Corporations Invested in Carbon Offsets That Were 'Likely Junk', Analysis Says (theguardian.com) 48
Some of the world's most profitable -- and most polluting corporations -- have invested in carbon offset projects that have fundamental failings and are "probably junk," suggesting industry claims about greenhouse gas reductions were likely overblown, according to new analysis. From a report: Delta, Gucci, Volkswagen, ExxonMobil, Disney, easyJet and Nestle are among the major corporations to have purchased millions of carbon credits from climate friendly projects that are "likely junk" or worthless when it comes to offsetting their greenhouse gas emissions, according to a classification system developed by Corporate Accountability, a non-profit, transnational corporate watchdog. Some of these companies no longer use CO2 offsets amid mounting evidence that carbon trading do not lead to the claimed emissions cuts -- and in some cases may even cause environmental and social harms.
However, the multibillion-dollar voluntary carbon trading industry is still championed by many corporations including oil and gas majors, airlines, automakers, tourism, fast-food and beverage brands, fashion houses, banks and tech firms as the bedrock of climate action -- a way of claiming to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint while continuing to rely on fossil fuels and unsustainable supply chains. Yet, for 33 of the top 50 corporate buyers, more than a third of their entire offsets portfolio is "likely junk" -- suggesting at least some claims about carbon neutrality and emission reductions have been exaggerated according to the analysis. The fundamental failings leading to a "likely junk" ranking include whether emissions cuts would have happened anyway, as is often the case with large hydroelectric dams, or if the emissions were just shifted elsewhere, a common issue in forestry offset projects.
However, the multibillion-dollar voluntary carbon trading industry is still championed by many corporations including oil and gas majors, airlines, automakers, tourism, fast-food and beverage brands, fashion houses, banks and tech firms as the bedrock of climate action -- a way of claiming to reduce their greenhouse gas footprint while continuing to rely on fossil fuels and unsustainable supply chains. Yet, for 33 of the top 50 corporate buyers, more than a third of their entire offsets portfolio is "likely junk" -- suggesting at least some claims about carbon neutrality and emission reductions have been exaggerated according to the analysis. The fundamental failings leading to a "likely junk" ranking include whether emissions cuts would have happened anyway, as is often the case with large hydroelectric dams, or if the emissions were just shifted elsewhere, a common issue in forestry offset projects.
Carbon Offsets (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been hearing a lot about carbon offsets from an industry group I'm in. Apparently carbon quotas related to business travel and purchasing offsets is becoming quite common. Have not seen this gain traction in the U.S.
An individual mentioned he purchased them when he traveled for his own purposes. I looked in to it because I would rather do something voluntarily than have more regulations, but I was not comfortable with what I found. Some of the places claim to have audit reports, but they're highlighted in a way that's most friendly to people who aren't familiar with audit reports. Show me the actual report, what controls were tested, and at least some indication of the outcome and maybe I would consider it.
The services just reek of scams. You're sending them money and receiving nothing in return. There needs to be robust evidence that the money is being used properly for me to consider that.
Re:Carbon Offsets (Score:5, Funny)
I've been hearing a lot about carbon offsets from an industry group I'm in. Apparently carbon quotas related to business travel and purchasing offsets is becoming quite common. Have not seen this gain traction in the U.S.
An individual mentioned he purchased them when he traveled for his own purposes. I looked in to it because I would rather do something voluntarily than have more regulations, but I was not comfortable with what I found. Some of the places claim to have audit reports, but they're highlighted in a way that's most friendly to people who aren't familiar with audit reports. Show me the actual report, what controls were tested, and at least some indication of the outcome and maybe I would consider it.
The services just reek of scams. You're sending them money and receiving nothing in return. There needs to be robust evidence that the money is being used properly for me to consider that.
You are receiving exactly what you paid for - dispensation for your sins.
Re: (Score:2)
What they paid for was, supposedly, disposal. Dispensation through disposal wouldn't be bad, if that's what actually happened.
Too bad the carbon disposal market is filled with scammers. I wonder how much of it is fronts for the fossil fuel industry to recycle the money back to themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon offsets are a great idea in principle since they (in theory) allow carbon to be reduced where it's most effective to do so.
In practice, they are the epitome of regulatory capture and the triumph of marketing over reality.
Re: (Score:3)
In practice, they are the epitome of regulatory capture and the triumph of marketing over reality.
Gee - that reads rather like a description of the business models of most Fortune 500 companies.
Re:Carbon Offsets (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Carbon offsets were designed from the ground up as a PR initiative. They served their intended purpose, the suppression of carbon taxes. And they served that purpose well. But that was all they were designed to do.
Re:Carbon Offsets (Score:4, Insightful)
Carbon offsets were pushed because they are easier to cheat than a carbon tax. In principle they would work even better than a carbon tax, were it not for the fact that the whole point of choosing them was greenwashing with a side of embezzlement.
Of course, a carbon tax with the money being invested in CO2 reduction would be just as good as an unsabotaged carbon offset, and much harder to cheat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Carbon Offsets (Score:5, Insightful)
The services just reek of scams. You're sending them money and receiving nothing in return. There needs to be robust evidence that the money is being used properly for me to consider that.
That's because this has been pushed, in my opinion desperately, by every company including car companies, power producers, airlines, etc, to give politicans any alterative to a carbon tax which is the actual solution.
Funny how corporations all support the rules of capitalism but the capitalist solution to climate change everyone is seemingly terrified of.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how corporations all support the rules of capitalism but the capitalist solution to climate change everyone is seemingly terrified of.
What rules of capitalism do you believe require a specific solution to climate change? Capitalism is simply the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Capitalism as a concept is just fine with any outcome, including allowing climate change to accelerate unchecked.
There are many forms of capitalism in practice, and anyone who advocates for a pure laissez-faire form of capitalism is going to be against any outside intervention preventing the owners of capital from exertin
Re: (Score:2)
So anyone supporting a laissez-faire form of capitalism is absolutely consistent when arguing against carbon taxes. The "rules of capitalism" are just fine with letting the world burn.
The idea that markets and private actors can solve any problem even though there is no real way to account for negative externalities, it's one of those things that ripped me out from the grasp of libertarianism, just another thing there was no good answer to. "Just sue the polluters" is the most common and if you think about it for more than 5 seconds it falls apart.
That's why a carbon tax is supported by a majority of econonmists, both right and left wing. Markets can solve most problem, with the right
Re: (Score:2)
Capitalist in the sense of "the current economic system based on circulating money", which can be modified very simply with taxes.
A tax-based solution is thus conservative (preserving as much as possible, minimally disruptive to the existing system) and also capitalist.
Contrast that with the common conception of communism which is of a radically disruptive solution that abolishes money entirely.
Re: (Score:2)
The "rules of capitalism" are just fine with letting the world burn.
True. The "rules of capitalism" are equally find with carbon neutrality. Capitalism isn't the problem. Pollution is, and could just as easily caused be caused or fixed under any economic model with "easily" being a relative term.
One of the original NFTs. (Score:3)
Re:One of the original NFTs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. It's actually modern indulgences. You pay to a Green priest to forgive your carbon sins.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly well said.
Re:One of the original NFTs. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, a fake green priest. But a lot of the indulgences were fakes too (as in not authorized by the pope), so I guess that's still appropriate.
Re: One of the original NFTs. (Score:2)
All priests are fake.
Re: (Score:2)
Priest is professional who is an expert in harnessing religious impulse in other people. Green cult's priests are very good at doing just that.
You're stuck on Christianity. Christianity is far from the only religion that has indulgences in one form or another. Scape goat, the original (as far as we know) idea of indulgences was an Animist idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. It's actually modern indulgences. You pay to a Green priest to forgive your carbon sins.
When one loophole scam does nothing but offset another scam, it’s just Greed N. Corruption doing the predictable.
Gee, you mean those abusing the concept of carbon credits, found a scam on the other side of that scam coin? I’m fucking shocked. /s
Re: (Score:2)
Except that of course, that's not what happening here. Most people who evangelize about importance of fighting climate change, and are true believers actively talk about how their upper class living standards are acceptable because they found a way to offset it.
This isn't some kind of scam. These are true believers who constantly put their money into their faith when they don't need to.
Re: One of the original NFTs. (Score:2)
I was about to argue for the NFTs by saying that some of the trees or forests used as offsets have burnt down, which is different from NFTs, but then I realized that in both cases the investors are burnt and that no real work is done.
Carbon offsets are bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)
Carbon Offsets: The Bullshit Equivalent of Lighting Money on Fire
In the grand shitshow that is our collective approach to climate change, carbon offsets have earned their place as the ass-end of the joke. These so-called "green passes," sold by the smarmy, self-satisfied suits at Big Green, are proving less effective at combating global warming than a fart in a hurricane.
Carbon offsets, or as we like to call them, "Get Out of Climate Jail Free cards," are the latest scam corporations are using to keep pumping shit into our atmosphere while pretending they give a fuck about Mother Earth. It's like setting your house on fire, then buying a fire extinguisher as an "offset."
"Behold our commitment to the environment," these corporate giants proclaim, while their factories belch out more smoke than a 70's rock concert. The only thing they're committed to is stuffing their pockets with the green of our money, not the green of our planet.
And let's not gloss over the nonsense projects these offsets are supposedly funding. From tree planting initiatives that end up looking more like a child's failed science experiment, to renewable energy projects that were already in the pipeline, the reliability of these endeavors is about as solid as a politician's vow.
So, who’s the motherfucker getting rich off this charade? Feast your eyes on the crafty brokers peddling these carbon offsets. They've managed to turn remorse into a revenue stream, and business is booming.
"Purchase our offsets, become an eco-warrior," they peddle. What a colossal pile of shit. The only thing they're fighting for is their year-end bonus.
Here's a revolutionary idea: instead of tossing your hard-earned cash into the money pit of carbon offsets, why not make actual changes? Take public transport. Reduce, reuse, recycle. Support policies and politicians that genuinely prioritize the environment over profit.
We've got to swallow the bitter pill: carbon offsets are a distraction, a feel-good Band-Aid on a festering, gangrenous wound. Until we start treating climate change with the gravity it deserves, we're just fanning the flames.
So, a big, hearty "fuck you" to carbon offsets and the greedy bastards who profit from them. It's high time we stopped buying into their bullshit and started genuinely investing in our planet's future.
Re: (Score:2)
Al Gore is the very definition of an idiot. He makes (climate) predictions on a forklift which have all come to be false and generally made him a joke. However, he still is fabulously wealthy by virtue of being a former vice president (hmm...), and his book and media deals. Meanwhile, he's the perfect example of someone who thinks he is better than everyone else. So it's okay if he uses his private jet to go to some climate conference (the irony!). He and his liberal ilk want all the rest of us peons to liv
They're not junk (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actual recycling would be a good idea, but a bit expensive, even with low paid labor. What was done was a show. It's a pity that most people didn't realize that, even when China decided it wasn't being paid enough to play its role.
Re: They're not junk (Score:2)
The left pushed recycling for decades, and when it's finally exposed as mostly bullcrap, suddenly it's all industry's fault.
He's not wrong.
Recycling as implemented in the US is a sham, one that profited China and did little for the environment. No amount of huffing, puffing, posturing and downmodding the truth will change that.
so who is a troll? (Score:2)
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org] - my comment, when I state that these carbon credits are nonsense, designed to do nothing but to pretend that something is done or is it all of these world governments, corporations, who are only too happy to participate in this charade?
The corporations don't care (Score:3)
The corporations will gladly pay less for an offset that is a complete fabrication because all that matters is customer perception. If it sells more product, they will continue to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They have to constantly change who they partner with and cycle through multiple companies for these services. All it takes is the small few to actually search it out and by the time they try to shout all over social media, a new company is providing the services. You do have to wonder if they aren't constantly dissolving these companies and starting new ones with essentially the same board members and people involved. It's not much different than money laundering.
Re: (Score:2)
Compliance (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you think they care? They needed a letter of indulgence and they got it. If they were allowed to and could make more money by killing 10 Bambis a minute, they would.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think they care? They needed a letter of indulgence and they got it. If they were allowed to and could make more money by killing 10 Bambis a minute, they would.
Bambi was cute, but not cute enough. I suggest a puppy and kitten mill. An actual mill. You throw them in and let it grind them. Alive. In front of the thugs thinking they need to profit off the climate crisis. Maybe have them toss their infants in there too, just to be certain they get the message.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just compliance. A lot of the offsets are questionable, even if executed exactly as sold.
Works for corporations (Score:2)
freecarbonoffset.com is down (Score:2)
Otherwise I would've recommended it to assuage your guilt.
Reminder: "carbonn offsets" were... (Score:3)
the final scam proposed by the maximum-scammers of ENRON!
The hyper-dishonest jerks running ENRON and trying to make money by manipulating energy markets had a brain storm... they realized they could run an even bigger and more-profitable scam if they could get people to buy-into a "market" of things that did not exist (carbon offsets) whose supply was infinitely manipulable and whose elements had no inherent value. They wanted to launch this scheme but failed to become fabulously wealthy by creating and then running this scam because their previous scam collapsed spectacularly.
People like Al Gore picked up on this "pay me to not do something (I was not going to do anyway), so you can go on doing it (which you were going to do anyway) with a clean conscience and with a good public image" scheme and became quite wealthy from it (just like some Popes once did long ago in Italy). The fact that there are still people wanting to get rich on this, and the fact that some people see this as a scheme to put a "free market" veneer onto a giant raft of new and extreme government regulations they want, does not in any way remove the stench from this idiocy. If people truly fear carbon and want to eliminate it, they can stop burning things and stop buying/using anything made-with/made-from//transported-using combustion... but most do not want to; they simply want to virtue signal.
Re: (Score:2)
If people truly fear carbon and want to eliminate it, they can stop burning things and stop buying/using anything made-with/made-from//transported-using combustion...
It's played out but this is literally the "we should improve society somewhat" [knowyourmeme.com] meme. This is an unreasonable ask and completely unfair to accuse anyone of. Just a different spin on "just leave the country if you don't like it".
Likely junk (Score:2)
The unauditable programs, like Washington State's CCA doubly so. Go ahead. Try and prove it's junk or not if they won't give you the numbers because "you just wouldn't understand".
And then there's the wealth transfer to third world nations' indigenous people so that they won't cut the trees. Show up in the jungle and offer to pay the nomadic natives not to cut. "Sure buddy. We were moving on next week anyway. Better scrape together some more cash for the folks that move in behind us next month."
Them "working" isn't what you think. (Score:2)
Do they meaningfully offset carbon emissions? No, they're secular indulgences.
BUT NOBODY CARES.
Because their FUNCTION is to get the environmentalists to STFU and pester someone else so to that effect, they did "work"...we just have to come up with more arcane hand-wavy bullshit to donate money to to prove our virtue.
Btw, it is lgbtqia+/!$#@^& month. That's a candidate.