Countries Gaming Carbon Offsets May Have Dramatically Increased Emissions

schwit1 writes: Abuse of the carbon offset system may have caused emissions to increase by as much as 600 million tons. That's the finding of a new report from the Stockholm Environment Institute, which investigated carbon credits used to offset greenhouse gas emissions under a UN scheme. As one of the co-authors of the report put it, issuing these credits "was like printing money." From the article: "In some projects, chemicals known to warm the climate were created and then destroyed to claim cash. As a result of political horse trading at UN negotiations on climate change, countries like Russia and the Ukraine were allowed to create carbon credits from activities like curbing coal waste fires, or restricting gas emissions from petroleum production. Under the UN scheme, called Joint Implementation, they then were able to sell those credits to the European Union's carbon market. Companies bought the offsets rather than making their own more expensive, emissions cuts. But [the studey] says the vast majority of Russian and Ukrainian credits were in fact, "hot air" — no actual emissions were reduced.

Comments

No shit ...

[gstoddart]

It's a market. Which means you are guaranteed that people will game the market for their own ends.

Like all markets, as soon as it exists, someone comes along and says "how can I exploit this for my own profit", and then proceeds to do just that.

And then you'll get cartels forming to do even more of it. Because humans are greedy and dishonest as group. And have figured out that ion groups they can be even more greedy and dishonest.

If anybody didn't see this coming with this kind of thing, they're hopelessly naive. When they brought this in people were saying this is exactly what would happen.

Here's a little rule: All systems which assume humans won't be greedy selfish bastards who will cheat and manipulate the system for their own gain, are systems which are doomed to fail because they stupidly ignore human nature.

That covers all ism's ... economic, political, religious ... if your ism says "at their core humans are nice and friendly and play by the rules" ... your ism is full of crap.

This was doomed to have this outcome from the very beginning.

Re:No shit ...

[Anonymous Coward]

> guaranteed that people will game the market for their own ends.

Exactly. This is why the Republicans had their boy Gore create this scam.

And who was the big believer in carbon credits?

[Karmashock]

Enron for one in case anyone is dumb enough to defend the concept. Don't be that guy. Let it die.

Also our increasingly chubby ex vice president. Happily from what I understand the 2008 credit crash killed most of his machinations.

If any of you are wondering why the wind went out of the sails of this issue... The "Bell" tolled for it and it went into the compost bin of history.

I am a big fan of environmental reform... I just want it to be REAL and EFFECTIVE... not a fucking scam to enrich assholes or get politicians elected.

If you care about your petty political parties more than the environment than you don't care about the environment in the first place.

Real change is going to involve china and india and all the other developing countries that are going to come right after them. One after the other. That is going to require a technological change. Not carbon credits. Just cold hard barrel of a loaded gun with the hammer cocked pressed against a temple... truth. This isn't something you solve by passing a law.

The problem was created by a technological change. Without coal and fossil fuel energy sources there would be no problem. The industrial revolution created a problem.

Technology can solve problems technology creates.

Re:And who was the big believer in carbon credits?

[Firethorn]

And how do you know if wind and solar is cheaper?... when china and india prefer it to coal. If they prefer coal... then coal is cheaper. Count on it.

China and India are installing every energy production method going. Coal, Natural Gas, nuclear, hydro, solar, and wind. That's not even a complete list.

Coal is only cheaper if you don't count external costs. Right now China's setting itself up for a healthcare holocaust, especially if you consider it's air pollution. For example, simply breathing Beijing air is equivalent to smoking 21 cigarettes a day.

But right now China is all about economic growth *NOW*. I also wonder if there's a consiparcy theory out there that the pollution is deliberate - aimed at killing off most of their Seniors early before the lack of young people gets them into trouble.

Basically the same 'freakanomics' that showed that smokers were cheaper. At least if they were low/middle educated - on average they'd die shortly after retirement, for not much more in the way of end of life costs. So fewer pension payments and less medical care was required, even if the 'sharp end' came sooner.

For rich/educated types - they tend to not retire at 65, but keep working, so having them live longer was profitable. Ideally you'd get your educated types(doctors, professors, and such) to not smoke, but have all your factory workers do so.

They would do that?

[AndyKron]

I'm shocked and amazed. I'm also sarcastic.

Re:Cobra effect

[WillAffleckUW]

They did that in Alberta and got rid of rats entirely.

I think you're confusing the difference between Some People Lie and All People Lie.

Make a measurement that actually works, not one based on promises.

Re:Same thing that caused the crash in 2008

[ArmoredDragon]

Anybody who isn't self deluded by the whole concept can see that it's a big joke in the making. So would people take advantage? Yeah, of course they would, just like how John Edward takes advantage of derps who genuinely believe that it is actually possible to talk to the dead.

Look at Al Gore for example; the guy has gotten so rich off of this ever since his term as VP ended. FFS he even sells carbon offsets to himself. And the worst part? He's one of the biggest energy consumers in the US (for example, flies around in his own private jet instead of buying a ticket on an airline, which ends up using FAR LESS carbon on a per passenger basis.)

either carbon credits or carbon tax

[h00manist]

if a financial link is made to pollution, i cant think of too many ways to implement it.
guess it has to be either a payment for polluting, or a credit for not polluting.

one is called 'carbon credit', the other is called 'carbon tax'. i think the carbon tax would have been much simpler and easier to enforce, even if it were very small. but seems like it was a political hot potato, that few dared touch.