7 ms·

> From project implementation until 2020, those 18 projects were expected to generate up to 89 million carbon offsets to be sold in the global carbon market. Bu

> From project implementation until 2020, those 18 projects were expected to generate up to 89 million carbon offsets to be sold in the global carbon market. But researchers estimate that only 5.4 million of the 89 million, or 6.1 percent, would be associated with actual carbon emission reductions. It sounds like a massively fraudulent market with little actual oversight.

ethbr1 3y ago
Curious about someone in the industry's opinion, but the problem sounds like carbon offsets should actually be treated as carbon offset futures. I.e. the value is determined at the time of delivered carbon offsets, and the instrument's price floats on the market before that time, including relative to how likely / valuable the delivery is If company A buys a carbon offset from entity X, and it becomes increasingly apparent that entity X isn't going to be able to deliver the face value in terms of carbon, the instrument bought by company A should decrease in value. Consequently, next time around, company A would not purchase from entity X. Which is exactly what you'd want to happen! Corollary: Verification by third party should be required, with less measurable schemes less valued. Multiple satellites confirming forests intact? Proof. Direct air capture or weathering? Proof. Some nebulous walk through how this might have influenced this other thing? Eh...
- wmf 3y ago
  That doesn't really match the way people are using offsets. If you buy offsets for a flight and ten years later you learn that that they were ineffective... what? The least effective offsets having the lowest price isn't a good incentive either.
  - ethbr1 3y ago
    I don't believe the majority of VCM offsets are being purchased by end users. Are they? I thought they're typically purchased by corporate entities to support "net zero carbon by X year" pledges. Apparently this stuff has matured a lot in the last 10 years, and I haven't been keeping pace with it. There's already a concept of "vintage" (i.e. year carbon reduction realized in), but I still don't think they're being traded in a floating price futures model. It sounds like the international community is leaning on certification-first, then sale of only certified offsets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#Other_international_programs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#O... ... which, doesn't feel like it fully harnesses the power of market investment in new technologies. If a corporate buyer finds a new technology that has promise, they should be able to plow money into it! (At a cheaper per-offset-CO2-ton price than alternatives) If that new tech delivers, the company just saved money. (For the same amount of CO2 offset purchase) If the new tech fails to deliver, the offset buying company should be forced to realize financial losses. Ergo, companies will be incentivized to invest in the most effective tools for future CO2 offsetting.
    - asu_thomas 3y ago
      > Apparently this stuff has matured a lot in the last 10 years Matured is not the word I would choose.
      - ethbr1 3y ago
        Last time I checked on the international side of this, it was mostly an imaginary future. Now, it looks like there's non-trivial implementation work being done: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#Programs_and_markets https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#P...
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  The problem with carbon offsets is worse than that. First, there is no real way to tell if someone was going to do something anyway. You have an existing operation which is already cost effective to modernize because the fuel savings exceed the cost, so you were going to do it anyway, but now you get to sell credits even though the modernization would have happened regardless. So you have a significant amount of preexisting supply without motivating any real emissions reduction. Second, not everyone is required to buy them, so the demand side is artificially low. The result is that credits are available for less than $2/ton, or to put it another way, less than $0.02 per gallon of gasoline. This is obviously not going to provide any meaningful incentive to reduce emissions.
  - quixoticelixer- 3y ago
    > First, there is no real way to tell if someone was going to do something anyway. There sort of is though, and both carbon off-setters and this study claim that they can Also there is plenty of demand in this market, even dodgy credits are worth much more than $2
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > There sort of is though, and both carbon off-setters and this study claim that they can What they're talking about is determining if you've paid someone to not burn down a forest and then they do it even after taking the money. Which you could conceivably verify. The problem is when someone already intends not to burn down a forest, or do whichever other thing counts for credits. Then they can sell credits in exchange for proceeding with their existing intentions. Everyone already intending to do any of those things can profit from selling the credits, so they do and the market contains tons of credits that are not actually making any difference. > Also there is plenty of demand in this market, even dodgy credits are worth much more than $2 https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ Offset are worth less than $2. "Credits" in the EU are worth significantly more, because they use "cap and trade", which results in significant carbon pricing but is manifestly unjust because it directly rewards companies for having been the largest polluters.
  - 3y ago
tito 3y ago
I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it?
- asu_thomas 3y ago
  You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism.
  - avitous 3y ago
    This right here. Either we collectively as a species take steps right away to correct course and achieve a sustainable now, or nature will do it for us; and the latter will occur cataclysmically. The former, too, except hopefully with less loss of life.
  - x-complexity 3y ago
    > You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. 1) This makes the axiomatic leap that *everyone* knows that carbon offsets are fraudulent. There're definitely *some* that think so, but not all. Extraordinary claims of "All X is Y" require a proof that X leads to Y in *all* cases, not just *some*. 2) Another axiomatic leap made is that carbon offsets are inherently fraudulent, which again *some* may be, but not all. Similar comprehensive evidence is required to establish that *all* carbon offsets are fraudulent. 3) What is "painfully obvious" to someone may not be to anyone not steeped deep into the subject at hand. Even after being through the subject itself, there is no guarantee that an incrementalistic viewpoint would not be adopted as a result of seeing the faults within the system. > So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism. Socialism is reductively state capitalism with the added façade that democratic consensus & redistribution alone allows for the best outcome. It doesn't take into account desires that may go against the beliefs of the majority, whose desires can run counter to minorities within such a system (e.g LGBTQ+ rights & drug criminalization). Modern tolerances towards them happen to be lucky circumstances that shouldn't be taken for granted, as it could be just as likely for the opposite to have happened. Even in a dysfunctional state, niches are allowed to manifest within markets that can cater to them without the oversight of the State, for better or for worse. Denying the ability to create said pocket niches by enforcing the majority's views via the State invites levels of authoritarianism & Mother-Knows-Best attitudes that should be opposed from anyone seeking to preserve individual autonomy, which should include the minorities themselves. In cases of a non-State-based socialism, markets will inevitably be created as a consequence of having to trade with unknown/untrusted parties. The egalitarianistic "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can only work in scenarios where parties know who each other are, & can consequently apply adjustments to prevent excessive misuse from exploiting parties. Markets arise due to the alternative requiring much more effort to establish & maintain relationships with all parties on all possible tradable goods & services, whereas only a neutral area is required for the former.

ethbr1 3y ago

Curious about someone in the industry's opinion, but the problem sounds like carbon offsets should actually be treated as carbon offset futures. I.e. the value is determined at the time of delivered carbon offsets, and the instrument's price floats on the market before that time, including relative to how likely / valuable the delivery is If company A buys a carbon offset from entity X, and it becomes increasingly apparent that entity X isn't going to be able to deliver the face value in terms of carbon, the instrument bought by company A should decrease in value. Consequently, next time around, company A would not purchase from entity X. Which is exactly what you'd want to happen! Corollary: Verification by third party should be required, with less measurable schemes less valued. Multiple satellites confirming forests intact? Proof. Direct air capture or weathering? Proof. Some nebulous walk through how this might have influenced this other thing? Eh...

wmf 3y ago
That doesn't really match the way people are using offsets. If you buy offsets for a flight and ten years later you learn that that they were ineffective... what? The least effective offsets having the lowest price isn't a good incentive either.
- ethbr1 3y ago
  I don't believe the majority of VCM offsets are being purchased by end users. Are they? I thought they're typically purchased by corporate entities to support "net zero carbon by X year" pledges. Apparently this stuff has matured a lot in the last 10 years, and I haven't been keeping pace with it. There's already a concept of "vintage" (i.e. year carbon reduction realized in), but I still don't think they're being traded in a floating price futures model. It sounds like the international community is leaning on certification-first, then sale of only certified offsets. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#Other_international_programs https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#O... ... which, doesn't feel like it fully harnesses the power of market investment in new technologies. If a corporate buyer finds a new technology that has promise, they should be able to plow money into it! (At a cheaper per-offset-CO2-ton price than alternatives) If that new tech delivers, the company just saved money. (For the same amount of CO2 offset purchase) If the new tech fails to deliver, the offset buying company should be forced to realize financial losses. Ergo, companies will be incentivized to invest in the most effective tools for future CO2 offsetting.
  - asu_thomas 3y ago
    > Apparently this stuff has matured a lot in the last 10 years Matured is not the word I would choose.
    - ethbr1 3y ago
      Last time I checked on the international side of this, it was mostly an imaginary future. Now, it looks like there's non-trivial implementation work being done: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#Programs_and_markets https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits#P...
AnthonyMouse 3y ago
The problem with carbon offsets is worse than that. First, there is no real way to tell if someone was going to do something anyway. You have an existing operation which is already cost effective to modernize because the fuel savings exceed the cost, so you were going to do it anyway, but now you get to sell credits even though the modernization would have happened regardless. So you have a significant amount of preexisting supply without motivating any real emissions reduction. Second, not everyone is required to buy them, so the demand side is artificially low. The result is that credits are available for less than $2/ton, or to put it another way, less than $0.02 per gallon of gasoline. This is obviously not going to provide any meaningful incentive to reduce emissions.
- quixoticelixer- 3y ago
  > First, there is no real way to tell if someone was going to do something anyway. There sort of is though, and both carbon off-setters and this study claim that they can Also there is plenty of demand in this market, even dodgy credits are worth much more than $2
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > There sort of is though, and both carbon off-setters and this study claim that they can What they're talking about is determining if you've paid someone to not burn down a forest and then they do it even after taking the money. Which you could conceivably verify. The problem is when someone already intends not to burn down a forest, or do whichever other thing counts for credits. Then they can sell credits in exchange for proceeding with their existing intentions. Everyone already intending to do any of those things can profit from selling the credits, so they do and the market contains tons of credits that are not actually making any difference. > Also there is plenty of demand in this market, even dodgy credits are worth much more than $2 https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ https://carboncredits.com/carbon-prices-today/ Offset are worth less than $2. "Credits" in the EU are worth significantly more, because they use "cap and trade", which results in significant carbon pricing but is manifestly unjust because it directly rewards companies for having been the largest polluters.
- 3y ago

tito 3y ago

I think that's an acceptable conclusion. So then, what's next? We need to rapidly decarbonize the economy. Current solutions aren't working great, so how do we do it?

asu_thomas 3y ago
You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism.
- avitous 3y ago
  This right here. Either we collectively as a species take steps right away to correct course and achieve a sustainable now, or nature will do it for us; and the latter will occur cataclysmically. The former, too, except hopefully with less loss of life.
- x-complexity 3y ago
  > You have to end capitalism, and anybody taking this stuff seriously knows that, and they knew carbon offset nonsense was fraudulent the entire time. It was painfully obvious. 1) This makes the axiomatic leap that *everyone* knows that carbon offsets are fraudulent. There're definitely *some* that think so, but not all. Extraordinary claims of "All X is Y" require a proof that X leads to Y in *all* cases, not just *some*. 2) Another axiomatic leap made is that carbon offsets are inherently fraudulent, which again *some* may be, but not all. Similar comprehensive evidence is required to establish that *all* carbon offsets are fraudulent. 3) What is "painfully obvious" to someone may not be to anyone not steeped deep into the subject at hand. Even after being through the subject itself, there is no guarantee that an incrementalistic viewpoint would not be adopted as a result of seeing the faults within the system. > So what's next? Another fraudulent scheme, because the only other option is socialism. Socialism is reductively state capitalism with the added façade that democratic consensus & redistribution alone allows for the best outcome. It doesn't take into account desires that may go against the beliefs of the majority, whose desires can run counter to minorities within such a system (e.g LGBTQ+ rights & drug criminalization). Modern tolerances towards them happen to be lucky circumstances that shouldn't be taken for granted, as it could be just as likely for the opposite to have happened. Even in a dysfunctional state, niches are allowed to manifest within markets that can cater to them without the oversight of the State, for better or for worse. Denying the ability to create said pocket niches by enforcing the majority's views via the State invites levels of authoritarianism & Mother-Knows-Best attitudes that should be opposed from anyone seeking to preserve individual autonomy, which should include the minorities themselves. In cases of a non-State-based socialism, markets will inevitably be created as a consequence of having to trade with unknown/untrusted parties. The egalitarianistic "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" can only work in scenarios where parties know who each other are, & can consequently apply adjustments to prevent excessive misuse from exploiting parties. Markets arise due to the alternative requiring much more effort to establish & maintain relationships with all parties on all possible tradable goods & services, whereas only a neutral area is required for the former.