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 August 5th, 2017 at 02:52 pm
This is hilarious:
A Guardian investigation has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud …
The effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.
UPDATE. Mark Steyn: “You’d have to have a heart as cold as the pre-globally-warmed Arctic not to be howling with laughter at this … I wouldn’t be surprised if Katrina was triggered by Al Gore’s carbon offsets.”
UPDATE II. Click for posts you may have missed over the weekend.
- What! Fraud in the global warming industry?
Say it ain’t so.
Who would ever have guessed that?Posted by Hank Reardon on 2007 06 02 at 04:47 AM • permalink
- The theory behind carbon credits is fine. As long as companies who buy credits are doing so based on genuine reductons by the seller then emission reductions are done where the cost to do so is least.
Now thats the theory – in practice there are all sort of measurement difficulties and problems with determining and sanctioning violations of the caps. This news tends to reinforce this and surprises me about as much as the sun rising in the morning.
- Just to add – Jschuler you are correct – putting a price on something does take the sin out of it and can encourage more of the behaviour (if the price is set too low). But proper emissions trading systems should be based on credits which are limited so that even with companies buying them net reductions are achieved.
- It all sounds like a lot of hot air to me…………….Posted by surfmaster on 2007 06 02 at 05:30 AM • permalink
- Or the ALPPosted by surfmaster on 2007 06 02 at 05:47 AM • permalink
- … in practice there are all sort of measurement difficulties and problems with determining and sanctioning violations of the caps.
Exactly so. For instance, have they figured out yet whether Canada’s forests are net carbon sinks or emitters? Uncertainty abounds all over the place when it comes to CO2 (even beyond its purported level of influence on the climate), but nevertheless there’s been this push to codify rules via the CDM and elsewhere.
And while carbon trading may superficially look like a market, it’s anything but. The simple fact that emission limits are set in the grand tradition of centrally-planned economies shows that up for the absurdity that it is. And of course, they keep getting the limits wrong, with the result that either a) it has no effect, or b) it opens the door to fraud.
You have to be pretty detached from reality to believe that bureaucracy-supervised carbon trading is the saviour of the world and its precious climate, but many bleeding-heart types seem to believe exactly that. Bonus points for those who otherwise rail against “The System” at all opportunities.
- The answer: do it yourself carbon credits – this is how Al Gore manages to remain carbon neutral (while using three giant computer monitors). Monitor 1: He has paid $50 to a homeless person who was intending to buy a personal computer next year. The $50 is compensation paid in recognition of the homeless person’s solemn undertaking to promise “not to buy a personal computer for at least the next ten years”. The absence of the homeless person’s potential computer from the planet will offset the power usage of Al Gore’s actual monitor.
HERE
- Don’t tell me there are cash deals going on under the desks? (Latest euphemisms for bribes welcome; let’s see some creativity). Who would have thought it could happen in government-sanctioned international regulatory bodies in charge of something very expensive but of no practical significance of all.
I think the Planetary Air Cleaning Ombudsman should investigate. Companies with their envelopes accounts in order have nothing to fear.
- The Financial Times has identified similar problems.
Fraud and finagling in carbon markets will make the Oil for Food scam look like a model of probity.
Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 06 02 at 06:54 AM • permalink
- I think that as far as the Guardian is concerned, this is not just fraud. This is the worst possible kind of sin. Actually, it’s probably hard for the Guardian to think in terms of sin, given that it’s a religious concept. Can’t believe in any of that claptrap.
Anyway, given that global warming is holy writ, something akin to scripture, defrauding with carbon credits is akin to raping mother gaia.
I’m surprised that this was printed on a mottled purple background. That would have to be the colour of the faces of the people at the Guardian when they found out.
The outrage! The outrage!
it’s outrageous!
Posted by mr creosote on 2007 06 02 at 07:02 AM • permalink
- But since we now know that the system can be defrauded, we should be thankful that John Howard has introduced a new profit opportunity for us.Posted by mr creosote on 2007 06 02 at 07:03 AM • permalink
- #
Brown Paper Bags from the Tery Lewis* era.Disgraced Police Minister of the Bjelke-Petersen era. See Fitzgerald Inquiry.
- Come on Zoe, we all know the UN takes drastic measures.
They form committees, have meetings, and gasp! send out sternly worded letters.
What more should they be doing?
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2007 06 02 at 07:21 AM • permalink
- #1
However, what’s being described here is classic moral hazard: once you affix a pricetag to a “sin,” it ceases to be a “sin,” and therefore you get more of the very behavior that you were attempting to curb. It’s not that Indian factories are selling these credits that’s the problem, it’s the fundamental principle behind carbon credits that is causing this (see emphasis in quote).
It’s too late to change now, too. I once read an essay by economist Steven Levvit in which he mentioned an Israeli kindergarten that introduced a small fine on parents who were late collecting their children. The result? The parents felt that the fine compensated for the inconvenience caused and so lateness rose, and stayed high even after the fine was withdrawn.
Posted by flying pigs over mecca on 2007 06 02 at 08:56 AM • permalink
- Correct me if I wrong —
(wronwright chuckles)
— but the carbon credits that Al Gore purchases are not the carbon credits that certain advocates describe in the selling/buying scheme. The latter represents the allocation of carbon credits to industries, etc., and their subsequent trading. What Al Gore buys is basically a certificate by a company that it will plant one pine tree that will absorb a certain number of tons of CO2. It’s a promise to do something in the future.
And it’s probably as good as this warranty I received from Perfectly Acceptable Computer Organization to replace my computer if it crashes more than twice a week. Not only has this company not replaced my hard drive, I can’t even get through their labrythine (<– I ain’t looking up the spelling, let carpefraise do it) call center protocol. (Push #77 if you have a problem with the prolificator, Push #78 if you have a problem with the xylophonajibalabob, …). Especially after listening for half an hour, the voice suddenly adopts a Scottish highlander accent. I can barely understand it.
Posted by wronwright on 2007 06 02 at 09:00 AM • permalink
- Uh, that should have read “correct me if I‘m wrong”. That’s, uh, more intentional irony by me. Of a P.G. Wodehouse manner. You know, very high brow stuff.Posted by wronwright on 2007 06 02 at 09:02 AM • permalink
- Just where is that fucking preview button anyway that people talk about? I don’t think I have one. I blame Andrea.Posted by wronwright on 2007 06 02 at 09:03 AM • permalink
- Habib, luck to you! You’ll be in my thoughts. I won’t say what I’ll be thinking, but . . . .
I’m shocked! Shocked, I say! You mean to tell me that there are scammers out there, even some that may still be independent of government entities!, that ignore the good of the planet for personal gain? And they don’t work for private corporations and other big business entities? But I thought Monbiot said in the Hughes article that it is the business entities that we must be most wary of because of their greedy pursuit of profits (while producing actual values worth trading, I might add). He didn’t say anything about having to be wary of those in government (who produce absolutely nothing of value, but do engage in the most useless of activities that use up vast amounts of natural and created resources). There are bureaucrats who may be corrupt? I’m gobsmacked! Stunned! Astonished! Flabbergasted! Hornswaggled! Who could have predicted that this carbon offset thingy might not work?
Having said that, I have no doubt that the folks in charge will tweak the system until they get it to work. And there will be lots of fines and other taxes involved.
- It sounds like someone needs a private detective firm. Might I suggest the good people at Policing & Auditing of Carbon Organisations®? PACO®, the best private dicks in the world. And unlike with the Pinkertons and Chicago D.A. Fitzgerald, when PACO® springs into action, you’ll know there’s been a fraud committed.Posted by andycanuck on 2007 06 02 at 09:42 AM • permalink
- The only thought I have is that the carbon trading concept was developed by a collection of effing socialist bureaucrats. Thus, my reaction is that of non-surprise at the reports of incompetence and fraud. They go together like peanut butter and jelly, or ham and eggs.Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2007 06 02 at 10:09 AM • permalink
- Dear Friend,
Would you be interested in financial security for the rest of your life? What if I said that you too could achieve riches beyond your imagination for little more than the cost of a lottery ticket? I know, I know, you’d say I was crazy, right? But before you stop reading this let me tell you about an amazing secret technique I learnt from a well known American millionaire that transformed my life. After hearing his presentation I realised this was different, this was the real deal. And now I want to share the secret of the Carbon Credit millionares with you!!!
Just mail me USD 50.00 and you too can be set for life using this amazing plan that literally creates money from nothing!
Kind Regards,
Tim Flannery
- Wronwright! How come every time these petty little global warming dramas pop up, so does your name!
And where in hell’s history is Michael Lonie?
Oh yeah, I suppose you’re going to tell us that he’s out on a mission to bring back Stoop Davy Dave and he’ll be “back in a minute”. Well, the Guardian has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming.
And I suppose you think this is funny?
- Go get ‘em, Habib! 😀
As for “carbon credit” cheating, who with two working brain cells didn’t KNOW this was going to happen? In spades.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2007 06 02 at 11:53 AM • permalink
- In true UN fashion they not only fail to take meaningful action they also refuse to name the two evil doers thereby undermining what little credibility the whole charade had and undoubtedly ensuring the complete collapse of their own little brainchild.
Bureaucracy at it’s bestPosted by alien kiwi on 2007 06 02 at 12:48 PM • permalink
- The UN motto. “We’re not happy till you’re not happy”Posted by alien kiwi on 2007 06 02 at 12:49 PM • permalink
- Habib—remember, when restoring the Wirraways being reactivated for budget cuts, it’s tighty-righty, lefty-loosey.Posted by richard mcenroe on 2007 06 02 at 03:20 PM • permalink
- Astonishing, simply astonisghing. How could this happen?
Let nme count the ways:
Inernational agreement
A UN “organization”
Kofi-Anan appointee
Multi-sylable acronyms
Scammers
BureaucratsPosted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 06 02 at 03:23 PM • permalink
- Get yer carbon credits, get yer carbon credits ‘ere!
I’ve got trees and grass and plants in my garden, and if you pay me money they will continue to absorb CO2.
Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 06 02 at 03:26 PM • permalink
- #12 Up here, Dminor, the latest euphemism is “a national unity sponsorhsip”Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 06 02 at 03:31 PM • permalink
- #26 A Conrad Black reference, Andy?Posted by Wimpy Canadian on 2007 06 02 at 03:38 PM • permalink
- Yes, Wimpy; and Scooter Libby too.Posted by andycanuck on 2007 06 02 at 08:49 PM • permalink
- 37. And if you don’t pony up, the wisteria gets it.Posted by arrowhead ripper on 2007 06 02 at 08:50 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Except, of course, under the theory of carbon credits, the very fact that an emitter must purchase them is supposed to be an incentive to curb emissions. So, in theory, it should not really matter where the carbon credits come from, although they might not be quite as effective if the standards for who gets to sell them is shoddy. In the worst case, under the theory, they would have zero effect on emissions.
However, what’s being described here is classic moral hazard: once you affix a pricetag to a “sin,” it ceases to be a “sin,” and therefore you get more of the very behavior that you were attempting to curb. It’s not that Indian factories are selling these credits that’s the problem, it’s the fundamental principle behind carbon credits that is causing this (see emphasis in quote).