Under the UN system of carbon trading, it seems that most of the projects that receive money for reducing carbon emissions would have been built anyway. Thus, most payments do not actually reduce emissions. At least that is the conclusion of two recent studies. From the Guardian's environmental editor (tip to Tim Blair):
Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN's carbon offsetting programme.
Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN's main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.
The criticism centres on the UN's clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations. Credits from the project are being bought by European companies and governments who are unable to meet their carbon reduction targets. . . .
A working paper from two senior Stanford University academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10bn of credits from the UN's CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. "They would be built anyway," says David Victor, law professor at the Californian university. "It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts." . . .
The Stanford paper, by Victor and his colleague Michael Wara, found that nearly every new hydro, wind and natural gas-fired plant expected to be built in China in the next four years is applying for CDM credits, even though it is Chinese policy to encourage these industries.
"Traders are finding ways of gaining credits that they would never have had before. You will never know accurately, but rich countries are clearly overpaying by a massive amount," said Victor.
A separate study published this week by US watchdog group International Rivers argues that nearly three quarters of all registered CDM projects were complete at the time of approval, suggesting that CDM money was not needed to finance them.
"It would seem clear that a project that is already built cannot need extra income in order to be built," said Patrick McCully, director of the thinktank in California. "Judging additionality has turned out to be unknowable and unworkable. It can never be proved definitively that if a developer or factory owner did not get offset income they would not build their project."
Yesterday a spokesman for the CDM in Bonn said the fund was significantly cutting emissions and providing incentives for companies to employ clean technologies: "There is a responsible level of scrutiny. The process is in continual reform. All the projects are vetted independently and are then certified by third parties. There are many checks and balances and we can show how all projects are vetted."
Now that the UN has learned to game the system, is it any surprise that the CDM is a scam, paid for primarily by U.S. taxpayers?
Zero accountability always leads to theft.
Sorry, but the UN is worse than worthless.
I assume they are using the same criteria that they used for the Iraq Oil for Food program. Only those firms that offer kickbacks qualify.
The UN has become nothing more ( or less ) than a feeding trough for corrupt 3rd world politicians and their backers, and it is well past time we throw them out, and get out.
Instead, of course, we build them a fancy new building on some of the most expensive prime real estate in the world.
I wonder how popular the UN would be with the politicians of the world if we built them a STANDARD-grade office building in, oh, let's say - Montana ? Far far away from the luxury life of mid-town Manhattan.
Gee, do you think that might be a non-starter in the General Assembly ? how about if we agreed to take all the money saved ( BILLIONS of dollars ) and give it to feed the poor ?
Any takers ? Hello ?
( crickets sho do get loud this time of year around here .... )
does anyone else see a problem with using projects applying for credits in the analysis? the money is not wasted until the program is actually given money.
If a particular fire department had never put out a fire, and the fire chief got caught diverting money to his son, we might think about abolishing that fire department. That doesn't mean we don't think putting out fires isn't a good idea.
How many things does the UN have to fail at before we pull the plug on this wasteful, inept, corrupt bureaucracy? With a little googling I managed to find out how the UN estimates AID incidence in sub-Saharan Africa: in a word "badly." Another hoax.
For some reason I'm getting parallels with folks that I've argued with on whether the exclusionary rule is good policy -- I'm fine with alternative propositions so long as they are put in place before we overrule Mapp and Weeks.
In both cases, a bad solution is worse than an interregnum in which there is no solution at all.
In the case of the UN, dismantling what we've got is no big deal because what we've got is nothing, except an assessment.
'Carbon tax' in all its forms is just another attempt by the UN and the left-wing liberal freaks to take more of our money away from us. There is exactly ZERO proof that 'anthropogenic GW' even exists.
Oren, you need your morning coffee or something. A replacement program for an organization which accomplishes ZERO already exists, and it's called: "Nothing".
Here's my idea: terminate the lease in NYC. At the same time, offer to build them a new office building, with more capacity than they currently have, in some smallish size midwestern town--say 10,000 to 100,000 population--which is near a major airport and wants the extra income. No special accommodations should need to be built, I think, though maybe local infrastructure could be upgraded to handle any new load (a bonus for the city in question). The market will take care of food and lodging accomodation, but until it does let the delegates feed on what the average American does (which is still better than most of the UN members' constituents live on).
I figure the cost savings and economy boost from turning the NYC site into economy-boosting commercial space should offset the cost of building them some sort of office complex in the heartland. There would obviously be some local disparities, but on the whole the US should come out ahead as we free up a new tax base in NYC as well as creating a small metropolitan boom in an area otherwise unlikely to get it.
Of course such a win-win scenario will never happen; this is the UN we're talking about. But we can dream...
How did you reach this conclusion? The US is not party to the Kyoto protocol, under which CDM trades occur. The paying parties are business firms in countries that are subject to Kyoto.
Jim: Thanks for linking to this article, which cross-links to the underlying paper, which has useful information on how the CDM markets work - or dpn't work well and can be improved.
But GHG "reductions" is a false measure. China's GHG emissions are rapidly growing. The CDM market is achieving some of its purpose if it helps to accelerate investment in the GHG-lite energy generation, and thus takes some pressure off of the demand for fossil-fuel power generation.
I say, do your duty to mother gaia. Get out there and burn as much carbon positive stuff as you can. If you believe that the human race has significantly contributed to "climate change" because of carbon dioxide production, then only you can prevent the next glacial event (which may or may not be triggered by the oncoming solar minimum).
In any cae, I have resolved to reduce my personal flatulence by 50%. What am I bid for my methane/carbon credits, which should be substantial? (The buyer assumes all risk associated with the effects of flatulence mixed with moving air currents).
Good luck with that.