Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

[GaryC 7]

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.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db...0b5df10621.html

[ELW 5]

Thought provoking, thanks.

[peejay 327]

These carbon credits are just smoke and mirrors to pacify the masses so industry can keep on keeping on with little or no change in their bad habits.

The same can be said of the "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" that is being bounced around Congress too. Just smoke and mirrors to pacify the masses while corporate America can continue unabated in their nefarious ways with little real change.

Sure I'm cynical, but I've seen it all before. It's all about them and not about us.

[Ban Hammer 13,625]

carbon offsets - the new 419 scam.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Slight mistake Charles--there's nothing new about it, and it's far worse than just 419'ing.

[Ban Hammer 13,625]

Slight mistake Charles--there's nothing new about it, and it's far worse than just 419'ing.

maybe i should open up my own carbon business - i've got about 2 acres with woods. send me money and i won't cut them down

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Here's an idea (only for those in freestanding houses): if your municipality (or homeowner's association) sends you a notice of fine for not cutting lawn, just send them a bill for QUADRUPLE the fine, stating "YOU owe ME this amount for my carbon-offsets". :D

Edited April 27, 2007 by CherryXS

[Robor007 0]

To me the article reads that the organizations selling bogus carbon credits are to blame rather than carbon credits themselves. Also, unless I missed it the article doesn't cite any source of evidence to back up the claims that carbon credits don't work.

[Ban Hammer 13,625]

Here's an idea (only for those in freestanding houses): if your municipality (or homeowner's association) sends you a notice of fine for not cutting lawn, just send them a bill for QUADRUPLE the fine, stating "YOU owe ME this amount for my carbon-offsets". :D

[almaty 19]

hmmm... a scam ... i appreciate the education.....thanks brother gary

Edited April 27, 2007 by almaty

[GaryC 7]

To me the article reads that the organizations selling bogus carbon credits are to blame rather than carbon credits themselves. Also, unless I missed it the article doesn't cite any source of evidence to back up the claims that carbon credits don't work.

Do you understand how fundamentally screwy the whole concept of carbon offsets are? You are paying someone else to emit less carbon so you can go on your merry way. It's like paying someone else to go on a diet for you. It is nothing more than a way for a company that has done nothing to reduce their carbon output to be able to claim to be green! If you truly believe in Man-Made GW then this entire idea should outrage you. It is totally dishonest and nothing but a smoke screen!

[Ban Hammer 13,625]

To me the article reads that the organizations selling bogus carbon credits are to blame rather than carbon credits themselves. Also, unless I missed it the article doesn't cite any source of evidence to back up the claims that carbon credits don't work.

Do you understand how fundamentally screwy the whole concept of carbon offsets are? You are paying someone else to emit less carbon so you can go on your merry way. It's like paying someone else to go on a diet for you. It is nothing more than a way for a company that has done nothing to reduce their carbon output to be able to claim to be green! If you truly believe in Man-Made GW then this entire idea should outrage you. It is totally dishonest and nothing but a smoke screen!

maybe i can pay someone else to be a liberal

[GaryC 7]

Hey I have an idea!! Everyone wants to reduce health costs right? One way to reduce health costs is to have a healthier population right? So lets have health offsets!! How about someone paying me to go on a diet? Maybe someone can pay me to reduce my cholesterol? I will jog 2 miles a day if you give me $100/month! I should start a company!!!!!!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Buying carbon off-sets is like paying someone to lose weight. Which it looks like Al Gore is in to too.

[Robor007 0]

To me the article reads that the organizations selling bogus carbon credits are to blame rather than carbon credits themselves. Also, unless I missed it the article doesn't cite any source of evidence to back up the claims that carbon credits don't work.

Do you understand how fundamentally screwy the whole concept of carbon offsets are? You are paying someone else to emit less carbon so you can go on your merry way. It's like paying someone else to go on a diet for you. It is nothing more than a way for a company that has done nothing to reduce their carbon output to be able to claim to be green! If you truly believe in Man-Made GW then this entire idea should outrage you. It is totally dishonest and nothing but a smoke screen!

TBH I do not know exactly how they work. My (basic and possibly wrong) understanding is a company that emits CO2 counteracts it by doing something to reduce CO2 in another way - like planting trees or paying a company to plant them for them. Seems more like volunteering to pay a fine to clear their conscience or reputation but I guess it's better than not doing anything at all. Maybe it would push companies to reduce their emissions rather than pay 'fines' to offset them?