Carbon credit update

[BobK]

Saw an interesting item in the Financial Times (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html)
Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

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.

Looks like it's going to turn into quite a boondoggle.

[Mephisto]

Looks like it's going to turn into quite a boondoggle.

"Going Green" is big business for companies cashing in on the fear factor of global warming, and there are plenty of people lined up to make a buck off it and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them are driving Cadillac Escalades, or Lincoln Navigators.

[a_unique_person]

■ Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.





If people are being defrauded, that is illegal and should be dealt appropriately. No indication what percentage of the trade this actually makes up.




■ 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.



And? Proponents of reducing GHGs through modernisation and efficiencies have already said that doing this will be beneficial by itself, despite the repeated rants about reducing GHGs only increasing costs.



■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.



Point 1 again.





■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.



Point 1 again.



■ 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.




Point 1 again.

There are only two points made here. The process of trading carbon credits has to be open and transparent to prevent fraud, with fraudulent activity being policed.

Companies that reduce GHGs can make money twice, by being more efficient, and gain by selling carbon credits.

[Geckko]

Proponents of reducing GHGs through modernisation and efficiencies have already said that doing this will be beneficial by itself, despite the repeated rants about reducing GHGs only increasing costs.

I don't think that conclusion follows. If anything it is probably the other way around.

i.e.

Where there are efficiency gains companies seem to take them with no additional incentive or enforcement required.

Those that don't do so because they would find no benefit or incur additional cost by doing so. Enforcing reductions on this group would increase costs and reduce efficiency.

[Fronzel]

I think we should focus more on making our industrial processes and product green instead of living how we want and planting trees to salve our conscience.

[mhaze]

Carbon credits or carbon cons?

[Earthborn]

The article does nothing to distinguish between carbon credits and carbon offsets. They are not the same thing.

[The Painter]

I believe Al Gore owns one of these companies or is invested in one of them. He wouldn’t scam people would he? Well, he is a politician.

[rtalman]

If people are being defrauded, that is illegal and should be dealt appropriately. No indication what percentage of the trade this actually makes up.

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.5.8%

[a_unique_person]

No, I was asking what is the percentage that is fraudulent. If you shut down every market that had fraudulent activity happening in it, there wouldn't be any operating at all.

[mhaze]

Some markets, like those of pyramid schemes and carbon credits, should just be shut down.

Wait a minute- Maybe the carbon credits could be run by Vegas bookmakers...

[BobK]

It seems that as in the previous year, carbon credits will soon reach their true market value.

EU ETS (http://euets.com/index.php?page=news&newsid=57&l=1)
1,177,500 EUAs from the Hungarian Government sold today for € 0.88 per tonne


Budapest and Amsterdam – 26 March 2007 – Today an auction of EUAs for the Hungarian Government took place on the Climex Auction Platform. A total of 1,177,500 emission allowances were on offer in this second electronic auction. Buyers have been bidding a volume of 2.4 million EUAs and the total volume offered for sale was sold, for a price of € 0.88 per tonne.


This was the second EUA auction coordinated by Vertis Environmental Finance on the Climex Platform. The previous one took place on 11 December 2006 and sold a total of 1.197 million EUAs for a price of € 7.42 per tonne.

[FarmallMTA]

"Going Green" is big business for companies cashing in on the fear factor of global warming, and there are plenty of people lined up to make a buck off it and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of them are driving Cadillac Escalades, or Lincoln Navigators.

*FarmallMTA waves hand in air and smiles while I fire up a nice fat carbon-rich stogie.*

It's okay. I bought some carbon credits from an abortion clinic that's now grinding foetuses into dog food instead of incinerating them as formerly. You can all go away feeling good about this.