As NewsBusters reported Wednesday, England’s fabulous paper the Financial Times has been doing an extraordinary job exposing the scam that is carbon credits, exhibiting an honesty which America’s media sorely lack.
On Friday, FT published another article about this travesty (h/t Glenn Reynolds) which is also almost guaranteed to be ignored by U.S. press outlets far more concerned with glorifying folks like Al Gore, Sheryl Crow, and Laurie David.
In this report, FT exposed how recommendations from the British government bilked companies interested in offsetting carbon emissions out of huge sums of money by advising them to purchase what turned out to be “worthless” (emphasis added throughout):
The first charge against Defra [Britain’s Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs] is that under a proposed code of practice, it has been advising businesses and consumers wishing to offset their emissions to buy carbon credits through the European Union or UN carbon trading scheme. However, phase one of the scheme was discredited last May for flooding the market with too many permits to achieve any emissions cuts.
With so many carbon trading schemes on the market, many British companies were keen to follow official advice. However, the result is that many were persuaded to buy environmentally worthless carbon credits.
Amazing, wouldn’t you agree? Yet, this gets better, although it might require a bit of explaining:
Reflecting the surplus in ETS permits, the market price has plunged to less than €0.50 (£0.34) per tonne, but offsetting companies are selling permits for more.
John Henley, chief executive of MyCarbonWorld, which offers EU phase one permits for sale at £6.40 per tonne told the Financial Times: "It's not a simple case of a gross margin there. There's obviously set-up costs, admin costs, dealing costs, wholesale costs."
Okay, so let’s add this all up. First, a British government agency recommended that British companies interested in offsetting their carbon output buy credits based on phase one of this scheme. One company in question was selling such credits for £6.40 per tonne (1000 kilograms), or about $12.80 at today’s exchange rate.
Yet, because phase one ended up being “discredited last May for flooding the market with too many permits to achieve any emissions cuts,” these credits are currently trading on the open market for £0.34 per tonne, or about 68 cents. This represents a 95 percent decline in value.
Nice trade, wouldn’t you think? Remind you of some dotcom stocks in the late '90s?
Now, given the media’s focus on solving global warming, and the press’s fascination with Al Gore and Hollywood’s carbon credit scheme, wouldn’t it be newsworthy to report how such strategies are failing miserably across the Atlantic, and how the only people benefitting from this scam are the folks selling worthless pieces of paper?
Is that really asking too much of our media?
On the flipside, as the media here are advancing carbon credit schemes as a means of reducing carbon emissions, if they actually ignore what reputable newspapers like FT are reporting concerning this issue overseas, and American companies end up being similarly bilked by carbon credit marketeers here, wouldn’t the press end up being complicit?
As such, don't they have more than just a professional and/or moral responsibility to share these findings before American businesses suffer a similar fate?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Carbon credits on ebay
April 28, 2007 - 12:30 ET by RJAbout a month ago, Noel, I checked ebay for "carbon credits" and got one hit. Just checked again and got five. However, only one bid (for 1 cent) has been made.
P.S. Just looked at one of the offerings and it's for a t-shirt that reads "will trade carbon credits for sex." Somebody has the right spirit about the Carbon Credit scam.....instead of getting scr*wed, you can get scr*wed! :^>
RJThat is hilarious! If we
April 28, 2007 - 12:56 ET by SnowWhiteRJ
That is hilarious! If we can't stop the insanity we might as well laugh at it. And profit from it. Think I'm gonna get one of those t-shirts. Maybe somebody could make an algore doll for us to stick pins into. I'll bet that would sell really well. Thank God someone somewhere is exposing the lunacy being perpetrated on society. AGW has to be the biggest load of b.s since Chuckie Darwin came up with his lie of 'evil'ution.
I want that shirt. At le
April 28, 2007 - 13:40 ET by Lord ElicaniI want that shirt. At least someone in this mess has a sense of humor.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra? Quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet?
I was following you until the
April 28, 2007 - 13:01 ET by Ten7sI was following you until the phrase "professional and/or moral responsibility".
Signed,
Jacques Derrida III, CEO PoPoMo Investing, LLC
A CO2 bubble?
April 28, 2007 - 13:21 ET by acumenA CO2 bubble? Insert Algore bathtub joke here....
I wonder how much moolah I
April 28, 2007 - 14:36 ET by Free StinkerI wonder how much moolah I can get selling carbon credits for the tree I planted last week?
Sounds like I had better act fast!
Well, the only thing I fear
April 28, 2007 - 14:36 ET by MilesDWell, the only thing I fear, is the day when your Dollar is valued in Carbon Credits on the international market, and oil on the market is valued in Yuan, and you find that fifty Carbon Credits won't buy you a Big Mac.
I guess things may start to turn around, when China owns most real property in America, after we were forced to sell it to them so we could buy the solar panels that we were forced by our government to buy from them. Then China will offer to re-open US industries - on their terms.
I hope they treat us better than we treated them back in the 1890s when they were invited here to help build the railroads
MilesD
April 28, 2007 - 14:51 ET by Noel SheppardMD,
Very tongue-in-cheek. I like it.
Of course, if the dollar is valued in CCs, and oil is traded in "petro-yuan," are you suggesting that China will have gone off the dollar standard? After all, barring that, in your equation, the dollar would still be a very important global currency. :-) ns
Funny? Who's trying to be&
April 28, 2007 - 14:54 ET by MilesDFunny?
Who's trying to be"funny"???
MD
April 28, 2007 - 15:04 ET by Noel SheppardMD,
Do you really envision the yuan becoming the globe's currency?
Remember, the reason the dollar is to a large extent the world's currency is because America is the world's consumer. This is why we have trade deficits with all of our partners.
As such, when do you envision China buying more goods and services than they sell making it advantageous for countries to market their goods and services in yuan? Furthermore, when do you envision America actually selling more goods abroad than it purchases? ns
Seriously, Noel, I can envi
April 28, 2007 - 15:29 ET by MilesDSeriously, Noel, I can envision a day when Near East oil is valued in Yuan, when their market does not see stability of the US as consumer of it, and China has cartelized their portion of the market. The US is not taking steps to prevent this...
I can hear the cheers in Beijing, each day, when a grandstanding politician in the US stands up and proclaims the extinction of the incandescent light bulb species, forcing us to buy compact flourescents that are exclusively made, in China.
The consequences of the energy market and environmental regulations that could be imposed by some extreme form of nihilistic leftist government that we could be sadelled with are real, I wish I could think up some jokes about it that would cheer me up.
John Q Public is currently being entertained on the dangers of energy use by a group of folks who don't consider their message a joke
MilesD
April 28, 2007 - 18:22 ET by Noel SheppardMD,
Sorry to take so long to respond.
I'm not with you on this. There are a number of wise reasons why OPEC bases oil prices in dollars. First, regardless of what folks on the left think, the American economy is by far the most stable in the world. This is important for any entity or nation using our currency as a benchmark.
By contrast, the Chinese economic structure is in its infancy. As a developing nation, there is almost a certainty that at some point, it will suffer a bust that threatens its entire banking system, and causes a huge currency devaluation. Can you think of a developing nation that has been able to avoid such an eventuality?
With that in mind, OPEC would never want its fortunes tied so tightly to a developing nation's economy, even one as large as China's. It's just too risky.
The other issue is treasuries and dollar-denominated equities. Given the amount of dollars OPEC nations receive, they typically end up investing in dollar-denominated securities like our treasuries and stocks. This has been historically quite stable and beneficial. Can you predict the same for China or any developing nation's markets?
Finally, you have a liquidity issue. The dollar market is huge on commodities exchanges and borses across the globe. Nothing trades more. The same can be said for our treasuries. By contrast, this is certainly not the case for yuan or yuan-denominated securities. As such, the liquidity the dollar offers OPEC members is second to none, and second place isn't even close.
Is it possible this could change in the future? Maybe, but I doubt so in my lifetime, and I'm 47. ns
Noel, I horse around a lot,
April 28, 2007 - 20:35 ET by MilesDNoel, I horse around a lot, tell a lot of jokes, some of it may be funny to some people, some not, so I guess it becomes difficult to take a lot I say seriously.
Two years ago I would not take it seriously either, the Dollar has been the most fungible and stable benchmark in the history of free International markets of currencies and the things money can buy.
I have worked in the oil sector in the Near East, as you know, and I do see pressure from China to ensure a stable share of the market for them. It is growing. They desire a Far East cartel to protect them. We try to talk OPEC out of it.
But the noise from the US on "get ourselves off oil, vegetable products, no more taking orders from Near East dictaorships, blah blah blah," ... worries them.
Even more that worries them is the talk from the Left in this country to STOP FOSSIL FUEL USE.
Mr Gore is not visiting the Congress to joke around. He is SERIOUS about this carbon dioxide junk. People are listening to this trash, and politicians might start taking steps to limit supply. When that happens, look out, becuase China will grab every sing barrel out of the market that we don't buy.
Unfortunately, Noel, if China one day gets the lion's share of the market - go tell them to stop forcing oil trade in Yuan! Tell China not to make a benchmark barrel of Arabian light not valued in Yuan!
Your idea of "fledgling economy" might take on a different dimension when manufacturing by multi-national companies is all located in China, because Europe/American environmental laws have pushed them there. OPEC might just see this as the new BENCHMARK economy.
I don't like it either. The Near East will always take the US noise about dictatorships, and get off oil imports, and so on. But if we limit supply BY LAW, then I don't have a good feeling any more.
As far as I am concerned, this "respond to global warming" crap has to come to a halt. The public must be made aware that the cilmate will be fine, but our Nation will not be if we start taking steps to regulate energy supply.
We could hang ourselves with that one, and it is serious, the most serious threat I have seen coming from the Left in my lifetime
MilesD
April 28, 2007 - 21:33 ET by Noel SheppardMD,
To a certain extent, I heard similar concerns in the '80s about OPEC and others converting to yen or Deutsche mark. Remember? Those economies were going to overtake ours, too. Remember?
I'm sorry, MD, but America is capitalism. Period. Ours is the strongest economy on the planet, and always will be.
This isn't just patriotic blather on a Saturday night. It's an immutable fact. And, all the discussion about yuan, euro, British pound, yen, mark, etc., etc., replacing dollar as the globe's currency of choice makes great headlines, but will never happen regardless of how we might one day change our fuel of choice.
JMHO. ns
I'm a flag waver, and that'
April 28, 2007 - 22:24 ET by MilesDI'm a flag waver, and that's why I care. The talk back in the 80s were new age ideas new valuations and junk, meaningless.
But as I see it:
limit your energy by regulation = you are not capitalist any more
because the whole thing turns on energy.
Anything dire is not coming overnight, of course, but if one day, MOST of what we want to buy is manufactured in China, and pretty much the same for Europe, then your idea about "strongest economy on planet" might be interpreted differently by different people.
To a lot of people, the idea we are making life uncomfortable for Polar Bears is much more important than China dictating what you will and will not have, and so they might be unconcerned about the label "strongest economy on planet" - it is a matter of priorities.
I for one am concerned that so much of our manufacturing has moved off shore, and if we make laws that essentially force that to be so, my optimism fades, and I am happy you remain sanguine and see no circumstances for concern
MilesD
April 28, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Noel SheppardMD,
Well, trust me, I'm not a blind optimist. I've just heard the same concerns in the '80s regarding mostlt Japan but also Germany. As you likely know, we've been exporting manufacturing jobs since the '70s. In fact, manufacturing employment here peaked in 1979 -- I kid you not.
Does the current green push concern me about America's future as an economic powerhouse? Not really. All the talk is really just so much hot air. There aren't enough Democrats who are dumb enough to threaten tax revenues and their political future on this issue. Will they blather about it to cater to the extreme left? Certainly. But, very few of them are stupid enough to risk their own fortunes on this junk science.
Is that blind optimism? Maybe. However, most of these folks are way too wealthy to risk their own bank accounts. When it comes down to actual legislation and actual votes, we'll see very little on this issue that will have a serious economic impact.
Think about it this way: Clinton was president for eight years. Can you name any environmental legislation that increased CAFE standards, or did anything to slow anthropogenic global warming? ns
This is my ignorant questio
April 28, 2007 - 23:33 ET by RDWThis is my ignorant question. My intuition tells me that China is not playing by the same rules. If one type of economic system has an (un-regulated) advantage over a highly regulated economy such as ours. Is it not a concern to you Noel or Miles that USA is to China what England was in the 20th century to America?
RDW
April 29, 2007 - 00:03 ET by Noel SheppardRDW,
No. What is Britain's economy today compared to America's? Or, as I've been saying to MD, where is Japan or Germany, who both were considered likely to overtake us in the '80s?
In the end, China is just another in a long line of economic competitors that should be watched, but not feared. Do they have some advantages now mostly due to a fixed currency tied to our dollar at a favorable rate? Sure. Has this made other currencies of late, in particular the pound and the euro, gain strength against our dollar? Definitely.
However, pay attention to what has happened to the stock market in the past four weeks since the Chinese stock market collapsed by almost nine percent in one day creating the first global equities meltdown since 9/11: our dollar has declined against most currencies while our stocks hit new highs.
Why? Because in a global economy, a weak dollar helps all of our multinational companies.
Is there any other explanation? The pound broke $2 for the first time in decades, the euro went to new highs, and yet our stocks exploded. And, at the same time, was there any panicky talk from Bernanke? Not at all, right? Why?
Because a weak dollar in a global economy is not a bad thing. Sure, it's not good for tourists going to Europe. Okay. But, as stock multiples increase while our currency decreases, one has to conclude that professional investors are pleased with a lower dollar.
What most people don't realize is that one of the leading economic indicators is stocks. Why? Because stocks do indeed have a fabulous record of accurately discounting future events. Are they sometimes wrong? Sure. But, they're normally right. And, right now, despite what liberal media are saying about the dollar, the market is applauding the decline.
Frankly, I trust what the markets are saying much more than the media -- how 'bout you?
Think about it. ns
Noel. Most of what you say
April 29, 2007 - 00:45 ET by RDWNoel. Most of what you say, I can only trust, frankly because your education and background is far more accomplished than mine. However, I slog away at learning about interesting things. Today I was listening to a lecture from the Teaching Company downloaded onto my iPod this afternoon; it was on the theories of Friedrich A. von Hayek. I understand it… but cannot comprehend the significance.
It is painful to admit this (deep breath) – but I am by disposition an artist who aspires to a rational vision. crap!
I hope you will forgive me for being curious, I am not a poser, I am nothing more than a common truck driver. Believe when I say that that I am rich, not by my accomplishments but by the opportunity inherited from those who defended and are still defending our country.
With that in mind, it is my fears that China is building up their military without constraint. And that by my lifetime we will reap the consequences.
These words fail me.
RDW
April 29, 2007 - 00:52 ET by Noel SheppardRDW,
Nah. Would you kill your best customer? We're China's best client. Why would they attack us? They'd be literally slitting their own economic throats.
If in 1941, we represented 40 percent of Japan's sales, they never would have attacked Pearl Harbor.
We are now in a global economy like nothing that's preceded it. China wants to compete with us economically, not militarily. Their forays into military technology are likely economic and defensive in nature, not aggressive. If you believe that most wars are somehow about money as I do, you should see this logic. ns
I see your point, Human n
April 29, 2007 - 01:07 ET by RDWI see your point, Human nature and all that. But it seems that 1.3 billion potential weapons (exaggeration) is an advantage that some Chinese military loon might exploit. That last statement is pure paranoia, You may be right, I guess China is not very aggressive by nature.
OK… Tonight I will dream like a liberal and sleep fast.
But In the morning I will wake up and clean my gun!
Good point RDW
April 29, 2007 - 01:18 ET by Carl KolchakYou are correct RDW, there is the potential for a tremendous amount of cannon fodder, and with that much cannon fodder, you could do whatever you choose. Keep in mind in the Korean War, they used a tremendous amount of cannon fodder. China will also have a disproportionate number of males to females pretty soon. What are they going to do with all those males, and not many females? This is going to present a big problem for them. That many males could be used for cannon fodder, if they decide to choose a ruthless path.
"I've always been crazy, but it's kept me from going insane" Waylon Jennings
Except for one commitee mem
April 29, 2007 - 01:15 ET by MilesDExcept for one commitee member, Mr Gore's message on his Congress visit was seen as quite reasonable by the rest.
"Limit your (non-carbon dioxide) Pollution" is not the same as "Limit your Energy." This is a different animal. If you really limit carbon dioxide, there is no way to do it except limit energy. There is no alternative.
Innovation improved efficiency and emissions and increased productivity per person, limiting energy just plain stops it.
The public listens to this global warming disaster garbage on the TV. In general, the public are clueless about the issue, but doesn't want to cause catastrophe, so tells congressmen, "go fix the problem."
OK, says Congressman, but the only answer that he has is limit energy.
I do listen to the market. Market is good, I am proud and happy, but right now market doesn't know which direction the political wind will push energy regulation.
If the Iraq war fed up groups, and the Polar Bear crowd push hard enough on Washington, we won't have another Bill Clinton administration. It will look like something Rachel Carson, Ralph Nader, and Sheryl Crowe cooked up together in a Utopia experiment.
You are confident there are enough sane voices to stop it., because they don't want to kill the cash cow. I don't hear enough reassuring voices of mature judgement to calm my anxiety
Comment from Bob Murray, wh
April 30, 2007 - 13:24 ET by MilesDComment from Bob Murray, who built up his own coal business:
Mr. Murray was a coal miner in Ohio, who survived two
mining accidents and built funds from a mortgaged house into a private coal
mining company with more than 3,000 employees.
He expresses concern about the proposals in Congress that will ration
the use of coal, warning of much worse adverse consequences to Americans than
those experienced after the 1990 amendment of the Clean Air Act.
“… Murray had seen the effect of the drastic
reductions in coal production, and the wrenching impact on hundreds of
communities, as a result of that legislation. In Ohio alone, from 1990 to 2005, about 118
mines were shut down, costing more than 36,000 primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have spent years recovering, and some never will. He spoke
of the families that broke up, many lost homes, and some were impoverished,
because of legislation that the environmentalists call a ‘success’. “
(His comments have made him no darling with the get-on-the-internet-and-trash-him crowd. - M. Duvalier)
I bid on the carbon credits o
April 28, 2007 - 17:44 ET by gxa99I bid on the carbon credits on ebay.... 1cent...I almost feel like a celeberty. Now I'm guilt free. I turned the A/C down to 72 from 78 (I live in Phoenix). I may even vote for Hillary....
You won't think your jokes
April 28, 2007 - 17:49 ET by MilesDYou won't think your jokes are so funny when a Greenpeace activist in camo (authorized by the Federal government) arrives at your house and removes your A/C unit for you
Pawn to Knight; Pawn resign
April 28, 2007 - 22:00 ET by RDWPawn to Knight; Pawn resigns. game over.
I may even vote for Hillary .
April 28, 2007 - 22:31 ET by dahliatraversI may even vote for Hillary ...
Let's not get carried away.
If you're the high bidder, how much pollution ability did you buy yourself?
Which brings us to the real q
April 30, 2007 - 13:55 ET by dscottWhich brings us to the real question of carbon credit value. Isn't the real value of any carbon credit the cost involved 1. to absorb the Carbon you produced. or 2. the cost of setting up an alternative energy generating plant in the third world to "not" produce that same amount of carbon you made? How much does it actually cost to purchase tree seedlings from a nursery, plant it, fertilize it and water it until it can do it on it's own????
If an acre of trees can absorb one ton of carbon a year, how many acres does Al Gore need to plant to offset his annual consumption of electricity and jet fuel? Is there enough non forest land with suitable climate on the planet to even accommodate such a scheme for all the wealthy people let alone the rest of the West?
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius