Not shocking, the carbon credit BS

[Barry Ramey]

Hmm, doesn't Al Gore excuse his energy use in his mansions and jet flying by using carbon credits? What's your excuse now hypcocrite Al and others like you?

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

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html

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

[Barry Ramey]

Hmm, doesn't Al Gore excuse his energy use in his mansions and jet flying by using carbon credits? What's your excuse now hypcocrite Al and others like you?

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

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/48e334ce-f35...b5df10621.html

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

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Barry Ramey

Hmm, doesn't Al Gore excuse his energy use in his mansions and jet flying by using carbon credits? What's your excuse now hypcocrite Al and others like you?

So corporate fraud is Gore's fault. And of course not all carbon credits are fraudulent, but you know Gore's are? BTW, do you know who started the industry carbon trading offset farce?

---------------------------------------------------------------

John Walke, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, told the committee the provision "is so broad that any source that emits SO2, NOx or mercury" will be allowed to opt-in to the plan, including oil refineries, chemical plants, pharmaceutical plants and cement kilns.

This allows credits to be generated even when the pollution reductions are legally required, Walke said, and those credits can then be sold to other affected units in the program - relieving those power plant units of the need to cut their harmful emissions.

The language was not in the original Bush plan, but a senior administration official told the committee the White House favors it.

"We strongly support the opt-in concept as long as it does not dilute the caps," said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

The Bush Administration's Air Pollution Plan
Hurts Public Health, Helps Big Polluters, Worsens Global Warming
The Bush administration's air pollution proposal, which it has misleadingly dubbed its "Clear Skies Initiative," was introduced in Congress on Thursday, February 27. NRDC and 14 other environmental groups jointly released the following backgrounder, which shows that the administration's proposal would undermine the Clean Air Act. Back to the Bush Administration's Air Pollution Policies Index

The Bush administration's air pollution plan would weaken the public health protections of the current Clean Air Act. It would threaten public health and help big polluters by delaying and diluting cuts in power plants' sulfur, nitrogen and mercury pollution compared to timely enforcement of current law. It would roll back the current law's public health safeguards protecting local air quality, curbing pollution from upwind states, and restoring visibility in our national parks. Finally, it also would do nothing to curb power plants' growing emissions of carbon dioxide, the main cause of global warming.

Administration Plan Repeals, Weakens and Delays Clean Air Act Safeguards

Bush Plan Weakens Protection from Dangerous Soot and Smog

Current Clean Air Act: Dangerous levels of soot and smog are causing thousands of premature deaths, hundreds of thousands of asthma attacks, and other illnesses each year. The Environmental Protection Agency and states must clean up dangerous soot and smog and ensure that most citizens breathe air that meets public health standards by 2010. Current law requires deep reductions in power plants' sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions within this decade to meet these public health standards. In September 2001, EPA told the industry's main lobby group, the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), that existing law would cut power plants' soot-forming SO2 pollution from 11 million tons today to 2 million tons by 2012, and cut their smog-forming NOx pollution from 5 million tons today to 1.25 million tons by 2010. (See notes and table.)

The administration plan would delay deadlines for meeting public health standards, allowing violations of soot and smog health standards to continue until 2015 or later. Power plant pollution cuts would be delayed and diluted. Tens of millions of people would be denied healthy air, even as late as 2020 and beyond.

* The administration plan would allow more than twice as much SO2 for nearly a decade longer (2010-2018), compared with faithful enforcement of the current Clean Air Act. After 2018, SO2 emissions would still be one and a half times higher than if current law is enforced.


* The administration plan would allow more than one and a half times as much NOx for nearly a decade longer (2010-2018) and one third more NOx than current law, even after 2018.


* The full pollution reductions are likely to be further delayed, to as late as 2025, because of emissions "banking" provisions.


Bush Plan Weakens Protection from Toxic Mercury

Current Clean Air Act: Power plants are the largest uncontrolled source of mercury, a neurological toxin that threatens the health of developing fetuses, children and other vulnerable populations. Each power plant must install the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) for mercury emissions and other toxic air pollutants by the end of 2007, and then further limit any unacceptable health risks that remain. EPA told EEI in December 2001 that enforcing current law could cut power plant mercury pollution by nearly 90 percent, from 48 tons today to about 5 tons, by 2008.

The administration plan would eliminate the current law's health protections for mercury and other toxic air pollutants. Mercury reductions would be delayed and diluted. The administration plan would allow power plants to emit more than five times as much mercury for a decade longer (2010-2018) and three times as much after 2018 than current law. EPA data show that more than 100 power plants may actually increase mercury emissions, and that parts of New England, the Great Lakes and Gulf Coast regions, and other areas would experience only very small reductions in mercury deposition, and could experience increases.

Bush Plan Repeals Safeguards for Local Air Quality

The current Clean Air Act requires new power plants to install state-of-the-art pollution controls, and requires older "grandfathered" plants to install modern pollution controls when they are rebuilt or expanded in ways that increase pollution output. In areas with dirty air, new or expanded plants must offset their pollution increases.

The administration plan would effectively repeal these current air quality safeguards. Exemptions would not be limited to power plants, but would be available to plants in any industry sector.

Hamstrings Safeguards for Downwind States

Current Clean Air Act: When power plants in upwind states cause violations of air pollution health standards in downwind states, the downwind states can force those plants to cut their pollution.

The administration plan would effectively repeals this "state rights" provision. The Bush plan would prohibit downwind states from pursuing any pollution reductions from power plants in upwind states before 2012. The administration bill would increase the burden of proof after 2012, making nearly impossible to prove that upwind power plants are causing downwind pollution.

Bush Plan Weakens Safeguards for National Parks

Current Clean Air Act: Existing power plants must install modern pollution control equipment to curb the haze they cause in national parks and wilderness areas. New major industrial sources including power plants must not degrade air quality in national parks and wilderness areas.

The administration plan would repeal cleanup requirements for existing sources, and would fail to protect clean air in our parks by ignoring potential impacts on national parks in siting most new major sources of industrial pollution, including power plants.

The Administration Plan Would Worsen Global Warming

Power plants are the largest source of U.S. global warming pollution, responsible for 40 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions. The earth's climate is rapidly changing due to the buildup of CO2 and other heat-trapping pollution. Ignoring power plants' carbon emissions will lead to more global warming and higher costs. An integrated four-pollutant bill, with mandatory limits on CO2, would begin to reduce this monumental hazard to our health and our environment and, at the same time, save billions of dollars.

The administration plan would allow power plant CO2 pollution to continue to increase, relying on voluntary approaches, which have proven to be ineffective. The administration plan would allow another generation of investments in power plants with excessive carbon dioxide emissions -- dramatically increasing future costs for utilities and their customers when the need to curb these emissions is finally recognized.

(Note: The EPA September 2001 and December 2001 analyses referenced above can be found at http://cta.policy.net/currentstatus.pdf and http://cta.policy.net/epamercury.pdf .)

The following environmental organizations published this document: American Lung Association, Clean Air Task Force, Clean Water Action, Clear The Air, League of Conservation Voters, National Environmental Trust, National Parks Conservation Association, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, World Wildlife Federation

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

So corporate fraud is Gore's fault. And of course not all carbon credits are fraudulent, but you know Gore's are? BTW, do you know who started the industry carbon trading offset farce?

Barry is as stupid as the day is long ............but the Bush presidency and the Republican congress hasnt really gave Barry and the rest of the Bush suckers much to brag about