Shell Sold Millions of 'Phantom' Carbon Credits 81
Shell sold millions of carbon credits tied to CO2 removal that never took place [non-paywalled link] to Canada's largest oil sands companies, raising new doubts about a technology seen as crucial to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. FT: As part of a subsidy scheme to boost the industry, the Alberta provincial government allowed Shell to register and sell carbon credits equivalent to twice the volume of emissions avoided by its Quest carbon capture facility between 2015 and 2021, the province's registry shows. The subsidy was reduced and then ended in 2022.
As a result of the scheme, Shell was able to register 5.7mn credits that had no equivalent CO2 reductions, selling these to top oil sands producers and some of its own subsidiaries. Credits are typically equivalent to one tonne of CO2. Some of the largest buyers of the credits were Chevron, Canadian Natural Resources, ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy. Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, criticised these "phantom credits." Stewart added: "Selling emissions credits for reductions that never happened ... literally makes climate change worse."
Shell said carbon capture played "an important role in helping to decarbonise industry and sectors where emissions cannot be avoided" and that realising its potential "requires creating market incentives now." Alberta's environment ministry said the crediting support scheme had not resulted in "additional emissions" by industrial polluters.
As a result of the scheme, Shell was able to register 5.7mn credits that had no equivalent CO2 reductions, selling these to top oil sands producers and some of its own subsidiaries. Credits are typically equivalent to one tonne of CO2. Some of the largest buyers of the credits were Chevron, Canadian Natural Resources, ConocoPhillips, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy. Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist with Greenpeace Canada, criticised these "phantom credits." Stewart added: "Selling emissions credits for reductions that never happened ... literally makes climate change worse."
Shell said carbon capture played "an important role in helping to decarbonise industry and sectors where emissions cannot be avoided" and that realising its potential "requires creating market incentives now." Alberta's environment ministry said the crediting support scheme had not resulted in "additional emissions" by industrial polluters.
welcome friend (Score:5, Funny)
to the shell game
Fraud (Score:5, Insightful)
They were paid for a service that they did not deliver.
Re: Fraud (Score:3, Interesting)
carbon credits is scam.
Re: (Score:2)
It's true it is. They'll literally buy existing rainforest land that captures carbon, and it counts as a carbon credit. They're paying for trees that already exist, cheap deal.
Re: (Score:1)
It's basically "indulgences" for pollution.
It was ALWAYS going to be gamed. Because it was how it was set up in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Carbon taxes > Carbon credits. It removes the incentive to fudge carbon reductions for profit in this way, instead only emissions are measured and the closer they get to 0, the less companies pay. The taxes can then be spent on things like doing real atmospheric/oceanic carbon sequestration by a government that doesn't have a profit motive incentivizing them to screw it up in a way that conveniently funnels zillions of dollars into top management's wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
Companies don't pay taxes, that's just a cost of doing business that is passed on to their customers in the form of higher prices.
Re: (Score:2)
That's only true for goods and services with perfectly inelastic demand:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/fi... [harvard.edu]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Oil is actually fairly elastic. Healthcare probably has the closest thing to perfectly inelastic demand.
Re: (Score:1)
That's only true for goods and services with perfectly inelastic demand:
https://scholar.harvard.edu/fi... [harvard.edu]
While they make some valid points the conclusion in many cases are absolute bullshit. The bottom line is that taxes are an operating expense. If you increase my cost to provide you with a product or service, whether that's materials, labor, or taxes, then I'm going to increase my prices to compensate for that. Or go out of business.
Those who can do, those who can't teach. Some of those fellas need to get out of their ivory tower and try running a business of their own.
Re: (Score:2)
1. "Companies don't pay taxes" is bullshit, it's neo-liberal propaganda designed to make fuckwits like you think that taxing companies is not only pointless, it's a bad idea. It's brainwashing that only works on the most cretinously credulous individuals.
2. Even if it was true, who gives a fuck? The point of a carbon tax is not to raise money, it's to disincentivise pollution. Whether that disincentive is direct to the manufacturer or indirect via the customer is irrelevant - who ends up paying doesn't ma
Re: (Score:1)
1. "Companies don't pay taxes" is bullshit, it's neo-liberal propaganda designed to make fuckwits like you think that taxing companies is not only pointless, it's a bad idea. It's brainwashing that only works on the most cretinously credulous individuals.
Since you can't argue facts you pound on the table, throwing all of the names out you can in order to distract from the truth. To any business taxes are just another operating expense that is passed along to their customers in the form of higher prices. There is no getting around that.
2. Even if it was true, who gives a fuck? The point of a carbon tax is not to raise money, it's to disincentivise pollution. Whether that disincentive is direct to the manufacturer or indirect via the customer is irrelevant - who ends up paying doesn't matter at all.
I do, even while agreeing with your point. Higher taxes = higher prices which for most products equals lower consumption. The problem when applying this to oil in particular is that it raises the prices for _everything_.
Re: (Score:2)
You're obviously too fucking stupid to realise how stupid you are, so I was doing you the service of informing you. Looks like it didn't sink in so I'm doing it again.
Look, I understand that you've got an excuse - you're an American so you've been relentlessly bombarded with even more neo-liberal, pro-corporate, anti-government brainwashing since birth ("tax is theft", "regulations
Re: (Score:1)
More name calling, profanity, and other vitriol, with much of it totally off topic so no reason to quote from it.
In other words, they pay their fucking taxes, and they do it from income they receive.
And were does that "income" come from? The consumer who buys the companies product or service. We are the ones paying that tax because it's cost to the business is factored into the price we are charged. You can pound the table all you want but it's not to change this most basic of facts
Saying that "companies don't pay taxes because they factor it in to their prices" is as fucking stupid as saying "companies don't pay employees because they factor wages into their prices" or "companies don't pay for materials because they factor it in to their prices".
Whether or not you believe it to be "fucking stupid" doesn't make it any less true
And so they should - neither companies nor customers deserve to be subsidised by the government or the tax-paying public, and especially should not be subsidised by employees.
Customers should pay the full cost of the goods or services, including the full cost of materials, transport, labour, civil infrastructure, etc.
Customers ARE paying the f
Re: (Score:2)
No. Scammers are selling carbon credits. There's a difference. The underlying principle is sound - I do ${goodthing} you do ${badthing} and we both cancel out, but just like the concept of the blockchain it is overwhelmed by scammers who don't actually do said ${goodthing}
They did deliver though (Score:4, Insightful)
They were paid for a service that they did not deliver.
They delivered exactly the same service as any other carbon credit seller, the appearance of doing soemthing while doing absolutely nothing.
Re: (Score:1)
FTFA:
> “This was all legal, but that doesn’t make it right,” - Keith Stewart, Greenpeace Canada’s senior energy strategist
Re:welcome friend (Score:5, Funny)
I wonder if they sold them by the seashore
Re: (Score:3)
I think your dead on.
I haven't done enough reading on this or almost any, except for the concept. I did read the very real scam that paying extra for a plane ticket was just going to a rich @#&%s estate and doing nothing. It was a large estate, that they were never going to develop that was used for game hunting for other ultra rich folk.
Anytime, you give the rich, something intangible, they play with it, and get richer at everyone else's expense. In fact that's how rich they are, their "net worth", is
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
True. Although "church" is a ridiculous example. These just have good lies that appeal to many people but are quite obviously all about accumulation of power and controlling what people think. Same for governments.
What makes the oil business special is that they are evil at all sizes and are more openly evil, hence setting a bad example in addition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
What amount of blame do you place on yourself or consuming products produced using oil?
Re: (Score:3)
lol a first world consumer thinking they consume "very little" and then getting abusive and defensive at the *slightest* questioning of them casting the first stone.
You're actually angry at your own cognitive dissonance
Re: (Score:2)
This. I'd up vote you but since I've commented I can't. Everyone wants to feel good and for someone 'else' to fix the problem. Go without themselves? Heaven forbid, accountability and responsibility are the bane for many.
Re: (Score:2)
In my case: No car, use public transport, live in a minimum energy house, electricity comes from water and solar. Any more you demand before you think I can "legitimately" complain?
Re:Oil companies are scum (Score:4, Insightful)
While what you said is true, the same people who are shouting this are still, driving to work, and other fossil fuel related demands. They're not going to give it up, they're waiting for someone else to fix the problem so they can feel good about it and not give up personal benefits.
We already have a real issue with the fact people aren't going to be sacrificial lambs and give up their conveniences while everyone else keeps polluting. So until you're ready to face the big countries doing the most polluting, just come up with better solutions than going without. If all of North America could become completely carbon neutral, but the planet is still going to get polluted and messed over, then climate protesters out here are absolutely useless.
I'm all for a clean place to live, but people need to come up with solutions that don't make the poor poorer, because the rich are certainly the last that will lose their comfort.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the world is doomed then. Because anything that is possible here is long-term in when it becomes beneficial and most people are not mentally equipped for long0term planning at all.
Re: (Score:2)
While what you said is true, the same people who are shouting this are still, driving to work, and other fossil fuel related demands. They're not going to give it up, they're waiting for someone else to fix the problem
I don't have the ability to put in rail, and I still have to get to work. Fuck you for blaming this on me when I need to survive, and I have spent hours and hours in advocacy of superior solutions even though the typical response is mockery.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have the ability to put in rail, and I still have to get to work. Fuck you for blaming this on me when I need to survive, and I have spent hours and hours in advocacy of superior solutions even though the typical response is mockery.
Fuck you for blaming this on me when I need to drive to work to survive. Fuck you for demanding that I need to give up what I need to survive while you're sitting there saying fuck you for saying why don't you do it. Fuck you if any of your solutions make it more expensive for people living in poverty, and fuck you if we're still going to be polluted to death by other countries and you're trying to make us suffer over here, for your own selfish ideals and warm fuzzies that you helped the planet while other
Re: Oil companies are scum (Score:2)
Keep blaming victims, it will cause change ANY DAY NOW
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway you're exactly what I said. You're an 'everyone but you' needs to change type.
Re: (Score:2)
False. I need to change too, but the whole system is set up to make that inconvenient, so I require systemic change before I will be able to do so. For example, I cannot stress enough how much I want to switch every vehicle in our little fleet over to electric, but it's practical for 0 of the vehicles for me right now. I can't charge them, I can't afford them, etc etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, maybe we got off on the wrong foot a bit as that was a reasonable statement.
Here's my problem with electric. I think it's the future, without a doubt, BUT, and it's a big BUT, currently studies shows the average person needs to drive twice as much and it will take about 7 years to start having a lower carbon footprint that a gas vehicle due to the extra pollution to make electric cars, mostly their batteries.
The next problem is, if you replace your batteries every ten years, you're no longer carbon ne
Re: (Score:2)
I see the oil-shills are out in force. You people should pray that Karma is not a thing.
More or less BS? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
how?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the real credits are just as much BS.
Hey look we bought the side of the mountain that nobody would find reasonably to economically developer for 50 years or more anyway; we promise we'll keep it forest for 50 years - now we can sell some carbon credits.
If you are selling indulgences might as well not pretend they are something other than exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
So let me get this straight. If there were *real* carbon offset credits, that would in your view be *just as dishonest* as fraudulent ones?
Re: (Score:2)
depends on what you mean by *real*
When I say real I mean legally saleable ones. My observation is there is a lot of magical thinking when it comes to the backing issuing the credits, to offset a bunch of very tangible smoke stack industry on the part of people who buy them. Some nature preserves have been selling carbon credits too. Why not its good revenue that they do need for their mission?
However these places were not original set aside for carbon offsets, nobody was going pave the rino/bird/large_cat s
Re: (Score:2)
I really think the main argument *for* carbon offsets is that it *potentially* can harness free market mechamism to *efficiently* reduce emissions. This would be in contrast to a pure government mandate that everyone cut their emissions by some percent. The problem is that the marginal costs for industry X might be prohibitive; on the other hand industry Y could easily cut more. So why not have X pay Y to cut more than required? This *internalizes* the external benefits of extra reductions for Y.
Of cou
Re: (Score:2)
You are describing a carbon tax, not carbon credits. Credits are a scheme for (attempting) to mitigate pollution in the absence of government action, such that you can take yet another long haul flight without feeling guilty by trying to invest in something that either reduces emissions (on paper) e.g; more efficient cooking stoves for folks burning biomass to cook; or at least staves off foreseeable damage e.g; lock some forest away behind conservation easements. Taxes make any emitter pay, but those that
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you admit they are phantom credit? Yes. If not? Same thing or worse.
Letters of indulgence (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the obvious difference is that one of these is falsifiable - work can be done to figure out if the 'letter of indulgence' was attached to any actual action that had an effect in the real world, as is the case in this article, and appropriate action taken.
Arguing about the effectiveness of carbon offsetting schemes vs whether or not individual schemes are fraudulent are two different things. On the surface this sounds like straight-up fraud - the Greenpeace article implies that it is legal, which wou
Shrug (Score:1)
As disgusting and predictable as this is, it's hard to take anything Greenpeace Keith says at face value. At worst this means the "carbon offset" was misrepresented, but I think it's right to fund further carbon capture projects. This seems like a sleazy way to do it, but we'll see what happens I guess. At least now I know where my carbon charge goes!
Re: (Score:2)
Well, true sequestration can be done, just not at reasonable cost.
That's why 99% of carbon capture plans involves ERO, not sequestration. Sequestration is an useless technology, better to go straight for the hydrogen transition.
Re: (Score:2)
Definitely a scam (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in, oh I dunno, 2007 or 2008, I was taking a class on Portuguese at a local community college, and in that class was a guy who worked for one of the major investment banks, I forget which. He was learning Portuguese because his job was to go to Brazil to negotiate long term land leases with the government on behalf of big oil.
The scam was that the oil company would buy a long-term lease on unusable land "to prevent development," and for that they could get a carbon credit to sell. Of course, nobody was ever going to develop that land, and there was never going to be any carbon emissions from that development, so absolutely no emissions were prevented, and absolutely no additional carbon was captured, but big oil still got a nice juicy carbon credit to sell on the carbon offset markets.
Re: (Score:1)
Stupid to the Last Drop (Score:1, Troll)
Alberta and their Leader Danielle Smith are so fucking hell bent on sustaining their oil and pollution culture, that they can't see the future for what it is.
Alberta is against the carbon tax any any programs that impede their ability to pollute. Despite the fact that they claim "we are environmentally friendly" the majority of their electricity generation comes from fossil fuel, despite the fact they sit on a mountain range, with lots of rivers to generate hydro, and is one of the windiest provinces in Can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Canada's rednecks. They're an embarrassment to decent Canadians.
Carbon Credits (Score:2, Insightful)
Carbon Credits are the secular equivalent of indulgences, on every level.
Change my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More akin to money laundering, minus the art, or a shitcoin/memecoin, but yes - similar principle.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not: we have harmfully high levels of carbon dioxide but in smaller amounts it not only not bad, but necessary. Carbon credits would be the "perfect" solution to that, were it not details such as granting too many, and giving them to cheating frauds.
The approximation to sin might seem absolute, but that is because we are already exceeding the limit, and in particular everyone you know is outputting 10x their fair share thanks to living in one of the industrialized countries. Whereas sin has no level wh
Re: (Score:2)
Turtle all the way down (Score:1)
There's no there there. It's all make believe credits.
Re: (Score:2)
shitcoins (Score:3)
Carbon credits have always been a money laundering/fraud scheme. The idea that you can have a "carbon offset" for your polluting - discounting any discussion about what constitutes pollution - is about as ridiculous as being able to buy "get out of hell" cards from a priest: they don't have the authority to grant those privileges, and it doesn't do anything anyway.
Shell, the Rob Jetten of the oil industry (Score:2)
Fresh out of school, straight into politics, blabbering about environmental issues without any fundamental knowledge.
While pretending to that everything he does is for the good of the environment, Rob Jetten only makes things worse.
Burning Ukrainian primeval forest in his biomass energy plants just to make his CO2 offsets look good on paper.
The world would be better off without this CO2 scam.
And how is compliance determined ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, I'm not certain if this applies to the carbon Shell actually emits as a part of their process. Or all the carbon that they sell through wholesale and retail distribution chains.
The latter is quite easy to track. You know the number of gallons of each type of fuel they sell (quarterly reports, etc.). And you know the chemical formulas of those products. You just sit a first year chem student down to calculate the tons of carbon.
Well, that was... (Score:2)
Didn't anyone think to check? It's not like they haven't lied about climate change stuff before, is it?
And absolutely nobody was surprised (Score:2)
There are probably carbon credits that actually do good. Somewhere. But I strongly suspect that to most corporations it's a profit center. Significant gain for just a little marketing.
Since when has ANY "carbon offset" been real? (Score:2, Interesting)
There's a reason guys like Al Gore have become fabulously rich by getting people to pay them to NOT pollute a certain bit so that the paying party COULD pollute elsewhere.
Will anybody pay me a million dollars tonight to not kill your wife? If you pay me not to kill her, and then you actually kill her, then she's not really dead and nobody should face any punishment, right? See how absolutely INSANE this crackpot idea is? Just imagine how much money I could make by getting people to pay me not to do somethin
Re: (Score:2)
The scientific theory of carbon offsets is sound. The problem isn't in the idea of them, it's in the execution, which is either backed up (or not) by governments. The governments are in the pockets of Big Oil, so they don't enforce these agreements. Every time a corporation claims it's going to offset its carbon and doesn't, that's obviously fraud, and an executive should go to prison for it. And equally, the corporation should be fined more than it made through sales which would not have occurred without t
yeah (Score:1)
in the abstract, carbon offsets are a possible way to harness the positive effects of the marketplace while imposing an artificial stranglehold on part of the marketplace. If one thinks it wise to suppress some forms of energy using the heavy hand of government, rather than the gentle influence of persuasion coupled with faith in private sector technical advancement, then carbon markets are one of the less-bad ways of doing it.
HOWEVER:
In the real world, where human beings are the active agents, and where
'phanton credits' (Score:2)
Incoherent Reporting (Score:2)
As usual the reporting is confusing and has substantial gaps.
The summary implies the subsidy started in 2015, which would be bizarre since that's was the start of a short window of competent NDP governance.
Reading more closely the deal was actually struck in 2008, and operations may have started in 2011 [nationalobserver.com] (though again, nothing actually gives an overview). As far as I can tell there's nothing special about 2015.
Overall, I don't hate the idea of a massive subsidy to get the oil company to do something, but mak
win/win for the oil companys: credits And more oil (Score:1)