Kyoto's Harebrained Scheme Increases Output of a Harmful Gas

[jbg]

Predictably, the Kyoto income redistribution, err, carbon reduction plan has turned out to be a harebrained scheme. This article (link, excerpts below) highlights the perverse results of a purposeless money moving scheme. It turns out that countries seeking "carbon credits" are increasing the manufacture of HCFC-22 and other harmful coolants in order to earn the credits. This in itself is increasing the global warming footprint.

This should anger, in particular, any taxpayer funding the foolishness.

August 8, 2012

Profits on Carbon Credits Drive Output of a Harmful Gas

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW W. LEHREN

RANJIT NAGAR, India — When the United Nations wanted to help slow climate change, it established what seemed a sensible system.

Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.

But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.

They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year.

That incentive has driven plants in the developing world not only to increase production of the coolant gas but also to keep it high — a huge problem because the coolant itself contributes to global warming and depletes the ozone layer. That coolant gas is being phased out under a global treaty, but the effort has been a struggle.

So since 2005 the 19 plants receiving the waste gas payments have profited handsomely from an unlikely business: churning out more harmful coolant gas so they can be paid to destroy its waste byproduct. The high output keeps the prices of the coolant gas irresistibly low, discouraging air-conditioning companies from switching to less-damaging alternative gases. That means, critics say, that United Nations subsidies intended to improve the environment are instead creating their own damage.

*snip*

Edited August 20, 2012 by jbg

[Wild Bill]

Predictably, the Kyoto income redistribution, err, carbon reduction plan has turned out to be a harebrained scheme. This article (link, excerpts below) highlights the perverse results of a purposeless money moving scheme. It turns out that countries seeking "carbon credits" are increasing the manufacture of HCFC-22 and other harmful coolants in order to earn the credits. This in itself is increasing the global warming footprint.

This should anger, in particular, any taxpayer funding the foolishness.

August 8, 2012

Profits on Carbon Credits Drive Output of a Harmful Gas

By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL and ANDREW W. LEHREN

RANJIT NAGAR, India — When the United Nations wanted to help slow climate change, it established what seemed a sensible system.

Greenhouse gases were rated based on their power to warm the atmosphere. The more dangerous the gas, the more that manufacturers in developing nations would be compensated as they reduced their emissions.

But where the United Nations envisioned environmental reform, some manufacturers of gases used in air-conditioning and refrigeration saw a lucrative business opportunity.

They quickly figured out that they could earn one carbon credit by eliminating one ton of carbon dioxide, but could earn more than 11,000 credits by simply destroying a ton of an obscure waste gas normally released in the manufacturing of a widely used coolant gas. That is because that byproduct has a huge global warming effect. The credits could be sold on international markets, earning tens of millions of dollars a year.

That incentive has driven plants in the developing world not only to increase production of the coolant gas but also to keep it high — a huge problem because the coolant itself contributes to global warming and depletes the ozone layer. That coolant gas is being phased out under a global treaty, but the effort has been a struggle.

So since 2005 the 19 plants receiving the waste gas payments have profited handsomely from an unlikely business: churning out more harmful coolant gas so they can be paid to destroy its waste byproduct. The high output keeps the prices of the coolant gas irresistibly low, discouraging air-conditioning companies from switching to less-damaging alternative gases. That means, critics say, that United Nations subsidies intended to improve the environment are instead creating their own damage.

*snip*

jbg, Kyoto was just politicians jumping on a parade started by eco-evangelicals.It was obvious from the start that no one cared if the science was proven or the "solutions" workable. I read the damn thing from start to finish and was struck by how little was actually said about addressing global warming/climate change. All it seemed to talk about was economic redistribution from First World countries to the Third World.

From the start it was an open door for corruption by any corporation or country that was so inclined. The eco-evangelicals likely were sincere but they were just so blissed out from drinking their Kool-Aid they were fleeced outrageously!

Thank Heavens that Harper kept us the hell out of Kyoto! Just a con job by the usual leeches that would do little or nothing to accomplish its stated goal.

If they truly wanted to save the planet they would have left NO exemptions for ANY country! Actual reductions would have been the goal, NOT ridiculous carbon trades that would not reduce anything but would make some pirates HUGE amounts of money!

[wyly]

If they truly wanted to save the planet they would have left NO exemptions for ANY country! Actual reductions would have been the goal, NOT ridiculous carbon trades that would not reduce anything but would make some pirates HUGE amounts of money!

actually that would be extremely unfair, the countries that responsible for the overwhelming majority of GHGs are the industrialized countries, so they should bear the brunt of the costs...but what you want to do is force the poorest countries that contributed the least to global warming to pay an equal burden...so the poorest countries would end up subsiding the wealthy for the damage the wealthy industrialized nations caused...

yeah that's a sweet deal, the industrialized west loots the third world for centuries feeding western industry and now expects them to pay an equal share for cleaning up the mess they created

Edited August 20, 2012 by wyly

[Wild Bill]

actually that would be extremely unfair, the countries that responsible for the overwhelming majority of GHGs are the industrialized countries, so they should bear the brunt of the costs...but what you want to do is force the poorest countries that contributed the least to global warming to pay an equal burden...so the poorest countries would end up subsiding the wealthy for the damage the wealthy industrialized nations caused...

yeah that's a sweet deal, the industrialized west loots the third world for centuries feeding western industry and now expects them to pay an equal share for cleaning up the mess they created

Wyly, do you consider Russia, China and India to be so backward as to deserve to be exempt? 'Cuz they're at the top of the list!

And while some got rich selling carbon credits in actual fact the carbon released overall went UP! And this is ok? Just because a third world country did it? Do you really think the Earth gives a crap about politics?

And did you read the opening post? Talk about a scam!

[Keepitsimple]

It's called the law of unintended consequences - which often is the outcome of well-intentioned, but mis-guided "save the planet" initiatives. Here's two others:

1) Ban on DDT in Africa.....malaria makes a comeback and kills millions

2) Bio-fuels to reduce dependence on oil - 40% of US corn stocks are used to make Ethanol and the price of corn goes up as availability goes down.

[jbg]

Wyly, do you consider Russia, China and India to be so backward as to deserve to be exempt? 'Cuz they're at the top of the list!

And while some got rich selling carbon credits in actual fact the carbon released overall went UP! And this is ok? Just because a third world country did it? Do you really think the Earth gives a crap about politics?

Come on, the only countries in the world capable of wrong are the U.S., Canada and Israel.

And did you read the opening post? Talk about a scam!

Some people cannot or choose not to read. And the article was from the Toronto Star South a/k/a New York Times.

[wyly]

Wyly, do you consider Russia, China and India to be so backward as to deserve to be exempt? 'Cuz they're at the top of the list!

russia per capita income places it 69th in the world, china sits at 124th with a GDP per capita an impressive $6k per year (canada is at 39.4K)...so you expect the poorest countries to pay for a problem caused by the wealthiest industrialized countries...I don't where you get you're skewed perception that these are wealthy highly developed countries they are anything but, you expect a cushy lifestyle on the backs of the poorest countries, right? it's their own fault and they can remain forever poor, they can forever forfeit any aspiration to reaching our standard of living.

[Wild Bill]

russia per capita income places it 69th in the world, china sits at 124th with a GDP per capita an impressive $6k per year (canada is at 39.4K)...so you expect the poorest countries to pay for a problem caused by the wealthiest industrialized countries...I don't where you get you're skewed perception that these are wealthy highly developed countries they are anything but, you expect a cushy lifestyle on the backs of the poorest countries, right? it's their own fault and they can remain forever poor, they can forever forfeit any aspiration to reaching our standard of living.

I ask you again, does the Earth care about all this? If CO2 is a true danger, is it ok to piss around with income redistribution schemes while emissions go UP?

"Gee Martha! The Titanic is sinking but its ok! They took some money from the passengers in first class and gave it to those in steerage! Everything's ok! Go back to sleep!"