jump to navigation

After Climategate, Should Savvy Investors Short Carbon Credits? (PJM Exclusive) April 6, 2010

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

After Climategate, Should Savvy Investors Short Carbon Credits? (PJM Exclusive)

By Ira Stoll
Pajamas Media, April 6, 2010

With confidence in the pseudo-commodity fading, wouldn’t a short sell be a rock-solid investment? Financial pros weigh in.

Just how badly have Climategate and the failure of the UN climate change summit in Copenhagen hurt prospects for a global market in carbon “offsets”?

Read it here

“Children offsets” to become mandatory February 10, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in humour.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

“Children offsets” to become mandatory

By the blogowner honestclimate, February 10, 2009

As you are all aware, having more than 2 children causes global warming and a huge amount of stress on our natural environment. For those with more than 2 children, the below applies for each additional child.

Children offsets

Child offsets cost a one-off $1million* and cover the below basket of offsets for the lifetime of your additional children.**

Cola offsets: To offset the dangerous carbon dioxide injected into soft drinks

Beer/Wine offsets: Money will be used to plant barley and grapes.

Electronics offsets: This covers computers, tvs, playstations, cell phones, iPods etc.

Automobile offsets: Please note a 20% surcharge for additional male offspring as they are known to buy faster cars which exit more carbon.

F.A.R.T offsets: Belching is also covered under this offset. Please note a 20% surcharge for additional male offspring as they are known to emit more gas.

Hairdryer offsets: This applies to additional female offspring only.

McDonalds offsets: This is to offset bovine belching and gas.

Turbine offsets: Windmills have a propensity to catch fire, the carbon emitting fumes need to be offset.

Cigarette offsets: We endorse cigarette smoking. It’s a very important revenue raiser with which we can purchase more windmills. We still need to purchase 100 million windmills after we destroyed all coal plants through vandalism. The other really great thing about smoking is that it causes early death which means fewer people on earth emitting dangerous carbon dioxide.

Sports offsets: When exercising the human body emits more dangerous carbon dioxide. This must be offset.

Special cuddles offset:
See sport offsets. Also we do not encourage this activity as it can lead to unnecessary births and is the reason for child offsets in the first place.

Denier offsets: Money will be used to finance attacks on any of your little critters who grow up denying that man is responsible for every climate catastrophe in the world.

*Actuarial calculations:
-Based on life expectancy of 80 years
-If you outlive your child, you will be entitled to 50% refund.
-If payment in full is not possible, we will arrange a payment plan.

**The following are exempt from child offsets and are free to have as many children as they wish:
-climate scientists

The Rich and Famous and Carbon Offsets January 24, 2009

Posted by honestclimate in Carbon Trading.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

The Rich and Famous and Carbon Offsets

From Hawaii Reporter, January 22, 2009

It’s OK to have a carbon footprint if you pay enough. You do this by buying carbon offsets. These are used by politicians, environmentalists, movie stars, athletes, and others to claim the impact of their high-consumption lifestyles on the environment can be canceled out by paying someone else to invest in carbon-reducing initiatives, reports Lorrie Goldstein.Many famous people who are for sustainability and against global warming live in many very big houses, drive many very big cars, and fly in private jets. If you travel frequently by air, even on commercial flights, you can’t escape having a huge carbon footprint. Yet many of the most vocal advocates of cutting emissions—politicians, entertainers, environmentalists, journalists, scientists—are continually jetting off to campaign events and conferences and workshops. Are they going to change the way they operate? If not, how are they going to persuade anyone else to cut back emissions, asks John Tierney.

The World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, was ‘carbon neutral,’ despite all the folks flying to attend, because in large part, people donated money to third world countries to plant trees or build hydroelectric dams for electricity.

The Live Earth concerts held in 2007 created a huge carbon footprint on the globe in the name of climate preservation; an estimated 7,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. This does not include the private jets of all the celebrities who attended or the thousands of people who drove their cars to each concert. An official volume, The Live Earth Global Warming Survival Handbook, presents 77 ‘essential skills for stopping climate change.’ Here are some guidelines from the book: “Let’s say that despite your best efforts, you still have to fly to your best friend’s wedding.

You’re dumping 3,000 pounds of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and you’re wracked with guilt about your contribution to global warming. Relax, you can throw money at the problem. Go online, find a company that sells clean energy credits, and buy enough to make up for the greenhouse gases your trip created.” The book goes on to state that you must choose your offsets carefully and points out that trains are the most ecologically low-impact way to cover long distances. How many celebrities take Amtrak? And speaking of celebrities and their eco-friendliness, let’s look at a few.


Al Gore, academy award winner and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, has to be high up on the list. Bruce Nussbaum notes, “Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy. Gore’s mansion, (20-rooms, eight-bathrooms) located in Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES). The average household in American consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average. Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year. In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.”

Like a good citizen, Gore buys carbon offsets to assuage his high energy lifestyle, and this is good. But here’s the rub. He buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management, a company he co-founded and serves as chairman. Through this company, he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe. As co-founder and chairman of the firm, Gore presumably draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he ‘buys’ his ‘carbon offsets’ from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself.

Madonna, who was the main attraction at the London Live Earth concert owns a collection of fuel-guzzling cars, including a Mercedes Maybach, two Range Rovers, Audi A8s and a Mini Cooper S. She flies everywhere in her private jet and her Confessions tour produced 440 tons of carbon dioxide in four months last year. This was just the flights between the countries, not taking into account the truckloads of equipment needed, the power to stage such a show and the transport of all the thousands of fans getting to the gigs.

John Travolta says, “Everyone can do their bit. Global warming is a very valid issue—we have to think about alternative methods of fuel.” Travolta once starred in a movie about bringing industrial polluters to justice. But in real life he has probably the biggest carbon footprint of any Hollywood star. He parks his personal Boeing 707 on his front lawn—next to his three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet. Rather appropriately, he has called his home Jumboair.’

The Red Hot Chili Peppers produced 220 tons of carbon dioxide with their private jet alone over six months on their last world tour which was 42 dates.

All this prompts Ginny Buckley and Max Flint to ask, “Is the hot air emitted by celebrities when they spout ecological platitudes a greenhouse gas?”

Enron and Lehman Brothers

There’s big money to be made in the carbon business. Enron and Lehman Brothers are two examples. Ken Lay became a celebrated corporate executive praised for his ‘21st century’ business visions. But Enron’s internal memos, leaked to reporters during its bankruptcy scandal, revealed other motivations. Christine MacDonald in her book, Green, Inc., notes that Lay had two meetings with President Bill Clinton and Vice-President Al Gore on a treaty capping carbon emissions. An internal Enron memo predicted this would ‘do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and natural gas industries in Europe and the United States.’ MacDonald adds, “Enron also had plans for using its support among environmentalists, who cooed over Lay.”

Lehman Brothers was at the forefront of the vast trade created by the new worldwide regulatory system to ‘fight climate change’ by curbing emissions of carbon dioxide. Jane Orient notes, “In 2007 they released a long and highly publicized report about climate change in which they preached about decarbonization, trying to make their investors keep getting high profits from the Kyoto carbon trade scheme and the support of huge public subventions. They recommended to their investors what they considered a central value of the carbon ton 50 years into the future. All of this of course, with the applause of the usual choir of politicians, the entire media, and the Greens.”

Thousands of green militants have been using the Lehman report as a proof of global warming and impending chaos. The report is the basis for policies on climate change in Spain, Argentina, and several other countries, it is used by economy professors playing climatologists, and by newspaper editorialists. Yet in spite of their ability to predict the climate 50-100 years ahead, they couldn’t predict their own bankruptcy.


Africa burns, but did they buy Carbon Offsets? December 12, 2008

Posted by honestclimate in Discussions.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
add a comment

Africa burns, but did they buy Carbon Offsets?

 Police try to save a man who was set alight by a mob during clashes linked to recent anti-foreigner violence in South Africa

Police try to save a man who was set alight by a mob during clashes linked to recent anti-foreigner violence in South Africa

By the blogowner, honestclimate, December 12, 2008

Whilst co2 levels are at record highs, the world is no warmer today than it was in 1998 and a recent cooling trend has begun. Surely natural forces must therefore have a larger impact on the earth’s climate than human C02. What looked good in theory is clearly not happening in the real world.

Whilst millions upon millions are being squandered on trying to stop climate change, something we don’t have much, if any, control of, there are other pressing global issues which need serious urgent attention right NOW!

The issue in Zimbabwe is a case in point. The world idly stands by whilst Robert Mugabe and his goons wreak havoc on the lives of many innocent people forcing them to flee Zimbabwe. Some of those who fled from Zimbabwe to South Africa recently got the treatment as depicted in these photos by those with anti-foreigner sentiments.

If Zimbabwe was an oil rich country, would the West still be standing idly by?

Climate changes, always has and always will.

Meanwhile Africa Burns

Police try to save a man who was set alight by a mob during clashes linked to recent anti-foreigner violence, in South Africa

Click photo for full story

Selling Hot Air: Are Bogus Carbon Offsets Really That Bad? October 21, 2008

Posted by honestclimate in Carbon Trading.
Tags: , ,
1 comment so far

Selling Hot Air: Are Bogus Carbon Offsets Really That Bad?

From the Wall Street Journal, October 20, 2008

When the idea of selling carbon offsets by otherwise profitable businesses is described twice in the same month as “gravy,” you know offsets have an image problem.


Are offsets just hot air, or necessary evil? (AP)

But the bigger question remains. Is the market for carbon offsets, imperfect as it is, a necessary evil if real progress is to be made cutting emissions of greenhouse gases?

Our colleague Jeff Ball reports today in the WSJ on the latest blow to the credibility of the offset market, that is, when companies get paid for cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. Landfills have been capturing methane for years, and making money off it–but thanks to the growing offset market, they are getting paid twice. As the paper says:

The sale of credits by these landfills undermines a premise of the global fight against climate change. The credit system was designed to encourage pollution cuts that wouldn’t have happened without a financial incentive. But the credits aren’t helping the environment if they’re merely providing extra profit for cleanups already made. And dumps already have an incentive to capture methane because selling it can be profitable.

This is what has many environmentalists troubled. Projects that rake in cash, be they landfills or Mongolian wind farms, are supposed to provide real, not bogus, emissions cuts. When rich countries and rich companies turn to the offset market to clean up their act, they aren’t really cleaning up the environment at all, many argue.

Read the rest click below link