Global carbon market is a $909 billion dollar game that rewards bureaucrats and bankers

The Elephant in the room. The vested interests rule.

By Jo Nova

The global carbon market in sacred certificates-to-stop-storms now “worth” nearly one trillion dollars

Remember this number next time someone tells you fossil fuels are stopping “climate action”.

The whole trillion dollar carbon market is a vested interest. It is a fake market entirely created on government whimsy. The whole absurd point of it is supposedly to slow tornadoes or floods in 2100, and reduce beach-weather in Europe. Because who likes the beach?

LONDON, Feb 7 (Reuters) – The value of traded global markets for carbon dioxide (CO2) permits reached a record 850 billion euros ($909 billion) last year, analysts at Refinitiv said on Tuesday. Around 12.5 billion tonnes of carbon permits changed hands in the world’s emissions markets – 20% less than the previous year – but the value of the markets rose by 14% as prices for permits were much higher.

In a carbon market, certain favoured groups can say they produced less carbon dioxide this year than they otherwise might have. They get to sell their anointed pieces of paper to other less favoured people who have to buy credits because the government says they must. At any point in this game, industries can get exemptions added or allowances boosted. So if the bribes or post-political-life jobs on offer are good enough, the right people can arrange to divert the river of money toward their own accounts. And the insiders can buy or sell the shares as the government policy changes. It creates a vast economy of busy work and a big pile of money.

The great thing about this political and fundraising tool (for criminals) is that almost anything can be “flexed”. The potential for loopholes is infinite because this is not a free market, just the illusion of one. For starters there’s no product anyone cares about at the end of the chain –there’s no cargo ship of diamonds that someone will miss. Corruption can run riot, and who would know?

The carbon market is not really a carbon market at all — the largest producers of CO2 are not even in the game. The Pacific Ocean can’t pay, the phytoplankton can’t be taxed and the northern boreal forests will get plain away with it unless a friend of a friend happens to own a nice plot that can be rebadged as a carbon farm. So politicians are sitting on a gold mine of opportunity. Most carbon in the world doesn’t count, and they get to be kingmakers to decide what does. What’s an act of God? — ask the Minister.

If, hypothetically, our elected representatives were less than angelic, they could tweak the terms and conditions to their donors’ hearts content. The ruling party in charge decides whether your saltbush credits are accepted, or whether your organic goats cheese gets an exception. Is nuclear power “carbon neutral”? Fifty years laters, the EU still can’t decide.

If an election is coming up, the ruling party can roll out some more credits and reduce the “cost of living” at least until after the votes are in.

carbon credits, burning dollar note, fiat currency, carbon market.

The Game of Carbon Leeches works because the money is stolen quietly from the people. Thousands upon millions of shoemakers, mechanics, bakers and cleaners pay higher prices for peas, beans and widgets because somewhere down the supply chain someone or several of the people involved had to buy some fairy carbon credits. Their fake costs are added to our real bills. The money is siphoned invisibly from the masses and given to the special classes. Did you get lucky?

The carbon market is gradual creeping communism, but even the Soviets didn’t tax the proletariat to give their grandchildren better weather.

Elephant artwork by Jo Nova adapted from Wikimedia photo: Hansm

9.9 out of 10 based on 115 ratings

90 comments to Global carbon market is a $909 billion dollar game that rewards bureaucrats and bankers

  • #
    Kalm+Keith

    This Global Carbon Market is built entirely on the concept that there is danger in the growth of Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere.

    It would seem obvious that this “basis” should be scrupulously examined and clearly defined by any reasonably functional operating democracy but currently that’s not happening.

    Are there too many benefiting from the uncertainty?

    530

    • #
      Ted1.

      CO2 does more good than harm.

      310

    • #
      TdeF

      To be more precise, it is built on the idea that humans can determine how much CO2 is in the air. That the laws of physical chemistry do not apply to CO2 made from burning old leaves.

      98% of all CO2 is dissolved in the ocean. Consider this hardly makes a difference to the ocean as the ocean is 350x as big as the air and the amount in the air is 0.042%. (Average ocean depth 3.5km. 10 metres = 1 atmosphere)

      And like all dissolved gases, how much is in the liquid and how much in the air is determined by kinematics, surface temperature. Gases like CO2, O2 go into and out of the liquid all the time. According to Henry’s Law, this ratio is a constant.

      But we have decided, without any advice from scientists other than alleged Climate Scientists, that humans can and do control CO2 levels, say by growing trees. And on this basis $900 Bn changes hands.

      Except none of it is true.

      220

      • #
        TdeF

        Perhaps the simplest proof was provided by NASA in 2016.

        In the period 1988 through 2014, CO2 went up 14%. The tree coverage of the planet went up 14%. Two Brazilian rainforests.

        Did CO2 deviate even slightly from its 0.2% growth per year? No.

        So growing untold billions of trees makes no difference to CO2. It does not go down.

        Worse, if CO2 goes up, trees grow themselves and this has no effect on CO2.

        How is that possible? Trees are made entirely from CO2 and H2O, so vast amounts of CO2 were sequestered!
        The answer is that trees do not affect CO2 because they are irrelevant to the process of rapid exchange between the oceans and the air of a dissolved gas. Remove some from the air and it is just replaced from the ocean to maintain the ratio.

        Peter Ridd of JCU fame differed. He said Henry’s Law does not explain the size of the 50% increase in CO2 since 1750. But Henry’s Law is about a laboratory in perfect conditions with no wind. And while the principles are the same, absorption and release of a dissolved gas goes as the 4th power of the wind speed.

        We see this in every breath we take. Our lungs are 200m2 of thin tissue with plasma (ancient sea water) on one side and many thousands of tiny tubes which increase the velocity. Air comes in with O2 21% and CO2 0.042% and comes out in a single breath with O2 14% and CO2 a whopping 4-14% dependent on the level of activity. Massively fast exchange with speed.

        Most importantly, NASA have proven farming based carbon credits are a waste of time. And in the same logic, burying CO2 in the ground only does what trees do.

        So I have to ask. How do you change CO2 levels to earn Carbon Credits?

        170

        • #
          TdeF

          And the whole point about ’emissions’ is silly. The essential logic is that if you decrease emissions, CO2 decreases. Who proved that? It’s just the flip side of man made CO2, which you can disprove by measuring how much constant C14 is diluted in the modern age and it’s a miserly 3%.

          This reduction in CO2 also didn’t happen in 2020 when the world locked down and a billion cars and thousands of jets and hundreds of cruise liners were taken out of service. That was one huge experiment. Result? Zip.

          Even without experiments, we know that you cannot change CO2 levels. What happened with the NASA greening and the lockdown was proof that we cannot, that trees do not determine CO2 but CO2 determines trees. And the corollary is that burying CO2 is pointless when 98% of CO2 is in the ocean anyway and just replaces what is missing.

          So why have CO2 levels increased, albeit very slowly at 0.2% a year? Because of molecular kinematics. Higher temperature means more gas leaves the liquid. Which is why we keep fizzy drinks cool. That’s not rocket science. Warming produces more CO2 and as the UN head says, we are in the age of Ocean Boiling.

          100

  • #
    Ando

    If only we had an opposition to rally against this madness…
    In Australia, the green liberals introduce all these madcap schemes and then their alp comrades weaponise them when it’s their turn to screw the people. Our choice is to be screwed at 95 or 100 kmh because people are so conditioned to voting for the nation wrecking uniparty.
    And all this to not solve a non problem. Trillions spent to date for no measurable change to co2, temps or climate but they press on, undeterred.
    The biggest scam in history, all made possible because of one thing, FEAR. We saw how successfully fear was used during the coofid episode, to the point where people showed passes to buy a coffee, did not leave their homes, wore filthy face nappies when driving alone and injected their children with experimental substances – The power of fear is remarkable and our ruling class know it.

    521

  • #

    In nearby exeter they look to be creating a hydrogen facility so a local company can change half it’s vehicle fleet to hydrogen

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-68275705

    Quite where the hydrogen will come from and how much co2 it will create s not clear. I suspect there will be a govt subsidy involved somewhere

    310

    • #
      DOC

      Sounds like a place to have Andrew Forest sniffing about, depending on the subsidies. High enough subs and Andrew might assist in developing a plan.

      70

    • #

      Exeter H2 Hub “said it planned to apply for government support “to make hydrogen refuelling a reality for the region”.” … per the BBC article at the link.

      So – if it happens, taxpayers will have stumped up – again.

      Auto

      30

  • #
    Honk R Smith

    At least there is no conspiracy.

    40

    • #
      Bruce

      No “conspiracy”, maybe.

      But in the words of Sir Les Paterson:

      “A CONVERGENCE of interest” As opposed to a “conflict” in interest”.

      With the perpetually-associated “spillage”..

      130

      • #
        Jon Rattin

        When today’s thread involves the siphoning of public money into private hands in the name of a spurious cause, it seems fitting to quote Sir Les Patterson. After issuing Sir Les a significant Arts grant, Gough Whitlam asked him what the money was really for. Sir Les replied “Gough, I’m going to piss it up against the wall”

        170

      • #
        Honk R Smith

        I was making a joke.
        Which I do with roughly the same efficiency as renewable energy.
        And pitifully less successfully than the joke played on us.

        Especially when we start paying to repair the damage for which we were robed to pay for in the first place..
        It’s almost as if the Big Bang slows and time reverses.
        Maybe coal plants will rise from the dust and reassemble.
        Like Stephen Hawking’s tea cup.
        Science …
        which built the once great Western culture and is now laying it to waste.

        70

  • #
    Angus Black

    “…to give their grandchildren better weather”

    The excuse and the reason are not connected.

    150

  • #
    GlenM

    It’s enough to convince your average layman, scientist or academic to say that Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that man produces most of it. As a consequence of this disinformation we are told that all manner of natural disaster will visit us. Even a lot of young farmers were fed this nonsense at school and now they think they’re saving the planet and avoiding droughts and floods if they go ahead with some government inducement or handout to put transmission lines on their property. One fellow thinks the solar panels are great as his sheep shelter under them and that their wool is superior. I don’t know how or when this stupidity ends.

    361

    • #
      Adellad

      Those whom the Gods would destroy they first make crazy. Alas in my dotage it’s how I see “it” ending.

      211

    • #
      DOC

      Would love to know his stocking rate per hectare and the duration of that stocking. With all that electricity floating around its a wonder the sheep go anywhere near the things. Maybe the atmospherics are the source for stimulating wool production. A bit of static floating around in the fleece, who knows what it does. Not much room under those panels to allow sheep
      to expend energy on fast movement. ie its an entirely different environment to be explored before deciding its a winner. Maybe the lamb is half cooked before the sheep hits the abatoir.

      30

    • #
      KP

      When humans discovered electricity there was a lot of experimentation done, including electrodes in soil to see if it improved plants, and lots of experiments on people. All those results have been swept under the carpet because proved such a useful money-maker as it lifted civilisation to new levels.

      00

    • #
      TdeF

      “man produces most of it. ”

      True, that is what they are told, but our output is tiny, inconsequential.

      Consider even the idea that CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere an after 250 years has increased atmospheric CO2 by 50%? If our output was so massive, why has this small increase taken 250 years?

      CO2 existed before life itself. It is a chemical, a molecule formed by two of the most common light weight elements in the universe. An even more common one is H2O.

      And the amount of H2O on the planet is 350x the weight of the atmosphere made of 78% N2, 21% O2, 1% Ar, 0.042% CO2 and a water vapour (not liquid clouds) of between typically 1% and 4%, by far the greatest greenhouse gas.

      My point is that the exaggeration of human activities is ridiculous. O2 goes into the water all the time. That’s how fish breathe. CO2 as well, especially as it is 32x more soluble! And O2 comes out and CO2 comes out.

      I can give 36 references to the fact that it takes about 5 years for half of all CO2 to go into the water. And come out. So any excess is washed away.

      Using this figure you can show that while Al Gore states human output is 160Billion tons a day, 860 Billion tons a day goes into and out of the ocean. And as equilibrium works, even faster if there is an imbalance.

      Consider the massive bushfires on the East Coast of Australia. Why didn’t CO2 go up? We saw why as the smoke/CO2 blew over the South Pacific.

      So while it could be said that the story is that mankind is responsible for CO2. We are not significant at all. Its a form of scientific megalomania to make out that our tiny cars and aircraft change climates. The next time you are in an aircraft, look down. Tell me from 37,000′ you can see cars and boats and trucks, especially over the 72% of the planet which is just water.

      120

  • #
    Ross

    There’s lots of phrases that are common to the English language where the words just go together. When prompted with only one of the words of that phrase, people can very often recite it instantly. So, ” Good morning”. ” Merry Xmas”, ” cool as a cucumber”, “piece of cake “, ” bury the hatchet”. The list is endless. For me, when I hear the 2 words “carbon credits”, in my mind I’m thinking “dodgy carbon credits”. The word “dodgy” just seems to fit the other 2 words perfectly.

    301

  • #
    Jonesy

    The basic premise? This market is a house of cards. Disprove the one key card and the whole edifice comes crashing down. CO2 is not guilty!

    150

    • #
      Lawrie

      The basic premise has been well and truly destroyed but it is not allowed to be reported and is called disinformation. The excuse is now that so much is dependent on the scam that to destroy it would cause an untold financial disaster. Well it might for the parasites that are involved but for the rest it would be a Godsend. We are now in a situation where it is more important to protect a minute but powerful minority even if it causes distress to the vast majority. Exhibit one: renewable energy.

      140

    • #
      Mike Jonas

      You can’t disprove anything to someone who won’t listen. They won’t listen. That was demonstrated in the Mann vs Steyn “trial” where Mann’s lawyer said that if Mann’s hockey stick was wrong it would have been disproved, but it hadn’t. Hands over ears and la la la la la is the new peer-review.

      120

    • #
      DOC

      That’s why traditional science is outlawed. Proof before opinion science? That’s against the basic activist code that ’emotional decisions outweigh traditional standards of proof in all matters!’ Experts on electricity on this blog find they get nowhere with arguments based on physics and logic when addressing government and climate activist’s plans for ‘free’ energy. Even while energy charges increase continuously, it is not enough for most people to realise the gross lack of logic and reason they accept when playing the climate game. This in itself defies logic. People will not see nor react to the blatant stupidity of politicians on one hand nor their self serving callousness on the other. Or, are we so scared now of personal consequences for speaking out?

      71

    • #
      TdeF

      I am sorry to repeat, but even if CO2 produces warming, the actual proposition is that we caused the increase in CO2, that we can control CO2, that Carbon Credits are directly connected to a decrease in CO2. None of which is true.

      Whether CO2 causes warming is a moot point if we do not and cannot control CO2. And while there is plenty of proof it is not true, I have never see a proof that it is. All I have ever seen is an ice core derived CO2 graph and this bolted quite improperly on to modern instruments. Much like Mann’s Hockey stick. My term is the Ice Hockey Stick.

      And the argument is that two things have gone up at the same time, so CO2 must cause warming. And at the very least have to point out the other equally illogical conclusion from correlation, that warming increases CO2. And this does make very good sense when you consider that 98% of CO2 is dissolved in the ocean and even slight warming would release more.

      90

    • #
      Tarquin+Wombat-Carruthers

      back tulip futures!

      00

  • #
    Simon

    Now you know why their trying to avoid nuclear power. It will put a huge hole in this. Why? It’s the answer to the no/low emissions and baseload power issue. In other words a technology such as this actually goes towards solving the climate change problem/non-problem (depending upon your point of view). Hey, never try to solve a ‘problem’ that can be extremely profitable.

    313

  • #
    MrGrimNasty

    In the UK I was until recently oblivious to a new BNG (biodiversity net gain) obligation on developers.
    https://www.biodiversity.ox.ac.uk/research_stories/fixing-the-gaps-in-englands-biodiversity-net-gain-policy/
    https://www.edie.net/biodiversity-net-gain-ambitious-policy-or-a-glorified-offsetting-scheme/
    The idea was that they would perhaps build houses on one field, and make another more wildlife friendly. But they can just buy offsets anywhere in the world I think.
    On a recent BBC Country File program they showed a farmer getting approx £20k upfront per acre taken out of food production and sewn with a ‘wildlife meadow grass/flower mix’ (that must be maintained for 20 years I think) that he could sell to developers as offsets or in a trading market type arrangement. It seems to be a very similar thing to the carbon market.

    130

  • #
    william x

    Former chair of the Emissions Reduction Assurance Committee, Professor Andrew Macintosh (ANU, Law)

    Stated this in March 2022:

    “I feel that Australia’s carbon market (has) degenerated to become a rort.”……..

    “This is little more than a wealth transfer. People can think about it as welfare payments for the undeserving.”

    Article link: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-24/insider-blows-whistle-on-greenhouse-gas-reduction-schemes/100933186

    Who would have thought?.

    200

  • #
    Uber

    Does anybody else remember when we used to make jokes about getting taxed on the air we breath?

    271

  • #
    STJOHNOFGRAFTON

    Plants and trees remove CO₂ efficiently and for free via photosynthesis. But that’s not all folks. We get bonus food and building materials. This global carbon market run by money hungry elites, prostitutes the natural process of photosynthesis for the purposes of greed, where permits and certificates are equivalent to buying an indulgence to appease Gaia and the climate gods.

    270

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Neatly put 🙂

      70

    • #
      TdeF

      Yes. But it is just replaced from the ocean. Trees do sequester CO2, but the equilibrium ratio of CO2 in the ocean and CO2 in the air is set by thermodynamics as in Henry’s Law. And the reserves in the ocean are near infinite. Nothing humans have done has had any effect on CO2. All of our historic CO2 is now in the ocean or at least 98% of it.

      50

  • #
    Sean

    The fundamental flaw in this market is that buyer and seller can both benefit by cheating.

    120

  • #

    It will eventually come crashing down since it is tied to fiat money and their growing arrogance will be their undoing.

    150

  • #
    grumpyineimeo

    Unless my maths are wrong, the carbon dioxide content from the breath of china’s population exceeds Australias total emissions. Can I have a Billion certificates please?

    140

  • #
    David Maddison

    We are now at the point that the BS is piled so high and so deep on so many levels that it’s difficult to work out how to unravel it all.

    170

    • #
      DOC

      Too many people stand to face the firing squad of total reputational loss and scorn. They can’t afford to pull the rug now even if they wanted to. They stand as statues simply watching the catastrophe of opinion based climate theory run out of hand. Better to watch their own country’s wealth and living standards crumple than have their egotistical stupidity exposed and being violently ridiculed. Just look at those that will be judged. CEO’s with vast resources they had that could/should have destroyed the climate theories. PM’s, politicians at all levels. Entire education systems to tertiary levels. Exposure of the activists’ political beliefs and sources of funding – UN, WEF, EU Commission, lawyers, scientists that desecrated their own calling and the former trust placed on them. Media. The list is endless – and powerful!

      140

    • #
      Lawrie

      Alexander was also faced with such a dilemna. It was called the Gordian Knot. He reportedly studied it for a short time and then sliced it in two with his sword. Whether he was studying the knot with the intention of unraveling it or simply judging how hard he should strike it with his sword is unknown. Either way he cut through the crap as should any conservative government when next in power. There is no reason why a brave PM and their team could not simply turn off the tap to the champagne socialists by stopping the need for certificates and stopping subsidies to the carpetbaggers. There would be squeals from a few but cheers from the many. Next let people access their super to buy a house and cripple the union funds. Win win.

      90

      • #
        David Maddison

        Turn him to any cause of policy, The Gordian knot of it he will unloose, Familiar as his garter: that, when he speaks, The air, a chartered libertine, is still.

        — Shakespeare, Henry V, Act 1 Scene 1

        30

      • #
        Steve

        The problem, IMO, is that the rich carpetbaggers know the climate “emergency” is a complete scam, but the little people have been brainwashed and really believe there is an emergency. So, any brave politician doesn’t have to worry about the corrupt 1%, they have to overcome and convince the corrupted 99%. That is potentially a more difficult task.

        10

    • #
      KP

      I don’t think they are too worried about it in Ukraine, and that is the endpoint for the rest of the West I expect.

      When we all get involved in the next war it will just fall by the wayside.. no-one will care, no-one will question if it was good or bad, right or wrong, no-one will get blamed…

      There will be new politicians braying about saving us from the enemy instead..

      20

  • #
    Neville

    Everything about their so called green W & S + BATTERIES is just more TOXIC BS and FRAUD and ditto for their corrupt co2 certificates.
    W & S only last 15 to 20 years and then ongoing replacement FOREVER and TOXIC batteries would be lucky to last 10 years.
    Their so called co2 certificates won’t make a scrap of difference to the CLIMATE, Temp or extreme weather events etc, but they will make many very wealthy people even wealthier as time goes by.
    And the poorest people will have to carry it all and pay the ARTIFICIAL increase in charges, because of the elites SUPER PONZI scheme.

    150

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN here’s the latest co2 emissions from the OECD and NON OECD countries and note the NON OECD’s SOARING co2 emissions since 2004.
    And China, India and the other NON OECD countries will be building CHEAP, RELIABLE COAL plants for many more decades and heading for a much more prosperous future.
    Australia should also be doing the same, but alas we have some very stupid so called leaders who can’t understand very simple data and evidence.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=Non-OECD+%28GCP%29~OECD+%28GCP%29

    100

  • #
    Dave in the States

    A trillion combined with irrational religious fanaticism is a bad combination.

    90

  • #
    John Hultquist

    “…carbon dioxide (CO2) permits reached a record 850 billion euros ($909 billion) last year
    To the nearest whole number, the effect on Earth’s atmosphere will be Zero.
    Is that just for 1 year?
    Did anyone notify Gaia?
    Mauna Loa CO2 up 3.32 ppm in the last year
    January 2024: 422.80 ppm
    January 2023: 419.48 ppm
    Last updated: Feb 05, 2024

    80

    • #
      DOC

      But the effects on the democracies will be terminal if allowed to continue. It is heartening to see reality tempering the excesses of many of the EU governments where their continuance in power is in jeopardy as people rebel.

      90

  • #
    mmxx

    The term “Ponzi” has become outdated and on the nose.

    Carbon Market or Save the Planet schemes are so much more appealingly today’s equivalent.

    60

  • #
    Simon

    If you don’t like carbon markets, the alternative is a carbon tax. Temperatures will continue to rise if greenhouse gas emissions are treated as an externality.

    021

    • #
      Mike Jonas

      Get real. The alternative is simply no carbon market.

      120

    • #
      KP

      Any proof that temperatures depend on human-emitted CO2 and not other factors? I’ve seen all the arguments for it debunked so far.

      90

    • #
      markx

      Nah. Like you, I was greatly impressed by market theory. Such a simple and effective concept! And it works marvellously in cases where a single, simple, uneccessary externality is targeted. And those who directly deal with the externality are the ones involved in the market force applied.

      However, it is surely becomes glaringly obvious that something which is integral to every bit of construction, manufacturing, agricultural production, and which is produced by natural processes on a large scale, is NOT going to succumb to artificial market pressures without having major severe impacts on every facet of the economy.

      And, the involvement of huge financial and trading corporations ensures huge economic pressures will be greatly multiplied.

      90

    • #
      sectokia

      I believed in the science until i read the global warming original paper and, as a control systems engineer, saw the insane error of the feedback being calculated by delta input instead of absolute. Not surprising that dozens have called this out, the most notable Lord Mockton.

      Put simply the warming is not 4C per doubling of co2 it’s only about 1C.

      This is why warming models have constantly overestimated warming (despite underestimating co2 output), and none of the actual measurements of air balloons etc have ever seen the supposed increase we are to have how.

      Many people don’t want to believe so many scientists can be wrong, but history is full of examples.

      Einstein predicted light from jupiter would bend .4 degrees, and scientists every where measured it at .4 degrees and patted themselves on the back until a student pointed out a mistake by einstein and his estimate should have been .2 degrees. Everyone just continues like nothing happened, and no one admitted that they were unable to measure better than +-.2 degrees and then came up with absurd reasons to adjust to 0.2.

      The same thing happened with the first atomic clocks down around the world: they were too inaccurate to measure time dilation, but knowing the answer, the cherry picked results into they their answer. Everyone still accepts it today, and ignores the guts which actually did it with accurate clocks honestly 40 years later.

      We also see this with the absurd Michael Mann hockey stick graph – which produces a hockey stick 95% of the time when red with random data that has no trend. Not a single person in the field of climate science admits this, even though the algorithm is published and can be easily downloaded tested yourself.

      Now have a look at how science papers are faked for grant money.

      You simply cannot trust published science anymore. Only engineering (the actual proven application of science) is proof.

      140

    • #
      TdeF

      Carbon markets are carbon taxes. Otherwise why would anyone buy carbon credits?

      80

    • #
      John Hultquist

      Relying on anecdotal accounts, I don’t notice any reduction in CO2 from either of these things.
      The main effect is increased costs to citizens.
      Washington State established a fee (the word ‘tax’ is unknown by our politicians) on CO2 and gasoline price went up by about 60¢ per gallon. Increases on other things have been harder to calculate. Any good or service that relies on transportation has increased in price.
      Until the State actively promotes nuclear power facilities, our politicians will not be serious about reducing CO2. Not that it will matter.

      90

  • #
    another ian

    FWIW

    Recently there have been some Qld government property acquisitions in the Lake Eyre catchment –

    “Weekly property review: Recently completed sales”

    “Qld government acquires two cattle stations“

    “In a statement, the Queensland Government said the acquisition of Tonkoro will connect the protected area corridor from Diamantina National Park, Mt Windsor Nature Refuge, Pullen Pullen Special Wildlife Reserve and Goneaway National Park (which it neighbours), creating a total protected area of more than 1.2 million hectares. “

    A question has been raised – do governments claim carbon credits on things like national parks?

    60

  • #
    markx

    These bankers and legislators could not care less about whether carbon dioxide is beneficial or harmful. They are just happy to know they can trade and charge fees on something that is a by product of all industry and all food production. They truly could not care less if a carbon tax or charge achieves its aims or does not. They just see these great pools and tidal surges of funds they’ll manipulate and skim.

    50

  • #
    TdeF

    I was taken with the story of the Exxon Valdez which dropped so much oil on the beaches of Prince William Sound, Canada. At a cost of billions the beaches were cleaned. An ecological disaster, supposedly. It was certainly tough for the seabirds and many were saved.

    However they had to stop cleaning somewhere and distant polluted beaches were left untouched. It turned out in hindsight that those beaches self cleaned in about the same time! So much was unnecessary. The ocean was self cleaning. And the sea is vast.

    My point is that oil is old plant matter, digestible, food for some microbes, fungi. Even wood is eaten by termites with tough jaws. They digest cellulose, unlike humans. All hydrocarbon is stuffed with energy and the quest for food drives all living things. So the world is self cleaning when it comes to CO2 and hydrocarbons.

    The idea then that extra CO2 from burning oil, gas and coal is going to be somehow stuck in the atmosphere is silly. Our ’emissions’ vanish almost straight away into the vast oceans in a continuous rapid exchange.

    And you know this instinctively because CO2 is almost the same across the world in every place, from pole to equator to pole.

    How is this possible if it accumulates?

    Consider that in the bottom third of the world below the Tropic of Capricorn, you have only about 2% of the world’s population. That includes Australia.

    Then 40% between the Tropics.

    And a giant 60% in the Shanghai/Los Angeles/Rome belt 23.5 to 55 degrees North, a small band about 30 degrees. Surely their CO2 levels on average should be much higher than Australia’s? But the CO2 levels are about 0.042% everywhere. Clearly CO2 levels are not set by emissions. I hold that is self evident. And that alone busts Carbon Credits.

    130

    • #
      sectokia

      errm atmospheric co2 levels are 2ppm higher in the northern hemisphere than the southern.

      The highest levels are in east europe and east china, all year round they have several ppm higher than Australia.

      This doesn’t prove much other than those areas lack trees. Despite its greenism europe and china have cleared land for thousands of years and have very little trees for there land mass.

      40

      • #
        TdeF

        0.042% = 420ppm. And errm,2ppm is a tiny 0.5% difference in CO2 between say the top 1/3 of the planet with 60% of the population and the bottom 1/3rd with 2%. If CO2 scaled with population, activity, emissions you would expect a 30:1 or 3000% difference, not 0.5%.

        And that small difference is only that the Southern Hemisphere has much more water and is cooler and so varies much less summer to winter. It’s slow ocean surface warming which increases CO2 steadily.

        You can see the difference in the much smaller size of the temperature driven summer/winter oscillations in CO2. And trees are only a tiny, tiny part of the massive CO2 gas exchange. In the biosphere phytoplankton are at least as big as all the trees in CO2 absorption. And both are small compared to the continuous exchange which maintains CO2 ratios.

        Exponential human emission growth in the 20th century to today is not even noticeable on the near straight line of CO2 vs time, even with the seasonal wobbles with summer and winter temperature changes. There is no evidence of a connection between human activity and CO2, although I have seen many fake graphs which try to show it by removing the X axis and scaling the Y axis, something no real scientist would do.

        60

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        The atmosphere has approximately 400 parts per million of co2.

        A variation of 2 ppm either way would not be measurable or statistically relevant.

        The massive variation is evident in farms where co2 has been measured above crops.

        It has been shown that over a 24 hour period the co2 can vary from 400 to 1250 ppm.

        60

  • #
    John Hultquist

    Prince William Sound, Canada. Alaska

    20

  • #
    Penguinite

    The state’s aggressive green-energy buildout has required batteries to back up intermittent solar and wind. Another is the state’s net-metering program, which generously compensates households with solar panels for excess power they send to the grid. This has shifted grid maintenance costs to homes without solar panels. Dystopia Rules!

    50

  • #
    David Maddison

    Enjoy the “Green” energy and the “carbon” market.

    Right now we have in Victoriastan a massive power outage affecting hundreds of thousands of people.

    Apparently it’s due to an outage at a coal power station. This will be used as an excuse to build more ruinables but coal power stations aren’t being maintained fully because owners keep getting told there is no future for them and they’ll soon be torn down. (The specific reason for the failure hasn’t yet been stated.)

    Transmission lines are down too.

    https://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/agl-energys-loy-yang-power-station-suffers-outage/news-story/5b2f619e1effcc5888a531da2aae7683

    370,000 without power amid major Victorian outage

    Victorians could be left without power for ‘days, if not weeks’ and industrial users have been told to close due to a mass outage at one of Australia’s largest coal stations.

    Colin Packham and Rachel Baxendale
    February 14, 2024 – 7:04AM

    Victorians could be left without power for “days, if not weeks” after hundreds of thousands of homes lost power and large industrial users were ordered to shut down after the state’s largest electricity power station suffered an outage, forcing the country’s energy market operator to execute emergency measures to safeguard the stability of the grid.

    10

  • #
    Old Goat

    As Jo pointed out its all about the money . The world is awash in money being created by deficit budgets . The carpetbaggers (hedge funds and other “investment vehicles” ) are piling it up . Carbon credits are a way for them to get even more .Elon musk has just backed a carbon tax – its the only way that he can “incentivise” people to buy Teslas whos sales which are falling due to lack of demand . The “outage” we experienced in Victoria is due to storm damage to the grid not generation issues . I wonder if we will be advised of how much damage was done to solar and wind generators by the storms ?

    30

  • #
    dumb jaffa

    I wonder how they “define ” a unit of Abated Carbon in other Countries?

    I wonder if it is as questionable* as the ” self assessed ” quanta as the ACCUs here?

    I wonder how other countries structure their equivalents to “Renewable Energy Certificates” equivalents to “launder” the Green Trillions?

    I could just picture a few of the big players lounging & drinking around the pool in a Cayman Islands resort doing their reprise of “the Four Yorkshire Men”!

    The Faceless Men of the Party Machines [ who always back the right horses…] have a lot to answer for.

    *https://www.dcceew.gov.au/climate-change/emissions-reduction/independent-review-accus

    00

  • #
    Paul

    Frenchman, Eugene Howdry invented the catalytic converter in 1973 made compulsory for all new cars worldwide from 1975. Back then every city world wide was covered in SMOG being carbon monoxide poison – the converter simply produced oxygen atoms that connected to the CO to make CO2 the only source of carbon for plants. It took 30 years but eventually the skies cleared – and Eugene was forgotten because schools conveniently leave out his name – One man who changed the world using a converter with no moving parts – just wafers of rare earth minerals that at room temp. released a flood of oxygen atoms (free radicals) that connected instantly to CO to make CO2. Plants draw in CO2 from daybreak, store the carbon for growth then at sundown release the oxygen (O2) sustaining an atmosphere of oxygen at 21%. THINK: If oxygen increased by 1% to 22% we’d be unable to extinguish fires – the world would burn.

    20

  • #

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>