Japan Ups CO2 Offset Buying As Nuclear Power Slows

[phantom power]

Short version: they're going to pay into a fictitious market for the privilege of driving climate chaos with more CO2.

TOKYO - Japan is stepping up efforts to meet its Kyoto Protocol targets by buying more greenhouse gas emissions offsets from abroad than previously planned as its own emissions rise and nuclear power production dwindles.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/47959/story.htm

[MercutioATC]

1. Actually, it's not completely "fictitious"...

It encourages lesser-developed countries (Costa Rica as an example) to preserve rainforests in return for carbon credit money.

It's far from a perfect solution, but it does have some benefits.

[phantom power]

2. And yet...

each year, the world's total forest coverage decreases. And each year, the worlds CO2 emissions are larger. Each year, climate chaos gains more momentum, as we can see every day here in E/E.

So, carbon markets aren't accomplishing their supposed goal. Even though money is exchanging hands.

Potemkin market.

[MercutioATC]

3. As I said, it's not a complete solution...

...but it HAS allowed the governments of countries like Costa Rica to purchase tracts of primary rainforest to hold as preserves.

[Nihil]

11. It's not even as good as you suggest.

There was a very good expose of the "carbon trading" scam on UK television
a few months back. It showed how the "trading" tended to break into three
components:
1) The "virtual" benefit = non-existent projects being traded for their "worth"
2) The "aid" benefit = use of "carbon credit" funds to replace genuine aid funds.
3) The "substitute" benefit = being paid for existing projects so that the
host company/country can use the greenwash and pad the profit margin.

Only the third one is achieving anything positive but the first one was the
most plentiful.

There is no consistency in calculation of "offsets".

There is no consistency in valuation of benefit.

There *is* consistency in the nature of the purchasers: it allow them to
continue polluting with a minimal *voluntary* carbon tax rather than actually
having to spend money to REDUCE their pollution.

It might well have helped Costa Rica to do the right thing in this instance
but that's like claiming global cooling on the basis of one month's data ...

[kristopher]

4. There is slop in every system, that doesn't make it "ficticious"

Granting the premise that we need to do more, wtf is your problem when the principles involved are actually trying to do the right thing? Everyone has constraints on the actions that are possible to take. If we threw out every plan because there existed loopholes and inefficiencies or because it moved faster or slower than some would like, we'd still be crawling around in the mud.

"Unlike the European Union, which imposes a mandatory cap-and-trade scheme on its major polluters, Japan has encouraged voluntary pledges from industries.

The pledges are not legally binding, but experts say they are far beyond what current technologies can achieve for the two major emitters -- electric power firms and steel makers -- and thus include purchases of carbon offset credits from abroad.

Missing the target would require a company to pay a penalty to the government in the form of CERs.

Japan was one of the first countries to connect to the UN's global carbon trading system, called the International Transaction Log (ITL), which allows the tracking and trading of CERs.

Connection by the EU's scheme, the world's largest carbon market, to the ITL has been delayed for months due to technical problems, but is expected to be completed later this year.

Japan's ITL connection and the country's major presence in the carbon markets has lured several investment banks, including Lehman Brothers, to trade emissions in Japan.

"The link to ITL means Japan's electric power market will be eventually connected to the world. People are preparing for the time when Europe joins in," said Yutaka Hayashi, in charge of carbon trading in trading firm Marubeni Corp.

[phantom power]

5. The system has no teeth.

Which means that its value as a green-washing tool far exceeds any possible value at actually reducing CO2 emissions.

"pledges are not legally binding?" "penalties paid in the form of CERs?" Not much potential downside to signing up for that. Violate the cap, and nothing of consequence actually happens to you. Meanwhile you get to engage in a big circle jerk where participants brag about how they are "doing something" about CO2 emissions because they're in the carbon credit market.

It's the 21st century's answer to tulips.

[kristopher]

6. I suppose your have data to back up your assertions?

Not much potential downside? YOU pay for those CERs then since you obviously don't think the economic incentive in a motivator. And you might want to factor in the fact that voluntary participation in a society based on consensus could have a significantly different meaning and outcome than it does in a society based on conflict.

Your post shows a total ignorance about the realities of the world. How do you think things get done? Are you another who thinks some mystical authority has the ability to wave a magic wand and 'poof' everyone in the world will just abandon fossil fuels and do exactly what you consider to be the right thing?

What is your solution? Spell out for us how you'd realistically improve the United Nations and move nearly 200 individual governments in the direction you think they should take.

[phantom power]

7. My data is what I posted previously:

Nothing is legally binding, and the "fines" aren't in real money. Start from those two observations, then apply human nature, and my conclusion is pretty unavoidable.

Regarding the goal of getting 200 sovereign nations coordinated to solve this problem, I personally doubt that is a solvable problem. I think whatever solutions are attempted will be more disorganized in nature. Or, at least decentralized. Paul C. has made some observations that this might be beneficial in some respects.

As far as the actual concrete goal of displacing CO2 emissions with other energy sources, I think that peak-fossil combined with economic collapse will probably do more to reduce CO2 emissions over the next 100 years than renewables or nuclear. I wish that weren't so, but I think events are now overtaking us.

I advocate the use of nuclear power. I don't think I'm winning that argument. Over the last few years, I have decided that thermal solar and wind power are worth deploying to whatever extent we can, although I stand by my prediction that the external costs of deploying them will be greater than most people realize, and people may wish they'd employed more nuclear before it's all over.

[kristopher]

8. The fines aren't in real money?

You really don't even have an argument except your biases, do you?

Waiting for everything to fall apart isn't a plan. And neither is mindless. pointless, inaccurate and usually false criticism of things you obviously don't understand.

You're just another person looking for something to bitch about.

[phantom power]

9. Yes, yes, and I also want the terrorists to win.

:boring:

[kristopher]

10. I'm serious.

We're talking about an extremely complex effort to excise fossil fuels from the core of our culture. There were/are a lot of exceptional, highly motivated and caring people who are working to make that a reality. Snark and pie in the sky doomsday bullshit that contributes nothing meaningful to the discussion just makes their task harder. If you can't help at least get out of the way.

[Nihil]

12. You're seriously delusional.

> We're talking about an extremely complex effort to excise fossil fuels
> from the core of our culture.

No, you're talking about a snow job, a smoke-screen, a bluff.

The "carbon trading" concept is nothing but a scam, a "derivative" without
intrinsic value, that allows rich polluters to continue to be rich polluters
but now with a splash of greenwash to add to their marketing bullshit.

"Carbon trading" does NOTHING to reduce fossil fuel usage and EVERYTHING
to propagate the meme that "there is no need to change". It creates profits
for new "entrepreneurs" and increased bonuses for directors.

If your doctor tells you to lose weight, there is no point in paying your
neighbour to go on a diet.