Shell sold carbon credits for carbon that was never captured
cbc.ca
cbc.ca
The buyer of the carbon credits doesn't actually need the carbon to be captured. They just want a certificate for X credits, so they can emit elsewhere or get some other benefit.
The seller doesn't actually need to capture the carbon. As long as they can make a convincing enough case to the buyer that they did capture the carbon, the buyer is happy to buy.
It's pretty much exactly the same as the plastic recycling market in Canada. The plastic waste is actually just shipped/sold to Asia. Not actually recycled.
But the consumer is meant to pay extra taxes for the privilege on their bills.
> The buyer of the carbon credits doesn't actually need the carbon to be captured. They just want a certificate for X credits, so they can emit elsewhere or get some other benefit.
This is correct, and I think works as intended.
The problem on the buyer's side is that the buyer has no incentive to emit no more than allowed by the certificates bought. This has to be verified, and the buyer punished for violation.
> The seller doesn't actually need to capture the carbon. As long as they can make a convincing enough case to the buyer that they did capture the carbon, the buyer is happy to buy.
The problem here isn't the buyer. Instead, the seller should have to prove that carbon has been captured before getting any carbon credits in the first place -- again, with punishment for violation.
It's a world away from tangible goods, eg cars in a production line, or water in pipes. The whole business remains entirely invisible and has scam written all over it.
When you use law to change the conditions, eg by creating a new product (carbon) that is invisible but licensed and that everyone is going to pay (on their bills) - ie a new wheeze or tax - you won't get acceptance without some sort of show.
This is not a smooth quick process - it takes generations and many many dead and suffering.
My prediction is before climate change effects get much worse in the west not many serious changes will be made.
You can’t offset or capture emissions that way, it just can’t be done - the whole idea is rotten from the core.
Let’s concentrate on what is feasible - producing less emissions in the first place.
Carbon capture etc just gives us the illusion
> This is correct, and I think works as intended.
Yes, it is working as intended; the buyer isn't liable. I guess this could still accomplish the goal of limiting emissions if you had effective outside policing of the seller side. I don't think we do and so the whole thing isn't working as intended.
If you made the buyer liable, as well, it would give them an incentive to validate claims, effectively policing the issue internally.
I think forging new credits is just inherently prone to fraud. I'd either just not permit it, or limit trading such credits very strictly. For instance, have a government subsidiary be the only valid buyer and auditor of such certificates (after which they enter general circulation).
Some more discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40268576
“ Under an agreement with the Alberta government, Shell was awarded two tonnes' worth of emissions reduction credits for each tonne of carbon it actually captured and stored underground at its Quest plant, near Edmonton.”
Kinda seems like you should try to smear Alberta not Shell.
If there's enough fluctuation in the price of carbon credits, Shell could make a profit even if they are required to buy them back to balance the books.
It was probably not a good idea to treat these things like financial instruments.