4 ms·

Does anyone know if carbon credits actually work? In theory, they seem great. In practice, I’d expect them to be rife with abuse.

by harles 3y ago

uLogMicheal 3y ago
They buy the credits to offset responsibility. Their purchase is supposed to go to investment/efforts from others to offset the carbon rather. As you can predict, there's a lot of racket and bias between point A and point B on this money.
- ajross 3y ago
  It's true that the incentives are all mixed up in this industry. The ability to cheat is very high and there's little to no third party verification (and in a lot of cases the offset technique is novel and frankly seems to need some peer review). But that's not the same as saying "there's a lot of racket and bias". In fact my impression is that most of these firms are sincere and not cheating at all. But over time, this is absolutely going to need some regulatory attention.
owyn 3y ago
One of the larger carbon capture forests burned down recently so :shrug? https://www.ft.com/content/3f89c759-eb9a-4dfb-b768-d4af1ec5aa23 https://www.ft.com/content/3f89c759-eb9a-4dfb-b768-d4af1ec5a... I like how by the end of the article the economists are just suggesting adding like a 20% buffer to the calculations rather than talking about more fundamental problems.
wmf 3y ago
IIRC around 75% of carbon offsets are "non-additional" i.e. bullshit. Of course Meta is only buying the "high-quality" ones so maybe it's not too bad. https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionality/ https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionali...
abhibeckert 3y ago
In Australia if you install a moderate number of solar panels on your roof at home, you'll be paid between a few thousand dollars and several thousand dollars through a carbon credits system. It can work out to close to half the cost of the installation, and combined with other incentives (like getting near free electricity for your own consumption) it means you'll generally recover your upfront investment in full after about five years. Solar panels last 20+ years, so it's a very good investment that has lead to Australia having the highest update of rooftop solar in the world. Without the carbon credits scheme, it'd probably still be a good investment to install rooftop solar, but you'd be waiting a lot longer than five years to get your money back, and the longer timeline increases your risk substantially (what if severe weather destroys your solar panels?). Yes - they are rife with abuse. People and companies routinely make promises about how much carbon they've saved that don't reflect reality. But they are also great — they absolutely encourage and fund investments that reduce our global carbon footprint. Just because a system isn't perfect, doesn't mean it's a bad system.
- trompetenaccoun 3y ago
  That's a rare example where it can work (I don't know anything about Australia but will take your word for it). Most carbon schemes are not about subsidizing solar panels. The majority of it is very questionable as other users have pointed out with examples. Most people care about the environment and are worried about climate change. Most also understand very little about geoscience. There is a lot of pressure on governments and corporations to just do "something" about it, but few concrete demands. That's why deceptive practices and outright scams are so common, especially in so-called carbon offsetting and carbon removal schemes. Having a bit of relevant scientific background, I've sadly seen more than once how questionable carbon offset companies infiltrate communities and corporations to get them to buy in. Some of them spend a lot of time lobbying and advertising on a grassroots level to get cooperation deals. Warning folks has not worked in the cases I've tried because as soon as you question it you're viewed as a climate skeptic who does not care about global warming and getting into hours long discussions with non-experts trying to explain to them why a certain promise can not work in reality the way it's described on the carbon credit website is pointless. Their promises and beautiful pictures of green forests and blue skies are a lot more persuasive sadly since it's professional marketing.
moomoo11 3y ago
“I’m going to give you 100 million dollars today to do fucked up shit for the next 10 years so you guys can stop annoying me” is basically the gist of these schemes.
- cwmoreiras 3y ago
  They also get to sell the credits in a few years once the price has gone up, right?
  - mwint 3y ago
    Are they not consumed?
    - igor47 3y ago
      They are. Once purchased, they're retired and not sold again
throwawaylinux 3y ago
They are secular indulgences. Complete fraud used to facilitate bribery and shift blame.
igor47 3y ago
The industry is rife with abuse (the Guardian is doing important work highlighting low-additionality offsets [1][2]) but carbon credits are still important. For instance, I work at Recoolit (https://www.recoolit.com/our-work https://www.recoolit.com/our-work) and we have no other way to pay for our work besides the voluntary carbon markets. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/24/chevron-carbon-offset-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/24/chevron-...
kqr 3y ago
One of the problems with carbon credits that's hard to work around is the fact that if I avoid wasting a tonne of CO2, I get credited for saving our environment. If I sell a carbon credit to fund the activity, someone else also gets credited for saving our environment. So every tonne of CO2 avoided counts twice. It's a way to inflate the progress that actually happens.
hulitu 3y ago
Of course they do. Every couple of days you see headlines like "Solar exceeds coal and nuclear". /s
sofixa 3y ago
If you like the video format, Wendover has a very good 20 minute video on the topic, discussing the pitfalls and how non-obvious failure modes of carbon offset schemes can be: https://youtu.be/AW3gaelBypY https://youtu.be/AW3gaelBypY
dwaltrip 3y ago
I’ve heard the idea that carbon credits create a fairly unique scenario where both sides, the buyer and the seller of the credits, aren’t that strongly incentivized to call out fraud. In regular “marketplace” transactions, the buyer wants the genuine product and will be upset if they are defrauded. In a carbon credit market, the main thing the buyer cares about is the paper, not the thing that the paper is supposed to represent. Certainly, many buyers of carbon credits do care about it being legitimate. But it is more of an altruistic caring, compared to the strong feelings that come up when one gets ripped off. Because of this dynamic, everything else held equal, there is going to be more fraud.

Does anyone know if carbon credits actually work? In theory, they seem great. In practice, I’d expect them to be rife with abuse.

by harles 3y ago

Does anyone know if carbon credits actually work? In theory, they seem great. In practice, I’d expect them to be rife with abuse.

uLogMicheal 3y ago

They buy the credits to offset responsibility. Their purchase is supposed to go to investment/efforts from others to offset the carbon rather. As you can predict, there's a lot of racket and bias between point A and point B on this money.

ajross 3y ago
It's true that the incentives are all mixed up in this industry. The ability to cheat is very high and there's little to no third party verification (and in a lot of cases the offset technique is novel and frankly seems to need some peer review). But that's not the same as saying "there's a lot of racket and bias". In fact my impression is that most of these firms are sincere and not cheating at all. But over time, this is absolutely going to need some regulatory attention.

owyn 3y ago

One of the larger carbon capture forests burned down recently so :shrug? https://www.ft.com/content/3f89c759-eb9a-4dfb-b768-d4af1ec5aa23 https://www.ft.com/content/3f89c759-eb9a-4dfb-b768-d4af1ec5a... I like how by the end of the article the economists are just suggesting adding like a 20% buffer to the calculations rather than talking about more fundamental problems.

wmf 3y ago

IIRC around 75% of carbon offsets are "non-additional" i.e. bullshit. Of course Meta is only buying the "high-quality" ones so maybe it's not too bad. https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionality/ https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionali...

abhibeckert 3y ago

In Australia if you install a moderate number of solar panels on your roof at home, you'll be paid between a few thousand dollars and several thousand dollars through a carbon credits system. It can work out to close to half the cost of the installation, and combined with other incentives (like getting near free electricity for your own consumption) it means you'll generally recover your upfront investment in full after about five years. Solar panels last 20+ years, so it's a very good investment that has lead to Australia having the highest update of rooftop solar in the world. Without the carbon credits scheme, it'd probably still be a good investment to install rooftop solar, but you'd be waiting a lot longer than five years to get your money back, and the longer timeline increases your risk substantially (what if severe weather destroys your solar panels?). Yes - they are rife with abuse. People and companies routinely make promises about how much carbon they've saved that don't reflect reality. But they are also great — they absolutely encourage and fund investments that reduce our global carbon footprint. Just because a system isn't perfect, doesn't mean it's a bad system.

trompetenaccoun 3y ago
That's a rare example where it can work (I don't know anything about Australia but will take your word for it). Most carbon schemes are not about subsidizing solar panels. The majority of it is very questionable as other users have pointed out with examples. Most people care about the environment and are worried about climate change. Most also understand very little about geoscience. There is a lot of pressure on governments and corporations to just do "something" about it, but few concrete demands. That's why deceptive practices and outright scams are so common, especially in so-called carbon offsetting and carbon removal schemes. Having a bit of relevant scientific background, I've sadly seen more than once how questionable carbon offset companies infiltrate communities and corporations to get them to buy in. Some of them spend a lot of time lobbying and advertising on a grassroots level to get cooperation deals. Warning folks has not worked in the cases I've tried because as soon as you question it you're viewed as a climate skeptic who does not care about global warming and getting into hours long discussions with non-experts trying to explain to them why a certain promise can not work in reality the way it's described on the carbon credit website is pointless. Their promises and beautiful pictures of green forests and blue skies are a lot more persuasive sadly since it's professional marketing.

moomoo11 3y ago

“I’m going to give you 100 million dollars today to do fucked up shit for the next 10 years so you guys can stop annoying me” is basically the gist of these schemes.

cwmoreiras 3y ago
They also get to sell the credits in a few years once the price has gone up, right?
- mwint 3y ago
  Are they not consumed?
  - igor47 3y ago
    They are. Once purchased, they're retired and not sold again

throwawaylinux 3y ago

They are secular indulgences. Complete fraud used to facilitate bribery and shift blame.

igor47 3y ago

The industry is rife with abuse (the Guardian is doing important work highlighting low-additionality offsets [1][2]) but carbon credits are still important. For instance, I work at Recoolit (https://www.recoolit.com/our-work https://www.recoolit.com/our-work) and we have no other way to pay for our work besides the voluntary carbon markets. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/24/chevron-carbon-offset-climate-crisis https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/may/24/chevron-...

kqr 3y ago

One of the problems with carbon credits that's hard to work around is the fact that if I avoid wasting a tonne of CO2, I get credited for saving our environment. If I sell a carbon credit to fund the activity, someone else also gets credited for saving our environment. So every tonne of CO2 avoided counts twice. It's a way to inflate the progress that actually happens.

hulitu 3y ago

Of course they do. Every couple of days you see headlines like "Solar exceeds coal and nuclear". /s

sofixa 3y ago

If you like the video format, Wendover has a very good 20 minute video on the topic, discussing the pitfalls and how non-obvious failure modes of carbon offset schemes can be: https://youtu.be/AW3gaelBypY https://youtu.be/AW3gaelBypY

dwaltrip 3y ago

I’ve heard the idea that carbon credits create a fairly unique scenario where both sides, the buyer and the seller of the credits, aren’t that strongly incentivized to call out fraud. In regular “marketplace” transactions, the buyer wants the genuine product and will be upset if they are defrauded. In a carbon credit market, the main thing the buyer cares about is the paper, not the thing that the paper is supposed to represent. Certainly, many buyers of carbon credits do care about it being legitimate. But it is more of an altruistic caring, compared to the strong feelings that come up when one gets ripped off. Because of this dynamic, everything else held equal, there is going to be more fraud.