In a word, Yes. (I’ll be eagerly waiting to see how the global-warming hystericals try to spin the Financial Times as a “rightwing-mouthpiece” or a “non-credible news source”):

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

I would no sooner send my cash to buy “carbon credits” than I would send my bank account information to some guy named Howgul Abul Arhu in Nigeria.

Of course, I’ve been questioning the validity of “carbon offsets” and “carbon credits” since I first heard the term.

__________

OTHERS:

NewsBusters summarizes some of the other points made in the Financial Times:

â–  Widespread instances of people and organisations buying worthless credits that do not yield any reductions in carbon emissions.

■ Industrial companies profiting from doing very little – or from gaining carbon credits on the basis of efficiency gains from which they have already benefited substantially.

â–  Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.

â–  A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.

â–  Companies and individuals being charged over the odds for the private purchase of European Union carbon permits that have plummeted in value because they do not result in emissions cuts.

Eugene Volokh:

The bottom line is that if Al Gore and Leo DiCaprio truly want to be sure they are reducing their carbon footprint, they are going to have to reduce their own energy consumption, rather than paying others to do it for them.

Exactly.

Posted by Robbie Cooper on Thursday, April 26th, 2007 | Trackback |