Most cap-and-trade carbon markets luckily refuse to accept these carbon credits, but they are still commonly used in ESG and claims of carbon neutrality.
https://www.reuters.com/article/epa-biofuels-lawsuit/trading...
And he wasn't caught because the EPA did their jobs (they didn't). He got caught because he bought a ton of sports cars and his neighbors assumed he was a drug dealer or something similar and got local PD to start investigating.
Edit: there was an episode of American Greed about it too - https://m.imdb.com/title/tt6806100/plotsummary/?ref_=tt_ov_p...
As with all systems there are people who will try and work it to their advantage -- though some systems are more resilient than others. CA regulated market is probably the gold standard.
As with all systems it is about creating a market that incentivizes properly and having significant costs to being a bad actor is important.
Please go see offsets markets are regulated such as California and tell me that your linked rant is still relevant.
I agree - markets that have no support and regulation without teeth let's poor offsets go through (read voluntary markets). I'm talking about regulated / industrial markets.
> I agree - markets that have no support and regulation without teeth let's poor offsets go through (read voluntary markets). I'm talking about regulated / industrial markets.
Deforestation carbon credits from Verra are accepted on California's carbon market and rely on (imo) pretty much fake estimates. In fact, CARB relies heavily [0] on offsets that in my view have done little to prove causality when it would not be difficult to do so.
e: Here is an article in a Nature journal published today indicating that additionality is basically non-existent for California's offset program [1]
[0]: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-p... [1]: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-023-00984-2
Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA.
>>Deforestation carbon credits from Verra are accepted on California's carbon market and rely on (imo) pretty much fake estimates.
imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off?
> [verra link]
I was not aware of the reporting by the Guardian, so can't comment on that specifically but was familiar with the research work of West et al.
I found West's arguments convincing and the arguments in this response less so (worth noting that Verra's CEO resigned in disgrace a few months after this was published). Regardless it would be easy for Verra to conduct an RCT to actually measure additionality. And yet they do not..
> imo // "Pretty much fake estimates". ?? Do you have any relevant experience or knowledge in the sector or are you just spouting off?
I work on causal inference and have read a number of forestry projects descriptions on how they estimate additionality when I was looking into how to offset my own carbon footprint. What I read was clearly insufficient for the causal claims they were making, which led me to West et al's research using synthetic controls.
Regardless, I don't find the appeal to credentialism that convincing when you can't name a single forestry project that has a solid causal estimate for their additionality. And that's before we get into the other CARB-certified projects, like CFC destruction with Verra's baselines that assume 100% violation of the clean air act in the absence of intervention.
> Also you are conflating projects outside of NA and inside of NA.
This is a fair objection to the West study applying to California's market - but it is the same organization certifying the carbon here as the one that has engaged in verging-on-fraudulent additionality estimates. I also linked additional, recent research specific to California's market.
I did scan West's article and found it actually not convincing. As I understand it he argues that because an old forest breakeven point for carbon offsets is 50$ / tonne the thought that offsets at 20 $/tonne isn't actually protecting the forest equates to that forest being already protected and thus there being no additional value for the offsets.
Maybe a different article, the one I am talking about conducted a causal estimate of the carbon averted using synthetic controls, not at all the argument that you are stating [0].
Again, all of this debate would be easy to end with a controlled trial that non-profits like Verra will never do because of what they would reveal.
Do you work in this industry? I am curious if this is a case of 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'
I think most debates could be ended with a scientific experiment - likely never going to happen due to the inconvenience of it.
And no I don't work in the industry but I find that people paint the whole industry with one color - which I find disingenuous. Or they have an opinion based one article in the news which provide a very obtuse perspective.
I mean he isn't Jesus, but yeah if you are here I'd expect you to know who he is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow
> In February 2013, Doctorow released Homeland, the sequel to his novel Little Brother.[50] It won the 2014 Prometheus Award (Doctorow's third novel to win this award). > The novel Ready Player One features a mention of Doctorow as being the newly re-elected President of the OASIS User Council (with Wil Wheaton as his vice-president) > The term enshittification was coined by Cory Doctorow in January 2023 in a blog post
I hate the term "thought leader" but he is an known intellectual in the sphere of internet culture, intellectual property, and freedom of information. Now, what are his credentials to the matter at hand... not sure, but yeah, he is kindof a big deal.
That said I'm not a fan of knowledgable(is he knowledgable or is he a persona?) people in one domain stepping into the another domain and taking/using their previously earned clout as a way to push their agenda. I haven't seen great transition to the energy space from tech. It's especially worse as they get into the weeds. I do appreciate outsiders coming in to point out structural / regulatory or bring in new energy.
With that in mind my opinion isn't changed because his original piece didn't have much merit with me.
AFAICT any credit that relies on abatement could easily do a randomized controlled trial to measure how effective they actually are. The fact that they don’t absolutely reeks to high heaven.
so you get fast talkers, clueless do-gooders, shackled and dysfunctional gov'ies, all colliding into what.. and then smart people here can take pot-shots at how bad it is.. OK then, what is your better solution?
Tax carbon[1], mail every man, woman, child, and dog in the country a carbon tax check every three months.
If someone proves that they've actually captured carbon from the atmosphere, and stored it, cut them a slice of that pie, too.
[1] Tax imports based on the same formula.
It's not like purchasing supplies actually needed for your business, where you usually know when something is not delivered or not up to spec.
Still, bogus jet engine parts can find their way into airliners.