Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

Slowly the “carbon credits” and global warming hysteria is beginning to unravel.

[quote]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 organizations 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.

Additional reporting by Rebecca Bream

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007
ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f355-1 … 10621.html[/quote]

As I predicted several months ago…the next new scam.

Yep, it’s a scam, and i wouldn’t mind a piece of the pie.
I wonder how long it will take for “bob” to turn up and start ranting.

3…2…1…

I see what you mean…

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’
…Slowly the “carbon credits” and global warming hysteria is beginning to unravel.[/quote]

Maybe it’s a right wing headline-bot, automatically parsing news for pointless, superfluous and negative (towards anything sensible or rational) articles, then posting them around the web. One of many, they feed off each other and bastardise the real news cycle.

Hysteria is never a good thing, anyway, so thank god for the report it’s unravelling. If there was a god, which of course, there isn’t. If there was, I’m sure s/he’d be metrosexual.

Al Gore is a genius. Anyone who owns a carbon credit foundation while promoting a “documentary” about man-made global warming is a business genius is my books.

I covered this already on the other thread-TainanBrokeback Cowboys’s Gore is Fat thread…basically, Gore is an investor and director of a fund that seeks to focus on companies with more environmental responsibility. Doesn’t mean he owns it. And, the Republican’s have, as per usual, connected two facts to make an absurdity-and then used that to slander someone they fear. Gore buys carbon credits through another company, completely unconnected to his (unstated, probably not that sizeable) investment on GIM…

As I said last post, there’s two different issues:

  1. Gore has many investments (for profit) and projects (non-profit). Surely you would applaud that, and applaud his hard work to further US innovation and sustainability (GIM’s focus is sustainability in corporations-check the links I posted). All well and good, and if you need further projects he’s involved in, Google is your friend (and his, of course, since he’s an advisor).

  2. a. Riehl, the Republican Blogger used the above investment by Gore to construct a clever lie, that Gore buys stock as his Carbon offsets. Republicans are spinning frantically to discredit GW and AG in any ridiculous way they can to their sheeple. Hilarious, eh TC? Tragic, more like it.

  3. I found that Al Gore buys his cc’s through Native Energy…as I said, the GIM was just another Republican BS smokescreen…
    news.yahoo.com/s/ap_travel/20060 … _pollution
    2.a. JM, work your way through this PDF, and then find something to complain about-it’s US capitalism, with an enviromental focus…
    nativeenergy.com/News/Newsle … -14-05.pdf

from
nativeenergy.com/in_the_news.html
nativeenergy.com/projects.html[/quote]

OK, I made a big mistake. I assumed someone who is an investor and director of a company owns it. Dang I hate it when I haven’t learned this new logic that’s going around.

tsk tsk tsk…impress your friends on the playground with discussion skills like this?

algore trades, through GIM with another company. Same result.

[quote=“Groo”][quote=“Monkey D. Luffy”]
…Gore is an investor and director of a fund that seeks to focus on companies with more environmental responsibility. Doesn’t mean he owns it. …
[/quote]

OK, I made a big mistake. I assumed someone who is an investor and director of a company owns it. Dang I hate it when I haven’t learned this new logic that’s going around.[/quote]

For Republicans, truth can be inconvenient and difficult, eh? He owns part of it, but many of the other investors are richer than him and have larger investments. Republicans should be applauding his entrepreneurship and following suit, but some, with too much time on their hands run around whinging like comment removed by me to not insult Repubs, who are people, too

You selectively quoted me anyway: Go back and read the whole of what I wrote and see that your original post was spurious and needlessly negative. GIM is not related to Al’s carbon purchases, and comment removed by me to play nice, TC…

C’mon Monkey…you’re gonna have me fire up the “Algore is Carbon Free and Fat Free” thread with your aldore pimpin’

I got lots more laughs at the expense of algore and his kneepadders…(a ‘Monica’ reference)

TC,
Go easy on Monkey. He’s a potential customer for your carbon credits business. :laughing:

[quote=“Monkey D. Luffy”][quote=“Groo”][quote=“Monkey D. Luffy”]
…Gore is an investor and director of a fund that seeks to focus on companies with more environmental responsibility. Doesn’t mean he owns it. …
[/quote]

OK, I made a big mistake. I assumed someone who is an investor and director of a company owns it. Dang I hate it when I haven’t learned this new logic that’s going around.[/quote]

For Republicans, truth can be inconvenient and difficult, eh? He owns part of it, but many of the other investors are richer than him and have larger investments. Republicans should be applauding his entrepreneurship and following suit, but the failures, with too much time on their hands run around whinging like communist cry babies.

You selectively quoted me anyway: Go back and read the whole of what I wrote and see that your original post was spurious and needlessly negative. GIM is not related to Al’s carbon purchases, and it really shows me that some Republicans are idiot sheeple to keep parroting that same criticism.[/quote]

sheeple! that’s brilliant. Oh, but not oringinal. It’s sort of ironic that you use the word “parroting”.

Gore is chairman and a founding partner of Generation Investment Management LLP, a investment firm that invests other peoples’ money, for a fee, into the stocks of ‘green’ companies. When GIM makes money, Al makes money. Simple. To some.

Anyways, I’ll stop badmouthing Gore, I don’t want to piss off his devotees.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]C’mon Monkey…you’re gonna have me fire up the “Algore is Carbon Free and Fat Free” thread with your aldore pimpin’

I got lots more laughs at the expense of algore and his kneepadders…(a ‘Monica’ reference)[/quote]

The laughs are likewise, so please keep it up. I’ll try to be less insulting, with the names though.

Supposedly the big guy was spotted on a treadmill last week huffing for over an hour-so there’s hope for a run which’d knock your socks off. 8 years of Al Gore (Nobel Laureate), what will you do? :slight_smile:

Actually, in many ways Fred is correct. But, Bush is such a tool.

BTW, it’s Luffy…tks

[quote=“Groo”]sheeple! that’s brilliant. Oh, but not oringinal. It’s sort of ironic that you use the word “parroting”.
Gore is chairman and a founding partner of Generation Investment Management LLP, a investment firm that invests other peoples’ money, for a fee, into the stocks of ‘green’ companies. When GIM makes money, Al makes money. Simple. To some.
Anyways, I’ll stop badmouthing Gore, I don’t want to piss off his devotees.[/quote]

  1. I’m not a devotee or pissed off, so please say whatever you wish. If you have something subtantive, that is…
  2. Sheeple? Why do I need to be oringinal (whatever that means) when I’m trying to join those two words to describe simplistic republicans?
  3. Your first point was that he buys his CCs through GIM. I refuted that tired point (it’s old…), then you reply saying that he makes money. “simple. To some.” :bravo: Indeed he does, Mr. Simple. He makes money in many many ways. Is that all you got? :laughing:

[quote=“almas john”]TC,Go easy on Monkey. [/quote] It’s Luffy…cheers, big ears. You don’t need to look out for me, focus on helping the thread in whichever way you can… :wink:

Until consumers are willing to pay more for things they really need and spend less on frivolous luxuries they will never understand the true cost to the environment of industry. Poisoning cheap-labour countries is going to work for another 50 years or so. Then what? Oh yes, I’ll be dead by then! Lay on, Macduff!

The article in the OP doesn’t mention once any benefit that has been derived by capping earth-harming emissions, but focuses only on a negative side, that some companies are cheating. What we can take from it is that the system can be improved, as any system could. Emissions are not going to decrease as a result of not controlling carbon emissions.

Being a believer in lassez faire and allowing people to make their own choices, I like the idea of telling people about major polluters and the most economical cars to drive. Tell people what’s good and bad and use the power of the checkbook. People will change their habits for the good of the community over time.

Remember that 70’s anti liter campaign commercial with the tearful Indian (native American)? Or how about recycling? Wasn’t really happening 20 years ago.

Lassez faire simply wont work. When you have businesses with shareholders that are competing amounst each other, personal guilt just wont cut it, and when 99% of people choose a product because its a bit cheaper even though its a bit less green will mean extinction for those companies trying to do the right thing.

Pure lassez faire simply doesn’t work.

[quote=“Tyc00n”]Lassez faire simply wont work. When you have businesses with shareholders that are competing amounst each other, personal guilt just wont cut it, and when 99% of people choose a product because its a bit cheaper even though its a bit less green will mean extinction for those companies trying to do the right thing.

Pure lassez faire simply doesn’t work.[/quote]

Really? What’s your alternative?

I guess these recent “going green” stories are right-wing propoganda…
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/20/ap3635936.html
http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=118001
http://www.greenwichtime.com/news/local/scn-gt-a1earthseriesbusinesspart4wednesdayapr25,0,4295929.story?coll=green-news-local-headlines
http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070429/NEWS06/704290314/-1/NEWS
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070429/BUSINESS01/70428008/-1/BUSINESS04
http://www.dmnews.com/cms/dm-sectors/b2b/40843.html
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/bus/stories/DN-smalltalk_24bus.ART.State.Edition1.3662a47.html
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070423/BIZ/704230340/1001