Here in the “mulga belt,” which stretches into northern New South Wales, is the unassuming epicenter of Australia’s roaring carbon-farming industry. In this area alone, roughly 150 properties have collectively made at least $300 million from carbon credits in less than a decade, according to government records....
Whatever problem you might have with the carbon-credits market as a solution to climate change, there are other problems here.
First, governmental corruption:
When Australia created its carbon market, the Emissions Reduction Fund, in 2014, it enabled companies to voluntarily buy ACCUs to shrink their carbon footprints. It also required the country’s 215 largest polluters — mainly coal, oil and gas companies — to offset pollution beyond certain limits.
But the limits were set so high they had little to no effect, according to Andrew Macintosh, an expert who helped design Australia’s carbon market but has emerged as its leading critic. Instead, almost all of the credits have been purchased by the Australian government with the aim of aiding efforts to meet its international climate pledges. That meant the same agency was not only accrediting carbon projects but was also their primary customer — a conflict of interest, critics argue....
Second, the question whether the payments actually lead to the sequestering of more carbon:
[M]any claim credit for regrowing trees that were already there or would have grown anyway, the critics say....
Third, the way to grow more mulga is to keep cattle from grazing, and, we're told, some of the farmers believe that "light grazing is actually good for the land."
29 comments:
The political version of the 'global warming' hypothesis has a huge analytical problem. First, I distinguish between the political 'global warming' 20th century analysis of human activity and the unremarkable statement that Earth's climate has changed and fluctuated throughout billions of years. Up, down, ice ages, dry ages, etc. The human cause-effect relationship is troubled.
The human global warming hypothesis was explicitly touted in the 1980s as a way to "stuff a potato in the tailpipe of world growth." Political activists following Earth Day circa 1973, where they literally buried an automobile to push for change, sought a way to wrap together all sorts of environmental causes under one theme for effective messaging and control. Carbon dioxide got tagged as the method for the earlier anti-fossil fuel pre-determined goal, and that analysis was locked in place under government/UN 'science' at that time. This was a close parallel to the later team-government-and-establishment push for action with COVID-19. How well are masks working? How much did Pfizer earn? Why did even discussion of alternative non-vaccine treatments get suppressed?
The mulga scheme, ESG investing, and all such efforts are doomed from the start. Because real science doesn't work this way. Because humans are routinely corrupt and will poop in their own beds if it keeps them alive one more day. Because the serious carbon output comes from China and India, and the West outsourced its manufacturing pollution a generation ago to meet artificial paper goals. And then, the corrupt-from-the-start wishful Western politicians ignore, deny, and avoid mention of China.
Maybe California has the solution, where they trap cow farts in giant gas bags tied to the backs of cows.
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/cow-fart-regulation-passed-into-california-law/
https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/discovery-racing-extinction-methane-bags-timelapse/
I repeat this every time I hear about scams such as this: Due to Trump & fracking, the amount of natural gas the US produced increased to the point that it brought down the price making it affordable to replace coal in power generation. Consequently, during Trump's presidency, US CO2 emissions were REDUCED more than any of the Paris Accords signatories. Biden's "war on energy" has actually increased CO2 emissions.
Not that increased CO2 is an issue.
"That meant the same agency was not only accrediting carbon projects but was also their primary customer — a conflict of interest, critics argue...."
And both parties are using other peoples' money. Which is the root of the problem.
Do we think Mr. McIntosh, or anybody else involved will learn anything from this? Or will they just ban cattle and mandate the growing of trees?
One doesn't have to go past the first issue of corruption, which will always happen and by definition will lead to the second issue that there will be little to no sequestering of carbon. But, like all government programs, it will never be rescinded.
By the way, there is a carbon dioxide shortage. This could have a terrible impact on the beer industry. This is something we can all get behind since no one wants flat beer do they?
The whole thing is a scam? Who would a thunk it?
Good on these people for stepping up to take the money of fools. Next wildfire negates all the imagined goodness though.
It sounds like the are too stupid to know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide.
Or they think everyone else is and are trying to bullshit them. The sad thing is that they are right in so many cases.
John Henry
The conflation of climate pledges and money is not a coincidence…
Cow flops return nitrogen and other nutrients and beneficials to the soil. Apparently the ‘we’re told the farmers believe’ people have never tried organic farming…
Scam.
That's the problem with schemes. Schemes turn into rackets, and rackets are forever.
"Laughable, man!" *
The entire "carbon offset" business is nothing but a massive grift, in which landowners get paid to do what they were going to do anyway, in order that climate scolds like Gore and Kerry can jet their way around the world while feeling virtuous.
* Jesus Quintana, from the Big Lebowski."But you're not fooling me, man."
This whole buying carbon offsets thing seems like such a scam. Watched an interview with Bill Gates recently where he was somewhat challenged by the reporter on whether Gates was a hypocrite for flying about the world in his private jet to try to "educate" people and their governments on the behaviors they must adopt to save the planet. Gates smugly touted the overly generous carbon offset credits he bought to justify his flying all over the world. Rules for thee but not for me.
How much of the world's carbon output comes from Australia? One percent? Two percent? Now look to the north from the mulga farms. That glow on the horizon in the night? That smoke across the sky in the day? That's China.
Money for nothing and your shrimp’s on the barbee…
Bacardi, purveyor of foul Cuban style rum, has their main distillery across the harbor from San Juan. They have a nice tour if you are ever in pr. I'm very familiar with the plant as they used to be a client.
Fermentation used to be done in huge open vats. Lots of co2 was released.
In the 80s, they realized it was a resource, not waste. They closed the tanks, captured the co2 and sold it to the local Coca-Cola bottler.
Figure out how to turn waste into a resource and it stops being a problem. Or, in the case of co2, an alleged problem.
Amount of co2 in the atmosphere: 0.04% (@400ppm)
Amount of argon in atmosphere 0.9% (@9,000ppm)
Amount of nitrogen @780,000ppm.
John Henry
A century ago Henry Ford was already a fanatic about turning waste into resources. A great book on why and how is his "Today and Tomorrow" his later "Moving Forward" as well, if to a lesser extent.
John Henry
Wish I could read the article. We'll be driving all over NSW very soon. I'll be on the look out for trees that are not eucalyptus.
The only difference between this and the Catholic Church selling indulgences is that they were selling them to other people and making money on the deal, Australia is selling the indulgences to themselves just for virtual signaling.
Rnb,
Do you mean carbon or carbon dioxide?
Australia is a major carbon producer. 7.6% of total world production.
For comparison, USA is 7.6% China is 65%
https://www.globalfirepower.com/coal-production-by-country.php
China also produces about 65% of the world's graphite (carbon) . Australia is not even in the top 10.
Feeling thirsty. Gonna go drink a glass of oxygen.
John Henry
So the Washington Post gets around to acknowledging the scam of carbon credits, not realizing, I'm sure, that they have merely "informed" us, in microcosm, of the worldwide scam of "climate change crisis" and its mega lucrative fallouts to its greatest cheerleaders and their simpleton leftist governments.
Re Bacardi
At the time, early 80, nobody alleged releasing co2 to the atmosphere was a problem.
Bacardi captured and sold it purely for the profit.
Buncha greedy capitalist pigs. (just kidding)
John Henry
Someone needs to start selling gas-stove-offsets so the poor ninnies can relax about their kitchen appliances.
Of course it is a grift. It was literally designed to be a grift. The mulga farmers kick the money back to the politicians who enacted it. The same is going to happen with the huge 27 billion dollar slush fund Biden is getting ready to distribute.
Australia has gone even crazier than we have. However, they have a very long history of government corruption. Going back to the "rum regiments" at Botany Bay. Of course England populated it with criminals. The West seems to be on a suicide mission.
Did anyone do the math ? 300+ million divided by around 150 properties divided by 10 years, that works out after costs to maybe a hundred grand a year to a tiny handful of already rich people. Barely a side hustle. Probably pays for a couple weeks in Fiji for the fam. What moron though this made sense ?
Corruption? Al Gore and John Kerry brag that they buy “carbon offsets”. From who? What a boondoggle. I had heard rightly or wrongly, years ago that Gore was selling himself the carbon offset credits from some entity he had set up and controlled. A guy whose monthly natural gas bill 20 years ago just to heat his outdoor swimming pool (a needless luxury, considering he was hardly there traveling the world selling his snake oil) in Tennessee year round was way more than my combined gas / electricity bill for a full year (to keep my family comfortable and in the winter, alive) by a country mile.
If the Democrats want to tax the wealthy for their already earned money, those should be the first two in line to pay, followed by the Clintons and Obamas.
Here in the “mulga belt”
"It rhymes with a female body part."
A... another redistributive change scheme in indentured economic theory with diversity progress and shades of a cargo cult.
"It rhymes with a female body part."
Seinfeld's guide to Earth.
Crikey, mate!
Anyone think about what happens to the captured co2 when the mulga tree dies?
Probably not. Nobody ever does.
For those who don't know, it goes straight back to the atmosphere as the tree decomposes. Quickly if burned, a bit less quickly if eaten by termites, slowly if by rot.
Fast or slow, it's only temporary.
Natural lifespan of the mulga is about 20-30 years so it is something of a treadmill just to stay even.
John Henry
Post a Comment