6 ms·

40 out of 60 German climate greening endavours fraudulent

164 points by Log_out_ 2y ago

amadeuspagel 2y ago
Maybe founding bicycle paths in peru was actually a better idea.
- eska 2y ago
  FYI your joke is based on fake news spread by the German nazi party https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/radwege-peru-entwicklungshilfe-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/radwege-peru-entwickl...
  - amadeuspagel 2y ago
    Your own link only claims that the number of 315 million euros is false and that the real number is 44 million euros (20 million spent and 24 million committed for the future).
  - michael9423 2y ago
    Actually the article supports this information. The number is just a bit too high. Quote: "With the pledges from 2022 and the ongoing projects, the grant for cycle highways and the loan for the environmentally friendly bus system, Germany is financing cycle paths and a bus system in Peru with around 199 million euros."
roboben 2y ago
Headline should be changed to “40 out of 60 in China”
- fock 2y ago
  run by companies trading in New York...
- normaler 2y ago
  German government subsidized fraudulent Chinese "Green" company's.
  - Gasp0de 2y ago
    That is not what the article said. The German government subsidized American/Multinational oil companies who CLAIMED they had environmentally friendly companies in China.
- wewxjfq 2y ago
  40 out of 60 greening endeavors by the fossil fuel industry fraudulent in China
fock 2y ago
I wonder if these new-tech oil fields are just those using CO2 to extract more oil... https://www.desmog.com/2024/06/10/carbon-capture-will-extend-oil-production-by-84-years-industry-study-finds/ https://www.desmog.com/2024/06/10/carbon-capture-will-extend...
Phelinofist 2y ago
Just another thing Germany managed to totally fuck up. I can't even remember something that was done well for the last, what, 5-10 years? All the politicians we have are a disgrace.
- decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
- surfingdino 2y ago
  Go on, give them some credit... they signed a deal with Russia to divide Eastern Europe, financed Russian wars, destroyed stability of Europe by forcing idiotic policies, and allowed rise of far right at home. That's something...
  - AllegedAlec 2y ago
    They're currently more succesful in fucking up Europe than during their French camping trip in 1939.
  - netsharc 2y ago
    Points 1 and 2 sound like the ravings of a lunatic, but I can agree with points 3 and 4, however unplanned it was by the rulers. Merkel and her finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble were stupid believers in running a country/continent like a family or factory (micro- instead of macroeconomics). If you're in debt, you gotta save. With the Euro crisis and PIIGS (anyone here old enough to remember PIIGS?) inflation problem (caused by the currency pegging masked as a single currency, btw), the continent had a lot of problems. And so Merkel as the de-facto ruler of the EU told everyone to cut social services, social benefits, etc, instead of doing stimulus packages like the Obama admin. The results were more unemployment and destitution, even suicides[1]. And when Merkel decided to show her humane side and allowed Syrians to settle in Germany, it was morally a great move which I agree (how can we call ourselves human if we refuse shelter to humans who are being shot at and bombed - well one way to do it is to not treat them as humans and classify them in our brains, all of them, as cowards (for running away instead of fighting) and lazy benefits-seekers)), but of course for the average Joe European who's been told for many years "There's no money, we have to save", to suddenly hear "We're a prosperous continent, we can do it.", this sounds like a huge truckload of shit. And the half-hearted policy of just sticking these refugees in makeshift camps and probably no budget in proper integration (and TBH, there's probably lazy refugees too, but then again, wouldn't you lose motivation against bureaucracies that don't let you work, confuse you in a language/culture foreign to yours, etc, even though you fought your way out of a warzone on a precarious journey) didn't make it any better. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628
jeffhuys 2y ago
Shocking...
xandrius 2y ago
Is it just me or the article is completely in German?
- RamblingCTO 2y ago
  It's a German newspaper, so yeah, it's in German for everyone
  - shermantanktop 2y ago
    That won’t stop all the non-German-speaker commenters from reacting to a translated headline.
    - swarnie 2y ago
      > Oil companies are probably cheating German consumers with non-existent plants. Also because Germany had no control? The Environment Committee takes a position. I'd need a native member of the defrauded to weigh in and confirm the legitimacy of the translation but Chrome seems to have done an ok job?
      - kadkadels 2y ago
        Looks good to me, I'm a native speaker.
      - Propelloni 2y ago
        The updated headline reads: "Suspicion of fraud in climate protection: Despite warnings millions have been paid to corporations". The original headline from the 11th of June reads: "Defrauded of millions: did corporations subvert German climate protection?" Both are an understatement, the volume in question is up to 4.5 billion EUR since 2020.
- blitzar 2y ago
  Is it just me or is your comment completely in English?
throwf 2y ago
[flagged]
vasco 2y ago
If you force companies to "figure out" how to meet a quota for something that isn't as simple as "buy it" this is what happens. Loads of carbon capture projects, even if not outright scams and with good intentions, leave the local area worse off after just a few years. I worked for a company that genuinely tried to dedicate a % of revenue to carbon recapture and we had a really tough time finding projects that looked somewhat trustworthy.
schneehertz 2y ago
The German government subsidizes multinational corporations' oil facilities in China. This article mentions "China" too many times, but what does this have to do with China? Isn't it the multinational companies that are suspected of fraud? Not a single name of any multinational corporation is even mentioned in the article.
- Propelloni 2y ago
  The part of China in this situation is that the Chinese government does not allow foreign inspectors into China to check if the sponsored projects are actually doing what they claim, and either China does not check these projects itself or does a bad job at it, thus enabling fraud. I don't know why anyone would sponsor a project in China under these conditions in the first place (or anywhere under similar conditions), but that's a different story. Of course, that does not change that multinational oil companies are the ones conducting the fraud or that a local Chinese competitor fingered them, so that things came to light.
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Germans sponsor such projects in China because European emissions aren't growing much and are an irrelevant slice of global output. If you want to subsidize people to reduce emissions you have to go where the emissions are. At this point the developing world completely dominates emissions and emissions growth: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region?time=1950..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... China, India and Asia swamp all other contributors in terms of growth and (with the exception of America beating India) also absolute amounts. The entire EU emits around the same as India alone.
    - cryptonym 2y ago
      > The entire EU emits around the same as India alone. With only a third of India's population. Don't worry there is still a lot to do in Europe.
      - 2y ago
r0ckarong 2y ago
German government defrauded by 40 out of 60 chinese climate projects. It doesn't have to be fake news if you just know how to sum up a statement.
- Gasp0de 2y ago
  It's American/Multinational Oil companies defrauding the German government. The Chinese company actually contacted the German government to blow the whistle and say "Hey, those things you have about us are not true".
- tsss 2y ago
  Everyone is defrauding the German government, including every politician and every other branch of the German government. It has more to do with the Germans than the Chinese.
- neuronic 2y ago
  As a European I am all for China criticism, really. But this is wrong. Chinese companies have raised the concerns and the Green party federal authorities in Germany have knowingly and actively ignored the warnings and continue to do so. So you got: - American oil companies defrauding Germans in China - Chinese companies raising concerns to German authorities - German Green party authorities actively ignoring said warning which are easily verified. I mentioned Green party because it is not far fetched to claim a political motive given the ease of prevention
gmerc 2y ago
Wait until you find out that we’re giving Shell carbon capture credits for injecting it into NorthSea oil fields to speed up the extraction of … oil. I wish I was making this up.
bluelu 2y ago
It says here that fraud happened on german side. The chinese company reported that documents have been modified on the german controlling side without their approval, and that potential fraud is happening and they should investigate. However nothing was done. "Dabei waren die Gefahren Geld nach China zu zahlen für solche Projekte dem Bundesumweltministerium eigentlich bekannt. Zuletzt im April meldete sich ein chinesischer Öl- und Gaskonzern von selbst bei dem von Steffi Lemke (Grüne) geführten Umweltministerium und erklärte deutlich, dass von Betrugsfällen auszugehen ist. „Wir vermuten, dass es eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit gibt, dass Dokumente gefälscht wurden und wir bitten dringend, dass Ihre Behörde dazu ermittelt“, teilte der chinesische Konzern dem Ministerium mit. Dieses wimmelte wohl ab, wie die Welt berichtet. Deutsche Prüfstellen haben anscheinend einige Daten der Anlagen des chinesischen Unternehmens geändert und ohne dessen Zustimmung verwendet. "
- Gasp0de 2y ago
  I understood it in a slightly different way: The multinational oil companies owning these Chinese companies wrongly claimed that these would save millions of tonnes of CO2. The German authorities accepted this claim even though there was reasonable doubt and it could not be verified because China doesn't allow German authorities to come to China and verify it. The way you phrased it made it sound as if Germany (as in the government) was somehow trying to profit from it. However, they are the ones being frauded.
  - AnonCoward42 2y ago
    It is reasonable to assume that they are in on it. At the very least they got out of their way not to change it, even when they were being notified about potential fraud.
    - neuronic 2y ago
      I also understood it this way (native German). In Germany companies want to claim "as much saved CO2" as possible. > Das Ziel war, möglichst hohe CO₂-Einsparungen in Deutschland geltend zu machen. The federal authorities knowingly approved the fraudulent UER projects. What's spicy is that the secretary is a green party member. > Das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle genehmigten 75 dieser UER-Projekte – fast ausschließlich in China. Und das, obwohl weitere Hinweise dafür sprachen, besser nicht dort zu investieren. Denn China lässt unabhängige Kontrollen im eigenen Land nicht zu. Peking verweigert entsprechenden Prüfer:innen die Einreise. Also, apparently a simple look at satellite images should have at least caused suspicion when Chinese companies raised the concerns. There is still no reaction from Steffi Lemke. > Was Rostek mit dem „Durchwinken“ meint, ist die anscheinend unzureichende Prüfung der Bauvorhaben durch das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle. Über Satellitenbilder wäre einfach zu erkennen gewesen, dass einige der eingereichten chinesischen Vorhaben schon vor dem eigentlichen Baustart existiert haben.
londons_explore 2y ago
The whole idea of crediting someone for 'what they would have emitted' is wrong. There is just no way to prove what you 'would have done'. Instead we should simply be billing for carbon actually emitted. If you emit less, your bill is smaller.
- john61 2y ago
  > Instead we should simply be billing for carbon actually emitted. If you emit less, your bill is smaller. Poor people have the same human rights than rich people. Therefore it should not be dependent on money how much a person can emit. There should be a hard limit of allowed CO2 emissions per person.
- blitzar 2y ago
  > simply be billing for carbon actually emitted Many companies (and induviduals) would cease to be viable going concerns if they had to pay for their emissions. The transition from unlimited free poluting to full pay for emissions requires some smoothing and the credit system seems as reasonable as any. > There is just no way to prove what you 'would have done'. Base it on output - energy generators can output X per GWH, steel mills Y per ton of steel, transport Z per passenger / tonne per mile etc. If you can do it cleaner you have excess credits - dirtier and you pay. This is essentially the system we have today (and it is fantastically capitalist in its design).
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    What we have is a system where people get paid for counterfactuals; carbon credits awarded for things they didn't do but claim they would have, like getting paid to not cut down a forest. Fraud is easy because investigators cannot be sent to the counterfactual universe to verify the claims.
  - Attrecomet 2y ago
    >the credit system seems as reasonable as any. It's fraud, pure and simple. I don't know how such a broken system could be "reasonable" for anything. But hey, at least polluters can lie to their customers and claim "their greenhouse emissions have been offset", so I guess capitalistically, it makes sense.
_trampeltier 2y ago
Is there a single CO2 certificate, which is not fake?
- Attrecomet 2y ago
  Yes, in a museum's deep vault somewhere, since it's one of a kind.
olaf 2y ago
misleading title
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
I hate such data presentation. 40 / 60 = 67%, this is a figure that we are all used to understanding, just because plenty of things are in percentages. Or 2 out of 3 - this is something we can relate to as well. The next one will be 378 out of 2567, quickly is this a lot or not. Sure you would say that 78 is about a third of 1000, and we have about 2.5 thousands so it ... etc. Instead of just saying 15%.
- hummuscience 2y ago
  It depends. 40 out of 60 is easier to grasp for many people than 67%. Percentages are better in cases where the numbers are harder to imagine (like your second example).
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    It's easy to misread as 40/60 (e.g. split)
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    This is why I mentioned 2/3 - why keep a reductible fraction?
yayr 2y ago
The report says, that China does not allow independent auditors for the subsidised investments to enter the country. This should have been a red flag. It would have been easy to change the policy to only support investments that allow independent auditors.
woodpanel 2y ago
Who could have thought that under the protective veil where every critique about a policy or program is succesfully labelled as right-wing, climate-change-denialist, or naz*, corruption would flourish? This is neither the first nor the last case of illegal activities environmentalism has produced in Germany (Prokon scandal, Graichen scandal, Christmas benefit payments, corona benefit payments, Harald Friedrich etc).
blackoil 2y ago
This thread shows to some extent why we are doomed. Half of the comments are focused on if we can blame China or not. While reading cursorily gives clear indication that all of the parties could have caught it and did nothing. Instead of trying to root out corruption near us, we are happy to blame other and do nothing.
mxfh 2y ago
And guess what, it's not the Greens to blame, but the party and lobbyist who set this big-oil friendly scheme up in 2015 and renewed it in early 2021. Peak Merkel/Altmaier-era greenwashing enablement, the scaled down PV and Wind in favor for an extended transition period to be run on petrol and russian gas.
hannob 2y ago
That's a pretty clickbaity headline (the one here, not the original one). This is about a special law that allows oil companies to compensate carbon reduction requirements. Which, to be clear, is a big deal, and a major case of fraud. But the headline makes it sound like the majority of all climate efforts in Germany are fraudulent. That's... a very different claim, and not the one in this article.
SebFender 2y ago
Nothing new - these setups and situations have been going on since the beginning of the 2000's - here's one of hundreds of articles https://www.courrierinternational.com/une/une-du-jour-le-marche-des-compensations-carbone-est-un-scandale-climatique https://www.courrierinternational.com/une/une-du-jour-le-mar... Linking the economy to the environment sounds great but in practice this needs to change.
incomingpain 2y ago
I am shocked 20 out of 60 weren't detected for what they are.
bArray 2y ago
The website itself is pretty hostile: > Continue with ads - ACCEPT ALL > ...or subscribe to Freechoice - SUBSCRIBE NOW https://www.cookieyes.com/blog/cookie-law/ https://www.cookieyes.com/blog/cookie-law/
Gillies123 2y ago
There are a lot of untrue recommendations and its hard to tell who is legit. If you have lost money to scam contact (zattrecoverypro1 ⓐ Gmail Dot Com) they will surely help you out. Took me long to find them

164 points by Log_out_ 2y ago

amadeuspagel 2y ago

Maybe founding bicycle paths in peru was actually a better idea.

eska 2y ago
FYI your joke is based on fake news spread by the German nazi party https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/radwege-peru-entwicklungshilfe-100.html https://www.tagesschau.de/faktenfinder/radwege-peru-entwickl...
- amadeuspagel 2y ago
  Your own link only claims that the number of 315 million euros is false and that the real number is 44 million euros (20 million spent and 24 million committed for the future).
- michael9423 2y ago
  Actually the article supports this information. The number is just a bit too high. Quote: "With the pledges from 2022 and the ongoing projects, the grant for cycle highways and the loan for the environmentally friendly bus system, Germany is financing cycle paths and a bus system in Peru with around 199 million euros."

roboben 2y ago

Headline should be changed to “40 out of 60 in China”

fock 2y ago
run by companies trading in New York...
normaler 2y ago
German government subsidized fraudulent Chinese "Green" company's.
- Gasp0de 2y ago
  That is not what the article said. The German government subsidized American/Multinational oil companies who CLAIMED they had environmentally friendly companies in China.
wewxjfq 2y ago
40 out of 60 greening endeavors by the fossil fuel industry fraudulent in China

fock 2y ago

I wonder if these new-tech oil fields are just those using CO2 to extract more oil... https://www.desmog.com/2024/06/10/carbon-capture-will-extend-oil-production-by-84-years-industry-study-finds/ https://www.desmog.com/2024/06/10/carbon-capture-will-extend...

Phelinofist 2y ago

Just another thing Germany managed to totally fuck up. I can't even remember something that was done well for the last, what, 5-10 years? All the politicians we have are a disgrace.

decremental 2y ago
[dead]
surfingdino 2y ago
Go on, give them some credit... they signed a deal with Russia to divide Eastern Europe, financed Russian wars, destroyed stability of Europe by forcing idiotic policies, and allowed rise of far right at home. That's something...
- AllegedAlec 2y ago
  They're currently more succesful in fucking up Europe than during their French camping trip in 1939.
- netsharc 2y ago
  Points 1 and 2 sound like the ravings of a lunatic, but I can agree with points 3 and 4, however unplanned it was by the rulers. Merkel and her finance minister Wolfgang Schäuble were stupid believers in running a country/continent like a family or factory (micro- instead of macroeconomics). If you're in debt, you gotta save. With the Euro crisis and PIIGS (anyone here old enough to remember PIIGS?) inflation problem (caused by the currency pegging masked as a single currency, btw), the continent had a lot of problems. And so Merkel as the de-facto ruler of the EU told everyone to cut social services, social benefits, etc, instead of doing stimulus packages like the Obama admin. The results were more unemployment and destitution, even suicides[1]. And when Merkel decided to show her humane side and allowed Syrians to settle in Germany, it was morally a great move which I agree (how can we call ourselves human if we refuse shelter to humans who are being shot at and bombed - well one way to do it is to not treat them as humans and classify them in our brains, all of them, as cowards (for running away instead of fighting) and lazy benefits-seekers)), but of course for the average Joe European who's been told for many years "There's no money, we have to save", to suddenly hear "We're a prosperous continent, we can do it.", this sounds like a huge truckload of shit. And the half-hearted policy of just sticking these refugees in makeshift camps and probably no budget in proper integration (and TBH, there's probably lazy refugees too, but then again, wouldn't you lose motivation against bureaucracies that don't let you work, confuse you in a language/culture foreign to yours, etc, even though you fought your way out of a warzone on a precarious journey) didn't make it any better. [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-27796628

jeffhuys 2y ago

Shocking...

xandrius 2y ago

Is it just me or the article is completely in German?

RamblingCTO 2y ago
It's a German newspaper, so yeah, it's in German for everyone
- shermantanktop 2y ago
  That won’t stop all the non-German-speaker commenters from reacting to a translated headline.
  - swarnie 2y ago
    > Oil companies are probably cheating German consumers with non-existent plants. Also because Germany had no control? The Environment Committee takes a position. I'd need a native member of the defrauded to weigh in and confirm the legitimacy of the translation but Chrome seems to have done an ok job?
    - kadkadels 2y ago
      Looks good to me, I'm a native speaker.
    - Propelloni 2y ago
      The updated headline reads: "Suspicion of fraud in climate protection: Despite warnings millions have been paid to corporations". The original headline from the 11th of June reads: "Defrauded of millions: did corporations subvert German climate protection?" Both are an understatement, the volume in question is up to 4.5 billion EUR since 2020.
blitzar 2y ago
Is it just me or is your comment completely in English?

throwf 2y ago

[flagged]

vasco 2y ago

If you force companies to "figure out" how to meet a quota for something that isn't as simple as "buy it" this is what happens. Loads of carbon capture projects, even if not outright scams and with good intentions, leave the local area worse off after just a few years. I worked for a company that genuinely tried to dedicate a % of revenue to carbon recapture and we had a really tough time finding projects that looked somewhat trustworthy.

schneehertz 2y ago

The German government subsidizes multinational corporations' oil facilities in China. This article mentions "China" too many times, but what does this have to do with China? Isn't it the multinational companies that are suspected of fraud? Not a single name of any multinational corporation is even mentioned in the article.

Propelloni 2y ago
The part of China in this situation is that the Chinese government does not allow foreign inspectors into China to check if the sponsored projects are actually doing what they claim, and either China does not check these projects itself or does a bad job at it, thus enabling fraud. I don't know why anyone would sponsor a project in China under these conditions in the first place (or anywhere under similar conditions), but that's a different story. Of course, that does not change that multinational oil companies are the ones conducting the fraud or that a local Chinese competitor fingered them, so that things came to light.
- mike_hearn 2y ago
  Germans sponsor such projects in China because European emissions aren't growing much and are an irrelevant slice of global output. If you want to subsidize people to reduce emissions you have to go where the emissions are. At this point the developing world completely dominates emissions and emissions growth: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-region?time=1950..latest https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co-emissions-by-re... China, India and Asia swamp all other contributors in terms of growth and (with the exception of America beating India) also absolute amounts. The entire EU emits around the same as India alone.
  - cryptonym 2y ago
    > The entire EU emits around the same as India alone. With only a third of India's population. Don't worry there is still a lot to do in Europe.
    - 2y ago

r0ckarong 2y ago

German government defrauded by 40 out of 60 chinese climate projects. It doesn't have to be fake news if you just know how to sum up a statement.

Gasp0de 2y ago
It's American/Multinational Oil companies defrauding the German government. The Chinese company actually contacted the German government to blow the whistle and say "Hey, those things you have about us are not true".
tsss 2y ago
Everyone is defrauding the German government, including every politician and every other branch of the German government. It has more to do with the Germans than the Chinese.
neuronic 2y ago
As a European I am all for China criticism, really. But this is wrong. Chinese companies have raised the concerns and the Green party federal authorities in Germany have knowingly and actively ignored the warnings and continue to do so. So you got: - American oil companies defrauding Germans in China - Chinese companies raising concerns to German authorities - German Green party authorities actively ignoring said warning which are easily verified. I mentioned Green party because it is not far fetched to claim a political motive given the ease of prevention

gmerc 2y ago

Wait until you find out that we’re giving Shell carbon capture credits for injecting it into NorthSea oil fields to speed up the extraction of … oil. I wish I was making this up.

bluelu 2y ago

It says here that fraud happened on german side. The chinese company reported that documents have been modified on the german controlling side without their approval, and that potential fraud is happening and they should investigate. However nothing was done. "Dabei waren die Gefahren Geld nach China zu zahlen für solche Projekte dem Bundesumweltministerium eigentlich bekannt. Zuletzt im April meldete sich ein chinesischer Öl- und Gaskonzern von selbst bei dem von Steffi Lemke (Grüne) geführten Umweltministerium und erklärte deutlich, dass von Betrugsfällen auszugehen ist. „Wir vermuten, dass es eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit gibt, dass Dokumente gefälscht wurden und wir bitten dringend, dass Ihre Behörde dazu ermittelt“, teilte der chinesische Konzern dem Ministerium mit. Dieses wimmelte wohl ab, wie die Welt berichtet. Deutsche Prüfstellen haben anscheinend einige Daten der Anlagen des chinesischen Unternehmens geändert und ohne dessen Zustimmung verwendet. "

Gasp0de 2y ago
I understood it in a slightly different way: The multinational oil companies owning these Chinese companies wrongly claimed that these would save millions of tonnes of CO2. The German authorities accepted this claim even though there was reasonable doubt and it could not be verified because China doesn't allow German authorities to come to China and verify it. The way you phrased it made it sound as if Germany (as in the government) was somehow trying to profit from it. However, they are the ones being frauded.
- AnonCoward42 2y ago
  It is reasonable to assume that they are in on it. At the very least they got out of their way not to change it, even when they were being notified about potential fraud.
  - neuronic 2y ago
    I also understood it this way (native German). In Germany companies want to claim "as much saved CO2" as possible. > Das Ziel war, möglichst hohe CO₂-Einsparungen in Deutschland geltend zu machen. The federal authorities knowingly approved the fraudulent UER projects. What's spicy is that the secretary is a green party member. > Das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle genehmigten 75 dieser UER-Projekte – fast ausschließlich in China. Und das, obwohl weitere Hinweise dafür sprachen, besser nicht dort zu investieren. Denn China lässt unabhängige Kontrollen im eigenen Land nicht zu. Peking verweigert entsprechenden Prüfer:innen die Einreise. Also, apparently a simple look at satellite images should have at least caused suspicion when Chinese companies raised the concerns. There is still no reaction from Steffi Lemke. > Was Rostek mit dem „Durchwinken“ meint, ist die anscheinend unzureichende Prüfung der Bauvorhaben durch das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle. Über Satellitenbilder wäre einfach zu erkennen gewesen, dass einige der eingereichten chinesischen Vorhaben schon vor dem eigentlichen Baustart existiert haben.

londons_explore 2y ago

The whole idea of crediting someone for 'what they would have emitted' is wrong. There is just no way to prove what you 'would have done'. Instead we should simply be billing for carbon actually emitted. If you emit less, your bill is smaller.

john61 2y ago
> Instead we should simply be billing for carbon actually emitted. If you emit less, your bill is smaller. Poor people have the same human rights than rich people. Therefore it should not be dependent on money how much a person can emit. There should be a hard limit of allowed CO2 emissions per person.
blitzar 2y ago
> simply be billing for carbon actually emitted Many companies (and induviduals) would cease to be viable going concerns if they had to pay for their emissions. The transition from unlimited free poluting to full pay for emissions requires some smoothing and the credit system seems as reasonable as any. > There is just no way to prove what you 'would have done'. Base it on output - energy generators can output X per GWH, steel mills Y per ton of steel, transport Z per passenger / tonne per mile etc. If you can do it cleaner you have excess credits - dirtier and you pay. This is essentially the system we have today (and it is fantastically capitalist in its design).
- lupusreal 2y ago
  What we have is a system where people get paid for counterfactuals; carbon credits awarded for things they didn't do but claim they would have, like getting paid to not cut down a forest. Fraud is easy because investigators cannot be sent to the counterfactual universe to verify the claims.
- Attrecomet 2y ago
  >the credit system seems as reasonable as any. It's fraud, pure and simple. I don't know how such a broken system could be "reasonable" for anything. But hey, at least polluters can lie to their customers and claim "their greenhouse emissions have been offset", so I guess capitalistically, it makes sense.

_trampeltier 2y ago

Is there a single CO2 certificate, which is not fake?

Attrecomet 2y ago
Yes, in a museum's deep vault somewhere, since it's one of a kind.

olaf 2y ago

misleading title

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

I hate such data presentation. 40 / 60 = 67%, this is a figure that we are all used to understanding, just because plenty of things are in percentages. Or 2 out of 3 - this is something we can relate to as well. The next one will be 378 out of 2567, quickly is this a lot or not. Sure you would say that 78 is about a third of 1000, and we have about 2.5 thousands so it ... etc. Instead of just saying 15%.

hummuscience 2y ago
It depends. 40 out of 60 is easier to grasp for many people than 67%. Percentages are better in cases where the numbers are harder to imagine (like your second example).
- lostmsu 2y ago
  It's easy to misread as 40/60 (e.g. split)
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  This is why I mentioned 2/3 - why keep a reductible fraction?

yayr 2y ago

The report says, that China does not allow independent auditors for the subsidised investments to enter the country. This should have been a red flag. It would have been easy to change the policy to only support investments that allow independent auditors.

woodpanel 2y ago

Who could have thought that under the protective veil where every critique about a policy or program is succesfully labelled as right-wing, climate-change-denialist, or naz*, corruption would flourish? This is neither the first nor the last case of illegal activities environmentalism has produced in Germany (Prokon scandal, Graichen scandal, Christmas benefit payments, corona benefit payments, Harald Friedrich etc).

blackoil 2y ago

This thread shows to some extent why we are doomed. Half of the comments are focused on if we can blame China or not. While reading cursorily gives clear indication that all of the parties could have caught it and did nothing. Instead of trying to root out corruption near us, we are happy to blame other and do nothing.

mxfh 2y ago

And guess what, it's not the Greens to blame, but the party and lobbyist who set this big-oil friendly scheme up in 2015 and renewed it in early 2021. Peak Merkel/Altmaier-era greenwashing enablement, the scaled down PV and Wind in favor for an extended transition period to be run on petrol and russian gas.

hannob 2y ago

That's a pretty clickbaity headline (the one here, not the original one). This is about a special law that allows oil companies to compensate carbon reduction requirements. Which, to be clear, is a big deal, and a major case of fraud. But the headline makes it sound like the majority of all climate efforts in Germany are fraudulent. That's... a very different claim, and not the one in this article.

SebFender 2y ago

Nothing new - these setups and situations have been going on since the beginning of the 2000's - here's one of hundreds of articles https://www.courrierinternational.com/une/une-du-jour-le-marche-des-compensations-carbone-est-un-scandale-climatique https://www.courrierinternational.com/une/une-du-jour-le-mar... Linking the economy to the environment sounds great but in practice this needs to change.

incomingpain 2y ago

I am shocked 20 out of 60 weren't detected for what they are.

bArray 2y ago

The website itself is pretty hostile: > Continue with ads - ACCEPT ALL > ...or subscribe to Freechoice - SUBSCRIBE NOW https://www.cookieyes.com/blog/cookie-law/ https://www.cookieyes.com/blog/cookie-law/

Gillies123 2y ago

There are a lot of untrue recommendations and its hard to tell who is legit. If you have lost money to scam contact (zattrecoverypro1 ⓐ Gmail Dot Com) they will surely help you out. Took me long to find them