Här kommer en sammanställning av alla mina inlägg och artiklar som handlar om geschäftet och fusket med handeln av utsläppsrätter.
När man börjar studera hur hela systemet och handeln är uppbyggd så blir man förfärad. Hela handeln med utsläppsrätter är en öppen inbjudan till manipulation och förfalskning.
Där som sagt BÅDA parter vinner på att fuska med uppgifterna! Ett rent dröm scenario för alla skojare – både köparen och säljaren vinner på att fuska!
Det är alltså detta sanslösa och mycket dyra system som Global Warming Hysterikerna vill tvinga på världen. Och politikerna fullkomligt älskar detta system då de kan motivera i stort sett vilken skatte-/avgiftshöjning som helst med detta system.
Så min fråga blir återigen vilka som egentligen vinner på detta system som ÖPPET inbjuder till FUSK? Och där bägge parter tjänar på detta fusk?
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om <a href=”http://bloggar.se/om/milj%F6” rel=”tag”>miljö</a>
Inläggen kommer här:
”Se det var en seriös och vetenskaplig verksamhet. Med skillnader på 4,3 till 11,63 ton i effekt och i kostnader en skillnad på $60 till $180 för samma resa.
Svaren skiljer sig alltså åt 271% vad det gäller effekt och 300% vad det gäller kostnader för samma resa.
Och detta sanslösa och dyra system vill alltså alla Global Warming hysterikerna, inklusive våra svenska politiker, tvinga på oss som frälsningen och lösningen på ett problem som inte finns.”
”The global exchange system designed to cut greenhouse gases through traded carbon credits is being gatecrashed by hundreds of projects that will actually increase the net amount of carbon going into the atmosphere, a report published today finds.
As the latest UN conference on climate change opens in Bali, the report from International Rivers, an NGO based in California, warns of a surge in hydropower project developers seeking to use the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism.
The report, Failed Mechanism, claims that the majority of these hydro projects, in China, South America and Africa, are using ”Alice in Wonderland” arguments to pretend they are cutting emissions.
The hydro firms can earn millions of dollars by selling fake carbon credits to companies and governments which can use them to justify an increase in emissions.”
”Här kommer en intressant intervju med Neil O’Brien, director of Open Europé, i den amerikanska TV kanalen E&E TV från den 5 december i år.
Han har studerat EU:s handel med utsläppsrätter och hur det har fungerat under 3 år. Och hans slutsats är entydigt – ett totalt misslyckande!”
”Neil O’Brien: This sounds like a hard thing to say, but really it is at the moment a total failure. It’s not reducing emissions. It’s very costly. I mean just the administrative burden of running it is about a billion euros a year,”
”All kinds of problems that some of its critics predicted before it started have actually come to pass. Not only have you paid a lot of money and you’ve not got emission reductions, you’re also seeing all kinds of windfall profits for, in particular, big oil companies like BP, Exxon, and Shell have all made a lot in the windfall gains. And also big energy generators, they’ve made a lot of money.”
”The inconvenient truth about the carbon offset industry
In the concluding part of a major investigation, Nick Davies shows how greenhouse gas credits do little or nothing to combat global warming
Dan Welch, a Manchester journalist who investigated offsetters for Ethical Consumer magazine, summarised it neatly: ”Offsets are an imaginary commodity created by deducting what you hope happens from what you guess would have happened.”
The founder of Climate Care, Mike Mason, told the environment audit select committee in February: ”I think planting trees is mostly a waste of time and energy.” And yet Climate Care relies for some 20% of its online sales on forestry. Mr Mason explained apologetically: ”People love it unfortunately.”
Projects that use renewable energy or efficient energy to cut carbon are beset with the uncertainties of measurement and additionality. And many companies are selling speculative ”forward” credits: they have hooked up with some third-world project and started selling offsets on the assumption that the project will probably materialise and succeed.”
”Abuse and incompetence in fight against global warming
A Guardian investigation has found evidence of serious irregularities at the heart of the process the world is relying on to control global warming.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is supposed to offset greenhouse gases emitted in the developed world by selling carbon credits from elsewhere, has been contaminated by gross incompetence, rule-breaking and possible fraud by companies in the developing world, according to UN paperwork, an unpublished expert report and alarming feedback from projects on the ground.
One senior figure suggested there may be faults with up to 20% of the carbon credits – known as certified emissions reductions – already sold. Since these are used by European governments and corporations to justify increases in emissions, the effect is that in some cases malpractice at the CDM has added to the net amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.”
”Carbon Trading Scam Exposed
Collusion between UK carbon trading firms and Chinese factories is allowing them to make big profits without any significant reduction in carbon emissions.
However HFC-23, a potent greenhouse gas far more toxic than carbon dioxide, is awarded many more credits than carbon dioxide allowing chemical factories, mainly based in China, that fit ”scrubbing” equipment to reduce the gases to be awarded millions of carbon credits, generate huge profits through UK trading firms and flood the market with cheap credits bought by highly polluting governments in developing countries. Under the current Kyoto protocol this loophole is perfectly legal.”
”Till alla er som tror att kritiken mot handeln med utsläppsrätter bara kommer från oss som inte har fallit för Global Warming hysterin så tror ni grundligt fel. Läs och begrunda följande nummer av Development Dialogue No. 48 september 2006(362 sidor).
Observera att de personer som skriver där ALLA tror på Global Warming hysterin. Men de är intellektuellt hederliga nog att erkänna de stora problem som finns med handeln med utsläppsrätter. Och för det respekterar jag dem. Vidare så håller jag inte med dem om deras lösningar, men det är en annan sak.
De tar upp och beskriver 9 olika fallstudier utomlands och de konsekvenser handeln med utsläppsrätter fått i dessa lokala samhällen. Och varför det inte har fungerat så bra.”
”The FT investigation found:
■ 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.
■ Brokers providing services of questionable or no value.
■ A shortage of verification, making it difficult for buyers to assess the true value of carbon credits.
■ 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.
Francis Sullivan, environment adviser at HSBC, the UK’s biggest bank that went carbon-neutral in 2005, said he found ”serious credibility concerns” in the offsetting market after evaluating it for several months
”The police, the fraud squad and trading standards need to be looking into this. Otherwise people will lose faith in it,” he said.”
”Carbon Trading Open Invitation To Fraud
Carbon trading is an open invitation to fraud, in the opinion of Auckland energy consultant Bryan Leyland, who is chairman of the economic panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
”I first heard about carbon trading at a conference more than 10 years ago. I got up and said ‘If I was the financial adviser to the Mafia, I would advise them to get into carbon trading.’ Nothing that has happened since then changes my opinion – rather the reverse,” said Mr Leyland.”
”With carbon trading, it is all different. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions from an industrial plant can be measured to an accuracy of, at best, +/-10%. If you are purchasing carbon credits from, for instance, a forest, the accuracy of measurement is probably something between +/-100%. If it is a tropical forest, it could be minus 150% because there is reasonable evidence that some tropical forests are net emitters of greenhouse gases,” Mr Leyland continued.
”But it gets worse. In between the buyer and seller is an ‘auditor’ who, in theory, can make an accurate judgement as to the quantity of greenhouse gases being traded. He is the direct equivalent of the old inspector of weights and measures or electricity meter reader. If the reading of an electricity meter is fiddled, one party wins and the other party loses. But if an auditor fraudulently states that a forest is absorbing say, 200 tons of carbon dioxide per annum when a more realistic figure might be 100 tons, both parties win. The forest owner wins because he sells more credits. The purchaser of the credits wins because he is out to buy a piece of paper certifying that he purchased carbon credits. If the volume is fiddled upwards, the chances are that the price per tonne will be reduced and, anyway, he probably needs to buy more credits than are available.”
Taggar: Carbon Trading