3 ms·

What we need is a fantasy football league, but for carbon offsets. Then maybe, people would probably understand the vast majority of them are made up or stuff

What we need is a fantasy football league, but for carbon offsets. Then maybe, people would probably understand the vast majority of them are made up or stuff that we were "doing anyway" and aren't actually incremental.

gosub100 3y ago
Why don't the big accounting firms (KPMG) start doing auditing of CO2 along with finance? Either audit the corporations that emit CO2, or audit the "carbon credits" to make sure they're legit? they have decades of experience specifically in sniffing out accounting bullshit, it wouldn't be much of a leap to hire a scientist or two and start auditing molecules?
- labster 3y ago
  Because the average carbon credit is prima facie less legit than the average crypto token. You don’t need a deep investigation when almost the entire industry looks like junk when put under the slightest scrutiny.
  - gosub100 3y ago
    "They shouldn't be audited because they're obviously not legit"? That doesn't make sense. If KPMG steps up and says "hey CC buyers, show me your operations and books", either 1) they refuse, and KPMG says "Green-n-Co refuses to be audited", and demand for CC (by your presumption, bullshit) goes down. 2) they get audited, KPMG reports "Green-n-Co is bullshit", and demand for BS goes down. or... 3) audited, report says "Green-n-Co met 93% of their stated goals, we found X areas for improvement", and (presumably) GnC only gets better, and demand for working CC services increase. So you're either against (reduced demand for bullshit), or against reducing CO2? Help me understand.
    - e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
      Or 4) they switch to E&Y/PwC/Deloitte for their next audit, and all of KPMG's customers do the same in fear of the same thing happening to them
- dmurray 3y ago
  KPMG and the other big accounting/consultancy firms absolutely will sell you a carbon audit, if you ask. But their incentives are going to be aligned with the client's, and if the client makes a case for some unusual treatment of its carbon footprint they will be very receptive. This differs from accounting, where there are external regulators who specify accounting practices, and the audit firm checks that the client is close enough to complying with them, at the risk of major reputational damage for both parties.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Who would pay for that? Carbon credits exist to white-wash the emissions companies have. Their real effectiveness isn't really a concern for most companies. Just like any other virtue signalling they do...
  - gosub100 3y ago
    Well, ostensibly, "green initiatives" would do that to gauge the efficacy of their own endeavors. Either the CC company could pay for their own, independent audit, or a fellow "partner" or "foundation" would periodically pay for it. I dont necessarily disagree with you that CC is bs, but why would anyone be against going MythBusters on it? And what better mythbuster than a big-name accounting firm? If your position is correct, then the green movement has some explaining to do. Claiming to fight something, as a non-profit, and not having any auditing or accounting measures is deceitful to their cause and makes us question whether they in fact care about the environment whatsoever. Having one of the big-five blow their cover would help rip the bandaid off and redirect that money to an effective cause.
- exabrial 3y ago
  Let's say you're a saw mill that sells your sawdust to Charmin to make toilet paper (this is a real thing btw). Now, Mr. Silicon Valley comes along and wants to sell Ford Motor company carbon credits. So you guys ink a deal where every time you sell sawdust to Charmin, Ford gets a green carbon credit. Where is the net carbon negative? There is none because it was a process that was already being done... but this is how the vast majority of Carbon Credits work and why this entire made up market does absolutely nothing to solve real world problems. The most upvoted HN'er has the correct answer: Carbon Credits should ONLY go to new construction of green energy projects like Nuclear Reactors.
simplicio 3y ago
To some degree it probably doesn't matter. If you send $ on carbon offsets that don't offset carbon, you're still imposing an extra cost on releasing carbon and thus incentivizing yourself to release less. Basically a self-imposed carbon tax. Obviously it would be even better if the $ went to actual carbon sequestration, but the program would presumably work to some degree if you just gave the $ to some totally unrelated cause (which seems to be the solution UC has settled on).

gosub100 3y ago

Why don't the big accounting firms (KPMG) start doing auditing of CO2 along with finance? Either audit the corporations that emit CO2, or audit the "carbon credits" to make sure they're legit? they have decades of experience specifically in sniffing out accounting bullshit, it wouldn't be much of a leap to hire a scientist or two and start auditing molecules?

labster 3y ago
Because the average carbon credit is prima facie less legit than the average crypto token. You don’t need a deep investigation when almost the entire industry looks like junk when put under the slightest scrutiny.
- gosub100 3y ago
  "They shouldn't be audited because they're obviously not legit"? That doesn't make sense. If KPMG steps up and says "hey CC buyers, show me your operations and books", either 1) they refuse, and KPMG says "Green-n-Co refuses to be audited", and demand for CC (by your presumption, bullshit) goes down. 2) they get audited, KPMG reports "Green-n-Co is bullshit", and demand for BS goes down. or... 3) audited, report says "Green-n-Co met 93% of their stated goals, we found X areas for improvement", and (presumably) GnC only gets better, and demand for working CC services increase. So you're either against (reduced demand for bullshit), or against reducing CO2? Help me understand.
  - e63f67dd-065b 3y ago
    Or 4) they switch to E&Y/PwC/Deloitte for their next audit, and all of KPMG's customers do the same in fear of the same thing happening to them
dmurray 3y ago
KPMG and the other big accounting/consultancy firms absolutely will sell you a carbon audit, if you ask. But their incentives are going to be aligned with the client's, and if the client makes a case for some unusual treatment of its carbon footprint they will be very receptive. This differs from accounting, where there are external regulators who specify accounting practices, and the audit firm checks that the client is close enough to complying with them, at the risk of major reputational damage for both parties.
Ekaros 3y ago
Who would pay for that? Carbon credits exist to white-wash the emissions companies have. Their real effectiveness isn't really a concern for most companies. Just like any other virtue signalling they do...
- gosub100 3y ago
  Well, ostensibly, "green initiatives" would do that to gauge the efficacy of their own endeavors. Either the CC company could pay for their own, independent audit, or a fellow "partner" or "foundation" would periodically pay for it. I dont necessarily disagree with you that CC is bs, but why would anyone be against going MythBusters on it? And what better mythbuster than a big-name accounting firm? If your position is correct, then the green movement has some explaining to do. Claiming to fight something, as a non-profit, and not having any auditing or accounting measures is deceitful to their cause and makes us question whether they in fact care about the environment whatsoever. Having one of the big-five blow their cover would help rip the bandaid off and redirect that money to an effective cause.
exabrial 3y ago
Let's say you're a saw mill that sells your sawdust to Charmin to make toilet paper (this is a real thing btw). Now, Mr. Silicon Valley comes along and wants to sell Ford Motor company carbon credits. So you guys ink a deal where every time you sell sawdust to Charmin, Ford gets a green carbon credit. Where is the net carbon negative? There is none because it was a process that was already being done... but this is how the vast majority of Carbon Credits work and why this entire made up market does absolutely nothing to solve real world problems. The most upvoted HN'er has the correct answer: Carbon Credits should ONLY go to new construction of green energy projects like Nuclear Reactors.

simplicio 3y ago

To some degree it probably doesn't matter. If you send $ on carbon offsets that don't offset carbon, you're still imposing an extra cost on releasing carbon and thus incentivizing yourself to release less. Basically a self-imposed carbon tax. Obviously it would be even better if the $ went to actual carbon sequestration, but the program would presumably work to some degree if you just gave the $ to some totally unrelated cause (which seems to be the solution UC has settled on).