US Launches Carbon Offset Program To Help Developing Countries Speed Clean Energy Transition (cnbc.com) 59
U.S. Climate Envoy John Kerry on Wednesday unveiled a carbon offset plan that would allow corporations to fund renewable energy projects in developing countries that are struggling to transition away from fossil fuels. CNBC reports: The program, called the Energy Transition Accelerator, is in partnership with philanthropic groups like the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bezos Earth Fund and will be finalized over the coming year. Officials argue it could funnel billions of dollars from the private sector into the economies of developing countries working to shift to renewable power sources like wind or solar. The plan will create a new class of carbon offsets that represent investments in projects that help accelerate renewable energy projects or build climate change resilience in a developing country. Businesses can buy these offsets to balance out some portion of their CO2 emissions, and the money will go to these projects.
Chile and Nigeria are among the developing countries interested in the program, the State Department said, and Bank of America, Microsoft, PepsiCo and Standard Chartered Bank have "expressed interest in informing the ETA's development." [...] In order to buy these credits under the new program, companies must commit to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and report annually on emissions as well as progress toward the target, according to a draft of the plan. Fossil fuel companies are also not allowed to participate in the program. But several major environmental groups said they are not supporting the plan, arguing the proposal lacked details and could ultimately undermine efforts to reduce global emissions. "Carbon offsets are not an answer in a world already on fire, under water and facing mounting climate losses and damage," said Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "A voluntary carbon credit program won't guarantee deep, real cuts in emissions -- it's tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs as the climate ship is going down."
Chile and Nigeria are among the developing countries interested in the program, the State Department said, and Bank of America, Microsoft, PepsiCo and Standard Chartered Bank have "expressed interest in informing the ETA's development." [...] In order to buy these credits under the new program, companies must commit to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 and report annually on emissions as well as progress toward the target, according to a draft of the plan. Fossil fuel companies are also not allowed to participate in the program. But several major environmental groups said they are not supporting the plan, arguing the proposal lacked details and could ultimately undermine efforts to reduce global emissions. "Carbon offsets are not an answer in a world already on fire, under water and facing mounting climate losses and damage," said Rachel Cleetus, policy director with the climate and energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "A voluntary carbon credit program won't guarantee deep, real cuts in emissions -- it's tantamount to rearranging the deck chairs as the climate ship is going down."
What about... (Score:4)
Decreasing the carbon footprint in the US?
Re:What about... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, starting off with a whataboutism... That's not how this works. You pay poor countries an indulgence, people giving out these indulgences get richer, you've eased your conscience, and keep on polluting.
Oh, another indulgence program (Score:1)
Can we have a "corruption offset program" please?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, starting off with a whataboutism... That's not how this works.
Not reducing carbon emissions and instead buying offsets is the fundamental point being discussed. Just because someone used the words "what about" in their post does not make their post whataboutism.
Re: (Score:3)
"Just because someone used the words "what about" in their post does not make their post whataboutism"
Just like using the words "carbon offset" does not mean any carbon is being offset
Re: (Score:2)
just like using the words "inflation reduction" does not mean inflation is being reduced
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder though: if this program is open only to companies committed to n
Re: (Score:3)
A tonne saved in Nigeria has the same effect on global warming as a tonne saved in the US.
The only problem is that this smells like a magnet for scams and greenwashing. Also, will this really attract new capital to emission reduction programmes in developing countries, or will it mostly displace funding already in place?
Will they do the due-diligence and make sure that Nigeria really does save that tonne, ow will they just pass the buck and point fingers if it turns out they don't?
Re: (Score:2)
Neither. The Nigerian government and the corporations will toss 10% at some go nowhere projects that are never built and split the rest then come back asking for more tax dollars.
See how installing high speed internet in rural areas in the US had been playing out for decades. Except the locals don't get to pocket anything on that scam.
Re: (Score:2)
No, just way smarter than you.
What does voting have to do with the rural high speed internet scam? As if that is such an important thing people will change their votes based on that? What? Are you kidding?
You aren't very smart at all. I have flown high over your very low bar.
Re: (Score:2)
You just managed to double down on saying nothing. Posting AC was the only smart thing you did today.
Re:What about... (Score:4, Insightful)
We need another 169 years of copper mining at current rates to build all the copper windings needed to build all the windmills and ac motors needed for the Green Transition.
No new permits are being issued. Alaska is closed.
What's the plan? Seriously.
Re: (Score:1)
Plan? There's no plan. Buy copper futures is the plan.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We need another 169 years of copper mining at current rates to build all the copper windings needed to build all the windmills and ac motors needed for the Green Transition.
Currently, about 20 million tons of copper are produced worldwide per year. For an offshore wind farm 3 tons are required per MW of installed power (it's a bit lower for onshore). Currently, new turbines have a capacity factor exceeding 50%, so that is 6 tons per average delivered MW, on average. Over a year, 1 MW is 8760 MWh. Thus one ton of copper allows the supply of 1460 MWh.
World electricity generation is a but less than 30000 TWh, or 30000000000 MWh. So to this requires 30000000000/1460 tons of copper
Re: (Score:1)
One of the major parties will inevitably paint it as an attack on American fossil fuel industry workers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure members of both major parties will call this an attack on the fossil fuel industry. That is because this is clearly an attack on the fossil fuel industry.
This is also an attack on the nuclear power industry. Why no carbon credits for nuclear power? Because nuclear power already produces a profit without carbon credits. Why not carbon credits for hydroelectric power? Because hydro power is already profitable without carbon credits.
They need only subsidize "solutions" that haven't already
Far better (Score:2)
To help other countries have blackouts and unreliable power like California.
If even 3rd world countries can have reliable power, it undercuts the green cause too much.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's renewables and there's renewables.
Nobody sane has a bad word for hydro, or geothermal
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
name them somehow I doubt your characterization tells the whole or even an accurate portion of the story
Carbon offsets are a scam (Score:4, Insightful)
So this would probably be too. I guess they'll fund something in the developing countries that was happening anyway and that would let them continue polluting here.
Why not just fund those projects for the normal capitalist reasons of ROI?
Re: (Score:3)
Literally all carbon credit and offset schemes are scams designed to rubberstamp pollution. We need to be planting trees AND reducing emissions, not just one or the other. We are massively overdrawn, it's not enough to just stop spending.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Yes all the glaciers have melted, the hurricanes wiped out the east coast, baby seals and cute polar bears are starving and drowning, turtles everywhere have plastic straws in their noses, and the low lands everywhere are 6 meters under water just like NYC is.
We are already a dead planet and doomed race. It's over. Everyone should just choose their preferred method of suicide. Nothing can be done. We are years past the tipping point.
Re: (Score:2)
We are years past the tipping point.
Sadly, that may be true.
Yes, brother! We agree it is over. There's no point in continuing to save the planet. It is doomed! Let's just party it out to the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes all the glaciers have melted,
Yes, they are melting. It takes a while, though.
I was promised they'd been gone a loooong time ago. Still here.
the hurricanes wiped out the east coast
Overall energy in hurricanes is increasing, the cost of damage is increasing, and not all just hit the USA.
No one said all hurricanes hit the USA. Literally, no one, ever, said that. And if you look at hurricanes for the last 100-150 years of records there is absolutely no data showing increase in anything. None.
baby seals and cute polar bears are starving and drowning
This is correct.
No, it is false. There are more polar bears now than in decades. They are not starving or drowning and literally no one has ever said baby seals are dying off.
turtles everywhere have plastic straws in their noses
Plastic pollution is a problem.
There was a single picture of one turtle with a straw in its nose. Sheep get stuck in fences too but we haven't pulled down the fences. You think turtles are swimming about by the thousands in the middle of the pacific plastic patch with straws poking from their noses? Lol
and the low lands everywhere are 6 meters under water just like NYC is.
And finally a strawman! You didn't disappoint.
What straw man? We were promised NYC would be deep under water a looooong time ago, too. Just like the rest of these lies.
We are years past the tipping point.
Sadly, that may be true.
Bro, you have swallowed and now push a -lot- of propaganda. The *data* of what has actually really happened on the planet does not match the poison you've been fed and now push on others.
Carbon offset... (Score:4, Insightful)
So it's about defering the credits associated for actual carbon emissions to another company, not by actually reducing the actual carbon emission at the specific spot.
But I'll bet this is good for US companies so the can make a lot of money, but not for others.
Carbon offsets, the biggest BS of the 22nd century (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Climate change itself is a scam.
Go away, trollbag.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, by all means stifle anyone who doesn't agree with you by calling them a troll instead of responding with facts. It's the slashdot way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, by all means stifle anyone who doesn't agree with you by calling them a troll instead of responding with facts. It's the slashdot way.
You are right but the problem is that while AGW is real, the way we "fight" it is often a scam. And that's the problem, many folks who claim to be helping just aren't. If you want an example, well, folks on the left seem to love vilifying Elon. His EVs will never be a large part of the vehicle fleet as there just isn't enough Lithium on earth to build that many batteries. And his solar panels require large amounts of coal to produce. You have lots of carbon offset programs which are scams too. Pretty
They will call you a "denier" if you don't play. (Score:3, Interesting)
Where does global warming rank among the issues that concern people today? If anyone tells the truth that global warming ranks very low then they are called a "denier", because denying something is apparently very bad.
When energy prices are high, food prices are high, crime is high, employment is low, public schools are failing to educated children, there's not a whole lot of room in people's minds to be concerned about global warming. But then, again, anyone that points this out is apparently a very bad person for being a "denier".
Pointing out people no longer have the luxury of concern over global warming is not denying it is a problem. If the solution to global warming means even higher prices for food and fuel then expect people to simply not care any more. That is not denying anything, it is putting global warming at a lower priority. If we don't set priorities then setting out the trash on the curb has the same urgency as calling the fire department because your home is on fire.
If low carbon emission energy is so important then why not start in your home country first? Why put other people's energy at a greater important than your own? If wind and solar power is lower cost than fossil fuels then we should build that at home first so we can actually afford the luxury of exporting our money later to help out "developing countries". If we export our wealth to some other country then what are we to do in the future for our energy? Should not these developing countries fund their own energy production? How do we benefit from this? We see lower global temperatures in the future? That's not helpful if we already see rising fuel costs today for producing our own food.
This is a bad idea as it means giving money to some foreign government for the promise of lower CO2 emissions when there is no guarantee they will follow through. We should keep that money where we can actually control what happens to it. This is assuming people simply stop giving a shit about global warming because they can barely afford the food and fuel they need to survive.
This isn't "greed" or "denial", it is survival. We don't have the luxury to export our wealth for this bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Damned? Which hell were we damned to?
Or did you really mean "dammed"?
Good work USA! (Score:4, Informative)
After being one of the few countries to not ratify the Paris accord you now promote a carbon offset program right as COP27 has on their main agenda abolishing or massively scaling back carbon offset programs as they are largely used for greenwashing.
Once again showing the USA is roughly 10 years behind in actual discussions of what to do about the environment *facepalm*.
Re: (Score:2)
After being one of the few countries to not ratify the Paris accord you now promote a carbon offset program right as COP27 has on their main agenda abolishing or massively scaling back carbon offset programs as they are largely used for greenwashing.
Once again showing the USA is roughly 10 years behind in actual discussions of what to do about the environment *facepalm*.
Leave politics out of this. Politics is the problem here. Carbon offsets are a scam. But so is Germany's energy policy. Glasshouses and stones. Solutions not hot takes.
Re: (Score:2)
Leave politics out of this.
There's no politics in my post. The failings of the USA to meaningfully engage in the climate debate is bipartisan.
But so is Germany's energy policy. Glasshouses and stones.
Who gives a shit about Germany, the article is about the USA introducing a policy during the COP27 summit that the COP27 summit is currently criticising. If you want to go throw stones at Germany then go ahead, but don't claim it as some defence of the USA, otherwise you're just demonstrating pointless whataboutism supporting a race to the bottom.
If (Score:1)
If it's implemented correctly, a carbon offset program can help green investments go wherever they do the most marginal good. If there's a sunny, windy place without much capital but with a lot of potential manual labor that could build solar and wind infrastructure, building there would potentially do more good than putting a solar panel on another roof in Germany.
I hear a lot of criticism about carbon offsets. Maybe they have not been administered fairly overall in the past. Just because there's room f
Scam, of course (Score:3)
The idea here is to tax the American people secretly through higher prices due to carbon tax, but send the money to third world corrupt leaders who will pocket it, not do anything useful, instead of using it for real capital improvement in the US.
Then, using creative accounting, statistics will show that US corporations have reduced their carbon footprint, when in fact they haven't.
Ultimately, it just comes down to 3rd world corrupt leaders secretly fleecing Americans. No wonder Nigeria is interested.
Oh look! (Score:2)
Carbon offsets are scams (Score:1)
Enron redux (Score:2)
Enron built the business model - they pioneered it with energy futures contracts in which people did not buy and sell actual energy in the here-and-now, but rather bought [and often sold] energy somebody else would produce in the future, with the Enron folks making money without making energy [or anything, actually] and backed-up by nothing. While they were flying high and still thought of positively by elites, they came up with an even better scam: futures in pollution NOT produced (carbon offsets) which a