06:03 PM • permalink


    1. #9

      PACO Anyway

      Is that a new subsidiary? Marketing?

      Posted by kae on 2008 01 18 at 06:26 PM • permalink


    1. What about PACO = Publicity Assured Carbon Offsets ?

      Sorry best I can do at such short notice

      Posted by the nailgun on 2008 01 18 at 06:39 PM • permalink


    1. Long-time readers of Tim’s blog will recall that there is an active market in Perfectly Authentic Carbon Offsets. Not to be confused with the completely worthless certificates that you can print off yourself from that joke site, PACO’s are the real deal. For a $100, you can obtain a handsome and official-looking carbon offset on fine parchment paper,  featuring one of Gaia’s warmentroopers vanquishing an earth-ravishing denialist. Accept no substitutes; contact Paco Investments TODAY. Remember: We treat your money like it’s our own.

      Posted by paco on 2008 01 18 at 07:27 PM • permalink


    1. I suspect I am not the only one who regards the ACCC as near enough to a waste of space – and most certainly money.

      Expect the ACCC to come up with all sorts of grandstanding to try to assuage its reputation as the gummiest of all toothless tigers. Priority # 1 for them has to be to deflect attention from the most obvious of all its frailties – its unwillingness or inability to do anything more to the major petrol companies than make them shriek with peels of laughter at its so called “powers”.

      The astute will of course have guessed my motivation for the above bitch. Sniffing petrol is getting way expensive….

      Posted by Wacko on 2008 01 18 at 07:38 PM • permalink


    1. Why is it we seem a minority who alone can see the illogicality of the friggin “Climate change” industry!?

      Is it just that the Medja industry is totally reluctant to say they got something wrong first up?

      Posted by Jazza on 2008 01 18 at 07:44 PM • permalink


    1. My physiotherapist, who has intruments and techniques to create, as well as relieve,  pain, mentioned during my last session that her brother, and also her father, actually pay an additional, voluntary, 4 cents per kWh (it only costs about that to produce and deliver) to get carbon neutral, if not carbon free, energy. Certianly not “free’ energy.

      I said: “Sorry to say this but they’re fools, whilst making a gesture of pulling down my lower eye-lid with an index finger”

      The voltage was turned up!

      I couldn’t believe that I’d actually meat someone who falls for this scam. Hmmm, thinks. Maybe this physio is stupid, then perhaps her diagnosis and treatment are wrong.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 18 at 08:27 PM • permalink


    1. #2 Paco, you’ve hit it.

      We are the Carbonistas!
      We are Carbon friendly!

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 18 at 08:29 PM • permalink


    1. 17 native trees are planted for every Saab sold

      … and for every rain-drop that falls, a flower grows.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 18 at 08:30 PM • permalink


    1. Bill Hare, Greenpeace International Climate Policy Director

      So, this is the man who is responsible for it being soooo cold on Sunday, that no-one else wants to go diving. He directs the climate. He should be fired.

      Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2008 01 18 at 08:34 PM • permalink


    1. #18: To plagiarize Wodehouse, the other officers of Greenpeace should form a hollow square, snip the fellow’s buttons off, break his sword, and drum him out of the fort.

      Posted by paco on 2008 01 18 at 08:42 PM • permalink


    1. #9 but frollicking, you should know that some trees are more equal than others!

      Posted by entropy on 2008 01 18 at 09:07 PM • permalink


    1. Can I buy some “shame offsets” for driving a SAAB?

      Posted by Penguin on 2008 01 18 at 09:10 PM • permalink


    1. #9. You’ve hit the nail right on the head; this is the greatest money-making opportunity ever;the gree(d)nies aren’t completely mad; Paco’s idea is just the start; I can see cottage industries with every backyard having 3 trees; one for dad, one for mum and a third for the carbon; and don’t forget the Japanese option: you send your money away and receive back a picture of a tree; and with all these new trees, if someone can figure out how to covert the increased transpiration and H2O vapour into energy…. I know, heat coversion; oops, already done.

      Posted by cohenite on 2008 01 18 at 10:10 PM • permalink


    1. #15 –

      Those ultrasound thingies can sting like a right bastard.

      Posted by Achillea on 2008 01 18 at 10:45 PM • permalink


    1. Forget the trees for carbon cash.
      I want the Feds to put a couple or three windmills on my place.The landowners at Silverton are going to be paid THREE THOUSAND dollars a year to have dirty great swinging tripods on their land.

      That’s three thousand PER windmill!

      One “former” farmer, is having 250 of the cocky munchers built on his place.

      My place is thirteen acres. I reckon I could squash two or three on it easily.

      I definitely want in on this scam.

      Posted by Pogria on 2008 01 18 at 10:45 PM • permalink


    1. Pogria
      What is this “former” farmers name? Does he also happen to be a branch member of the local ALP? Does he have a nubile daughter and a heart condition? Inquiring minds want to know.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 01 18 at 11:07 PM • permalink


    1. that’ll be bad news for greenfleet then

      Posted by KK on 2008 01 18 at 11:34 PM • permalink


    1. #25 mole,

      he’s going to be a “former” farmer after the mills are built. No need to work hard for a crust any more. Just sit back and collect all that lovely, government guaranteed rent.

      I don’t know who he is. If you google Windmills at Silverton, you should be able to find the news item I read. Apparently, not everyone in Silverton is happy about the windmills. I don’t blame them.

      Posted by Pogria on 2008 01 18 at 11:36 PM • permalink


    1. 27. Found a link to an ABC article, he will be one of 4 getting around, $100,000 a year from the cockie munchers.

      Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 01 19 at 03:13 AM • permalink


  1. 26 KK, Isn’t that article about the same thing that SAAB is catching hell for?

    Posted by rabidfox on 2008 01 19 at 01:54 PM • permalink