Shell's Fake Carbon Credit Scandal Explained!
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ก.ค. 2024
- Go to cookunity.com/pboyle50 or click the link in the description below and use my code PBOYLE50 to get 50% off your first order of CookUnity meals to try them out for yourself!
Europe’s largest oil and gas company Shell was accused in an investigative report from Greenpeace Canada of selling millions of carbon credits tied to CO2 removal that never took place.
Let’s look at what Shell did, how carbon offsets work, and how environmentally beneficial they actually are.
Patrick's Books:
Statistics For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3eerLA0
Derivatives For The Trading Floor: amzn.to/3cjsyPF
Corporate Finance: amzn.to/3fn3rvC
Ways To Support The Channel
Patreon: / patrickboyleonfinance
Buy Me a Coffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/patrickb...
Visit our website: www.onfinance.org
Follow Patrick on Twitter Here: / patrickeboyle
Patrick Boyle On Finance Podcast:
Spotify: open.spotify.com/show/7uhrWlD...
Apple: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Google Podcasts: tinyurl.com/62862nve
Join this channel to support making this content:
/ @pboyle
![หาทำ EP.41 : ผัดวุ้นเส้นที่รักกับนายกล้วยหอม “หลิง-ออม” [Eng Sub] | จือปาก](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/r2jrLOQRthI/mqdefault.jpg)
Go to cookunity.com/pboyle50 or click the link in the description below and use my code PBOYLE50 to get 50% off your first order of CookUnity meals to try them out for yourself!
Meals, finally!
I know TH-camrs don't generally know who their TH-cam sponsored ad is (I don't adblock~ I want to know what the algorithm is trying to sell me), but I wanted everyone to know that I was advertised for Exxon Mobil's Low Carbon Solutions...
Exxon Mobil Low Carbon Solutions Is Making A Big Impact- With The Tiniest of Molecules- Lithium (not really safe, exploding batteries people), Hydrogen (Hindenburg?) [Together] We Can Achieve A Smaller Carbon Footprint- Fast And At Scale- [That Is Huge].
Anyway, I found the ad interesting and ironic, a fitting ad for the Patrick's TH-cam video. It's like they want to sell me on the idea that they were always worried about lowering their hydrocarbon dependencies. I'm just glad oil companies are accepting some degree of culpability for lying about Climate Change like how cigarette companies lied about nicotine addiction. In the US, we call it Progress, with a capital P so you know it's important.
[Edit]: Internet drama makes me hungry, so maybe we should click the affiliate links we'd rather be associated with... I'm just glad Exxon Mobil thinks I'm some kind of sucker...
climate warning is a waste of space. always great videos 👍
it all sounds good
but...
it's just another game
it's just another bissness
(and everything that you expect to come with that power corruption etc)
it's just another TAX
imho the question is never is the heating of the planet real
the question is how much is it gonna costs and who's gonna get morte power and controle using this
you dont need ot know annthing about this
you only need to know human nature
I enjoyed the presentation very much and I learned a lot. Thank you. I enjoyed the chat to until the climate change trolls all showed up.
It is absolutely shocking how little I was shocked by this development.
Depressing how every environmental solution basically boils down to:
1) "We couldn't figure out a way to actually fix it without stopping the activity entirely, so anything we do will amout to nothing"
2) "This miracle tech that could substantially help with the problem is way harder to develop, and will be virtually useless for decades if not forever"
At least I don't live in a coastal city...
@@webaazul2500 Yeah, seems like many people here are gloating cause they never wanted to help at all, and they don't like being judged accordingly. This problem is so much greater than they can possibly imagine, yet they scoff at any attempt to deal with it.
Carbon Credit is pure scam 🤢🤢🤮
Carbon Neutrality is pure scam🤢🤢🤮
ESG investment is evil scam🤢🤢🤮
Green advocates r either corrupt or useful idiots🤢🤢🤮
🚩Saudi oil company, ARAMCO, is ESG while Tesla is not🤦♀️
Crypto is less evil & less scammy than all of them combined 🤏
I’m shocked how far less shocked I was than you. I’d be shocked if the oil industry did something nice.
@@webaazul2500 It’s worse than doing nothing. It’s sleazy companies stealing $ while doing nothing.
There are not enough credits in the world to offset the CO2 generated by the cash incinerator that is the carbon offset grift.
i mean, the current amount of carbon credit exceeded the world's total arable land.
so... go figure
we don't have multiple earths
Carbon credits didn't burn any cash, it just "appropriated" it to those who produced nothing useful. Likewise it did nothing at all for CO2.
@@obsidianjane4413but thats where you're wrong, those cheap credits meant easy greenwashing and pr and regulatory wins for emission heavy industries. Money well spent as far as they're concerned.
@@karl0ssus1 English not your first language?
Carbon Credit is pure scam 🤢🤢🤮
Carbon Neutrality is pure scam🤢🤢🤮
ESG investment is evil scam🤢🤢🤮
Green advocates r either corrupt or useful idiots🤢🤢🤮
🚩Saudi oil company, ARAMCO, is ESG while Tesla is not🤦♀️
Crypto is less evil & less scammy than all of them combined 🤏
I absolutely love (in an incredulous sort of way) that researchers theorized that a clean burning cook stove would reduce household firewood use, and instead of just... Testing that hypothesis on a small number of families, they skipped straight to wasting everyone's time and money instead.
Yes EVERYTHING involved in global warming is a complete scam, most green energy, especially wind, solar and electric cars will NEVER produce or save enough energy to offset the production carbon from making the windmill or solar cell and electric cars pollute more than a dozen fossil fuel cars just because the batteries are harder to dispose of than nuclear waste
It's not a surprise at all. There was a vested interest to not ask too many questions and prove that it works. Both from the carbon credit company and the purchaser of the credits.
Instead, they should have subsidised the use of cooking gas stoves. That would have even had an emancipatory effect on women, who are usually tasked with collecting firewood (an activity that would have become superfluous).
However, the "greenish" NGOs hated this, as propane in bottles is considered evil (fossil fuel).
When you realize that the main aim of the carbon credit scheme designer is to make the carbon credit scheme designer the most money, and not to “save the planet” it makes perfect sense.
@franciscodanconia4324
It's the same with plastic recycling. It wasn't designed to recycle plastic. It was designed to allow customers to feel less guilty about consuming ever greater amounts of plastic.
Plastic recycling is mostly bullshit as a result because there's no incentive to actually replace virgin plastic use.
As a Zimbabwean, the idea that someone would give our “farmers” money not to cut down trees is hilarious. A brief look at recent history would tell you that no one is using those farms anyway 💀 it’s a large part of the reason why our country is in shambles.
Edit: looooool it got funnier. Of course there’s no paper trail. Whose idea was this?? A mess.
Hey, I know you. You and your brothers are now working in Cape Town.
Why is nobody using the farms?
If the farms are there who use to work them and why dont they work them now?
@@mrdelaney4440
White people (Boers) used to work the land, but the black-dominated government stole their farms and redistributed them to black citizens. Turns out these new "farmers" didnt know how to farm and just sold the equipment and left the land to rot. A massive famine ensued.
@@Deontjie 🫤 either you’re genuinely mistaken or have a mediocre sense of humour, but either way you couldn’t pay me to live in there
@@mrdelaney4440 the farms were seized by the ‘former’ govt and given to people who don’t know how to farm, so the entire industry basically collapsed. I have a friend trying to revive a farm but it’s hard and thankless work with barely any legislative support and a lot of racism on both sides 😢
Notes to self: business idea.
-step 1 get clearing permit for nature reserve in 3rd world country
- step 2: promise not to use it, and generate a ton of carbon credits
- step 3: profit!
Brazil doesn't have nature reserves. They have unused forests
Now you are a carbon cowboy!!
You forgot:
- step 4: Sell the right to clear the trees and farm the land under the table
- step 5: profit x2!
@@derphurr8814 I wonder how many plots of land has been sold every 5 years as "carbon credits". Funny how we in the west is paying for it with real money only for it to have zero effect.
The whole thing is actually making it worse; the money we use to buy carbon credits is tainted with pollution, we spend it on fake anti pollution solutions, that money then is spent on yachts and private jets, which pollutes even more, thus increasing the need for even more carbon credits.
Funny how we tried to blame tribesmen cooking food on home made stoves made out of clay 🤣 Yes it's your fault, not the thousands of jets in the sky.
@@derphurr8814 It goes deeper:
- step 6: claim that your land was "stolen" by the target country government
- step 7: use international arbitrage to get back your initial investment
- step 8: profit x3
That radio allocation idea sounds so, so easily abusable.
1. Find really big, rich station.
2. Buy frequency rights in adjacent area.
3. Build huge transmitter and play Hamster Dance theme on loop.
4. "Oh, are we interfering with your station? That is unfortunate, but I'm sure we can negotiate a sale of our frequency usage rights..."
It comes down to the same problem as carbon credits at the end: The ideological commitment to markets. A lot of politicians are either personally attached or politically committed to the idea that market economics is the right answer to every problem. To the man who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
This still work within Coase theorem. The theorem doesn't say anything about the redistribution of wealth being equitable (it won't be) but that only the final allocation of the resource (here the frequency) would.
The biggest flaw in Coase theorem is that it assume that information is freely available, that coercion doesn't exist, there is no transaction cost (legal cost, negotiation cost) and there is no additional externalities to the problem. It have very little to no practical application.
In term of theoretical framework, I think we have to look at games theory as a more practical source of solution for dealing with externalities. Law economic should also be considered as it often deal with externalities (ie: you dumbed pollutant on my land so now I sue you for the damage).
Has nothing to do with market economics
This literally sounds like patent trolling, or domain squatting on the internet.
Markets are an incredible tool that can solve problems and self-regulate in unimaginable and near perfectly efficient ways... in most cases. Though as you said, they have their flaws and there are quite a few instances(Healthcare) where it's clear they don't work too well.
@@mamotalemankoe3775 A tool, yes. A good tool in many situations. But there are plenty of ideologues who look at the political toolbox, declare all the other tools to be useless, and throw everything except market solutions away. Then you end up with things like carbon credit trading.
"houses issued the efficient stoves just used it as a second cooking surface and continued using open fires"
ah yes, induced demand, the bane of central planners everywhere
But any household has a maximum of cooking surfaces they'd ever need. So, instead of discontinuing the project, just issue households more cooking stoves.
It's kind of understandable, they probably have huge families. How many heated plates does your stove have? Mine has 4.
@@caty863 Does not address why they preferred the older stoves.
Just make them give you one of their cooking stoves in return
no wonder in most first world countries is illegal by years to light open fires indiscriminately. this is just humanity unless you set up a punishment.
Can’t they just buy a ton of those “you own this one square foot of land and that makes you a lord” certificates? Those seem as legit as “carbon credits”
They would be selling every piece of dirt in the Brazilian Amazon Florest. A worthless piece of paper since land deals in Brazil have to be checked through a certain Brazilian Governamental,Agency.
It’s like selling the Brooklyn Bridge to Greenhorns.
@@serafinacosta7118 That's exactly what the initial comment says: 'Those seem as legit as “carbon credits” '
@@superdingo9741 and now the PayPal mafia and former junk Bonds pushers are in its . Watch Whitney Webb.
The fact the most profitable business in history still relies on government subsidies is endlessly hilarious to me.
"relies" is the wrong word. "Preys" is more appropriate.
Alberta oil sands is an unconventional way to produce oil. When oil price fell after 2014, industry became unprofitable. Also Canadian oil is sold at discount to WTI because USA is only customer for Canada and Alberta crude has huge transportation cost. On avg Canadian oil is sold at 12 dollar discount to WTI prices.
@@user-yg2gw4je8d yeah you keep telling yourself that bud
And wars. Dont forget the wars.
But im return, we will have a wrecked planet. What's not to like?
4:57 I was expecting a follow-up line "my expertise in rap music doesn't seem to be applicable in this scenario, but who knows; the fraudulent credits may have been sold to someone looking to offset their private airplane"
He knows when to keep us hungry
Like 3rd generation advertising.. we hear what isn't said
Got dang! You have his voice down pat. That read exactly like something Pat would say.
@@stephaniewaters1777so what you're saying is Patrick Boyle is takes a jazz rap approach to comedy finance journalism. It's just as much about the jokes he doesnt make.
@@Mighty_Atheismo haha yes im happy to take credit for your eloquence
@@stephaniewaters1777 great artists steal!
The bottom line is no one involved in this system has any financial incentive to reduce or remove carbon emissions. And no one faces any financial penalties if the carbon emissions are latter proven to have not been removed or reduced . The only financial incentive anyone has in this process is to make it look like carbon emissions are going to be reduced for long enough to get the carbon credits printed. The only incentive to actually make this work comes from individuals own personal morality, and I’m sure we’re all aware of how much weight morals play in multinational corporate decision making. How can anyone believe that a marketplace is going to function properly if no one involved has anything to gain from that happening?
Not really. The polit beuro class has to be sustained, but as they're good for nothings, or they'd not be able to sustain their loathsomeness, as knowing traitors, they can't be allowed to have anything to do with anything of a positive purpose as they would sabotage it by default, like today's teachers.
Trees need carbon.
@@Deontjie Were they at any risk whatsoever of not having enough before mass use of fossil fuels?
@@rudolfambrozenvtuber Not even the experts know for sure. So unlike other vocal people, I can not voice an opinion on a subject I know so little off. All I know is that plants needs carbon, and release carbon when they eventually rot. And the sea produce far more oxygen than all the plants put together.
@@Deontjie No, the question I just asked you was firmly rhetorical. They factually were not
It's nice that it's possible, and virtuous, to 'truthfully' say "No cake was eaten in the production of this cake" when you did, in fact, eat cake but then paid for someone else to replace it.
Welcome to the biggest grift in modern history.
Imagine if we did the same thing for health. Giving credits for people to eat healthy food for others, and credits for some not to eat unhealthy food, then slobs can buy credits to become net healthy. It sounds so stupid but the "net health" of the society will resemble the "net neatrality" of this grift.
Another great video from my number one channel for news about rap music and rapping
I prefer his work on the gang wars and the gang life
It’s more of a cultural thing actually…😌
Carbon credits are a scam to begin with... it's like me paying someone to lose weight for me while I continue to drink beer and pig out on potato chips.
I think you’ve just come up with a brilliant business plan. Fat Offset Credits. Frito Lay, McDonalds, and Coke will be knocking down your door.
The analogy is on point. The key to this discussion is the price, though. What are you willing to pay the other person to lose some weight? 10$ count me in, that sounds enjoyable. 1000$? Meh, maybe I should rather lose some weight myself. And that's basically what a lot of people vote for: the current carbon taxes are too cheap and I can see the point.
@@MusiXificati0n You have to pay someone young and fit, to keep the pounds off. Still doesn't stop me dying from obesity, but hey no one is asking about my actual wellbeing.
This is the best comparison I’ve read so far 👍
But you could say you didn’t eat as much as you were going to
I'm disappointed that in 30 min you failed to call this a shell game even once
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
CLAP! CLAP! CLAP!!
Every carbon credit is a sham
It’s just another speculative item.
a sham, but only technically
it's a sham if you dont know what it is and cant be bothered to spend 10min researching or asking a credible source
I like the municipalities that are selling off already preserved land for carbon credits.
@@gabbonoo Okay :D
CAPITALISM CANNOT FIX THE CLIMATE CRISIS
I used to work for South Pole... It was not good. The whole thing is basically an investment fund, and the investors are companies like Shell, BP, etc. Oil companies and banks, that's what it was really about.
Santa has cut his working force non-stop since last century because the number of believers dwindled constantly. Not just cut the jobs in South Pole, the benefits also down to the toilet.
the whole carbon thingy is a fraud. plain and simple.
Yeah I was thinking the most reasonable thing would be to put the money towards investing in infrastructure, trains, busses. Things that people already use and are proven but could get so much better. But I guess Shell and BP wouldn't want to give any money to that.
Could you tell more about what you mean?
This is happening all over the place. InnovationZero the supposed UKs premier conference on NetZero has BP as the key sponsor, make it make sense.
It's greenwashing. Just like plastics manufacturers fund recycling advocacy groups but won't cut new plastics manufacturing.
Or shipping plastic waste to China only for China to dump it in the ocean. Everyone (but the Chinese) wins if we dump our plastic waste in the ocean ourselves.
Plastics recycling gets a bad rap because so much of it gets packed up and buried in land fills.
But I like to think of it as burying treasure for future post apocalyptic societies. Someday knowing where all the plastic is buried will be valuable knowledge.
@@MarcosElMalo2 once upon a time, trees did not decompose because there was nothing that could eat lignin, the chief constituent of wood. In the future, something will evolve that will eat plastics since its mostly carbon.
@@wiseye61in the meantime the planet is choking in plastics, a significant amount of your total body mass is plastic in your lungs, gut, and blood…
Virgin plastic production needs to be *heavily* regulated for us all to survive
Well no. Plastics are more addictive to the modern age than energy dense fuels and social media. Good hustle like religion and 53x. Plastic in landfills is literally buried carbon. The horror is the carnage plastics cause on their way back to being oxidised to carbon dioxide as they slowly move through aquatic ecosystems, and as microplastics through my liver and kidneys. Energy to recycle plastic mostly comes from fossil fuels, so badly planed plastic recycling is really really awful.
I'm for the environment but I've always hated the hypocrisy of carbon credits, net zero, plastic straw bans and other corporate-touted and marketed initiatives. If it doesn't hurt your profitability by a lot, it's bogus.
It's all a grift and the goal is to impoverish the west so that China can walk over us.
Yes, and if it *does* hurt your profitability by a lot, it's bad idea.
@@EdwinSteiner for an economic model built on unlimited growth. Money is the god of this world so yeah, it's a bad idea to piss off this god
all that shit is unnecessary pandering. what actually works is using renewable energy (solar and wind)
@@reweiv not necessarily. Solar farms have negative effects on soil quality and wildlife and wind farms are known to endanger bird species. And then there's the question of what to do when they break down...so there needs to be a solution for these too.
"After we solve our problems, then we have to solve our solutions" said the late Rev. Dr. Maurice Boyd.
Ooh. That’s a great quote.
In New Zealand we have a market pricing scheme (ETS) that allows people to plant trees and sell carbon credits. Unfortunately as soon as this was launched it proved wildly popular, it turs out planting non-native pine on marginal land is much higher return than actually farming the land.
Now government are quickly having to back-pedal on the scheme because they have been inundated with applications.
Very ponzi
@@samsonsoturian6013Not ponzi, it's called perverse incentives.
@@shane_rm1025 Ponzi would totally do this
@@shane_rm1025 and then they call sell the land, and that person can cut all the trees down. They will be decomposed by fungi and reemit the same amount of CO2 they captured, but the government doesn't care about that. Then they will plant new trees and collect more money before repeating the process. Very ponzi
And earth is the greenest its been, yet we need more because 0.04 isn't low enough... Plants die at 0.02
Where I live, our major manufacturer is allowed to buy or lease land and do nothing to it to earn credits. Here, property managers intimidate and threaten good people and attempt coerce them into give up their lease on forested undeveloped land.
That is horrific. Land banks have never been so profitable.
If they threaten people, they can be arrested.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 they threaten by simply being there uninvited. Having armed security guards accompanying the property manager is coercion; when they aren’t invited.
@@theultimatereductionist7592 No they can't. They legally have a title, but the title is in reality nothing.
You know, not cutting down a tree is a lot of work. I just watched a buddy cut one down and I'm exhausted...
This was basically an open secret from the get go. There were even pretty accurate predictions by analysts about how the whole thing would play out too when it was first proposed
Doesn't take a genius to figure this out indeed
Your voice puts my 2 year old to sleep Patrick. You have helped me put her to sleep on those midnight car rides 😂 thank you!
And then she suddenly wakes up as you guffaw loudly at another of Patrick's unexpected dead-pan gags.
So its a "Shell" Company
If boeing's any indication, major companies nowadays can do pretty much anything these days with no repercussions.
I work for a small sustainability consultancy, and we've run into these issues a lot. There are actually many companies that are interested in reducing their environmental footprint, even without regulatory pressure, but carbon offsets tend to be a poor method for doing so. There aren't that many offset projects that have a demonstrable effect, and the ones that do tend to be quite expensive. The example of the three students paying for solar water heaters is illustrative: that's a project where the offset is quite easy to calculate. As a result, we generally try to advise on ways of directly reducing a client's emissions rather than buying offsets. There is often still a lot of low hanging fruit there, and there may even be additional benefits that (somewhat) offset the costs. To stick with the example of the solar water heaters, the university would reduce its heating fuel costs.
Your disclaimer on knowledge was well done and I hope others start to do the same when venturing into topics outside their specialist area
"Hello! I'm Sabine Hossenfelder and this is my lecture why capitalism is great" was such a case
But then he goes on to spout like a total expert, eating his cake and having it too..
@@hpenvy1106Majority of her videos in recent history require that disclaimer.
Starts at $11 per meal. That is incredibly expensive when you look at the actual costs of cooking one home meal.
Notice he was wearing a suit as he unpacked the meal. Eating a cheap meal with that nice suit would be so uncouth!
It's a good deal if you're in Alaska
@@bestprice1776 we left to move overseas. We can get a meal for 2 for $8, and rent an apartment 50 feet from the ocean for $450 a month. And it's sunny almost every day and warm.
If you have the time to do the shopping, cooking and cleaning, yes it is. Like most things in life, it is not for everyone. It is a great deal cheaper than eating at a restaurant bar McDonald’s and the likes.
I just want to clear up a common misconception. Forests are not chopped down for lumber. They are chopped down to make space to build on. Actual logging operations buy land and plant trees to be cut down repeatedly.
There is still lots of old growth forest logging around the world. A shedload of it.
Carbon Credit is pure scam 🤢🤢🤮
Carbon Neutrality is pure scam🤢🤢🤮
ESG investment is evil scam🤢🤢🤮
Green advocates r either corrupt or useful idiots🤢🤢🤮
🚩Saudi oil company, ARAMCO, is ESG while Tesla is not🤦♀️
Crypto is less evil & less scammy than all of them combined 🤏
Those MDFers.
In Canada it's not the case, they destroy forest for logging, the land are worthless because they are in the middle of nowhere. But what you said is not wrong, especially in poor country where they destroy forest and convert them into farmland and field for cattle.
@@stl1321young trees are the ones that soak up carbon.
I lived in Edmonton, 1975 to 1980. For a year, I lived out near Elk Island Park . The water coming out of the tap was disgusting. It was flammable . I bought my first water distiller. Canada is renowned for hiding its transgressions against the environment and its inhabitants. I grew up swimming in Lake Erie when it was declared a " dead lake" due to eutrophication and pollution. To this day, Lakes Erie and Ontario remain a dumping ground. Canada is also nortorious for polluting ground water. Canada didn't have a freedom of information act until 1983 ! Lots of time to redact .
Oh Canada why do you keep doing the same thing, over and over expecting a different result ?
That misses the point. The desired outcome is me having lots of cash.
I don't swim in lakes.
I hope one day all lakes are unswimmable so that no one else can enjoy them but you have all the money it takes to fill whatever hole exists.
I'm English, as in from England, and I'm sad to say that you got it from us.
anyone who cannot see that this is a scam needs glasses, preferably carbon neutral.
They need the newest iPhone 76 to read about it
it's commonly a sham, not a scam.
the difference is made in the levels of ignorance from investors and the incompetence and eventual corruption of the project
@@gabbonoo "muahaha! that worked well for me" and "oops, that worked well for me" sounds pretty similar to me.
@@edumazieri very similar, the difference regarding my concerns is the likelihood of things getting worse after the oops/cackle
In Canada they pay carbon taxes to the federal government - while you buy fuel for your car - who is engaged in the largest subsidy to the oil & gas sector in Canadian history to build a pipeline.
Carbon Credit is pure scam 🤢🤢🤮
Carbon Neutrality is pure scam🤢🤢🤮
ESG investment is evil scam🤢🤢🤮
Green advocates r either corrupt or useful idiots🤢🤢🤮
🚩Saudi oil company, ARAMCO, is ESG while Tesla is not🤦♀️
Crypto is less evil & less scammy than all of them combined 🤏
3:21 My friend, I can't watch an advertisement for the food that has done that to you.
As a fellow Irishman, I was expecting a reference to the Ash for Cash scandal.
To save the rest of the readers having to look it up: It was a big screwup in Northern Ireland that was intended to subsidise burning renewable wool pellet fuel for heating large buildings. The subsidies were actually set higher than the cost of the fuel (intentionally, to cover the cost of boiler refit), so some enterprising companies realised that the more fuel they burned, the more money they made off the scheme. So they turned the heating up to max all year round and opened all the windows. Once the government caught on to the scam, there was nothing they could do: The fuel-wasters weren't actually doing anything illegal, and they'd signed up to the scheme on a twenty-year contract that the government was legally committed to uphold.
The scam cost the government half a billion pounds, and the political fallout lead to a number of resignations and was a contributing factor in a wider political crisis in Irish government. Adding further insult, the renewable fuel was renewable and carbo neutral - but it was shipped in bulk from half-way around the world using diesel-fueled vehicles, so the scheme actually lead to increased carbon emissions.
Wikipedia has a list of similar occurances: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive
🤦🏻♀️ good lord what a scheme.
@@vylbird8014The jokes write themselves. Brilliant😂.
Ole Patty boy, I think I finally figured out the problem I had with your videos… there’s not enough of them! Thanks for all the insights!
It's a Shell game
oh no, the exact thing people said was going to happen with carbon credits happened??? I am so shocked!
no trees were harmed in the making of this film
Well, I did my chemistry degree a while ago but I am fairly sure the energy cost to squash the gas back down will be getting on for the energy gained in burning it.
Indeed, notice the spelling, they usually talk about CCUS rather than CCS. The "U" stands for "use" and by use they mean EOR, Enhanced Oil Recovery. The Enhancement consist in pumping out more oil from wells that have lost their pressure and would otherwise have to be abandoned, but instead the pumped CO2 can displace it and force it to the surface.
Did I hear someone say offshore windfarms?
@@markotrieste now, when I was a kid that would have been on TV as just good news 'cos we're getting more oil. 40 years changes views!
Direct air capture is such a hilarious joke
Smoke and mirrors.
@@benharris3100you mean "CO2 and mirrors" lol
It's not a joke - it's literally what plants do every day, and what makes life exist. But yes, artificial carbon capture is one of the most expensive ways to impact atmospheric CO2 concentrations - about 4x greater than other options..
@@funtechu also it's not passive, we need energy to run such plants and where is that energy coming from? well from burning fossil fuels most likely which offsets a lot of the co2 removed
We just need to build our cities out of wood - carbon captured 😅
I deserve a methane credit for every time I don't fart.
The thing about subsidizing CCS is that it distorts the economic signals. The costs of CCS are a way of accounting for the carbon externality, and having carbon offsets be unaffordably expensive should incentivize a reallocation of funds towards a faster scale-up of renewables and disincentivize expansion in unsustainable industries. If "offset and grow" isn't economically viable, then messing with the system until it is breaks the whole purpose of it. But fossil fuel companies aren't really interested in allowing correct climate incentives to upset their market.
Yes, maybe that specific CCS facility, one that is possibly net carbon-negative after accounting for the emissions associated with its power supply, wouldn't have been built, but the phony carbon credits it provided wouldn't have fueled greater expansion of unsustainable business practices by both Shell and their customers.
Carbon credits are always a scam. If I was running shell I'd do the same thing
😂😂😂
Naah, you'd wear british crown :)
all prime examples of the band playing as the titanic sank.
Except nothing is sinking
@@samsonsoturian6013 Correct, something is rising. Global temperature. Also ocean pH. If carbon credits don't work we need a better plan, not no plan.
If you’re looking for the channel to get up to speed on the drake vs Kendrick beef, you’ve come to the right place
What an insightful video. We need a lot more of this sort of analysis getting into the mainstream.
Mr. BOYLE you are a beautiful person! Thank you so much for all the fincial education. As an engineer the market looks chaotic. But you seem to make learning enjoyable with a glimmer of light of possibly understanding a little on this massive system!
"This is not a clean process" 😂😂😂
been watching since less than 100k subscribers. cool to see your rise
Bought your books. Good stuff. Thank you for writing it.
The CEO of a company producing toxic waste was concerned about environmental damage and therefore help start the program? I didn’t know CEOs like that existed.
Because you're as much a liar as the average idiot reporter
You mean like BP creating "carbon footprint" to push their polluting onto the peasants?
British Petroleum, the second largest non-state owned oil company in the world, with 18,700 gas and service stations worldwide, hired the public relations professionals Ogilvy & Mather to promote the slant that climate change is not the fault of an oil giant, but that of individuals. It’s here that British Petroleum, or BP, first promoted and soon successfully popularized the term “carbon footprint” in the early aughts. The company unveiled its “carbon footprint calculator” in 2004 so one could assess how their normal daily life - going to work, buying food, and (gasp) traveling - is largely responsible for heating the globe.
Before there were massive monopolies, businesses depended on reputation. Caring was important and selected for ..
The hole system is a scam. It's basically just numbers trickery. Of course that CEO would help device this system.
I know, right?
Thank you for this information.
Carbon credits should only ever involve projects where you can directly point to the carbon that got captured or stored. And only if the terms of the contract should require the owner to pay up if the carbon got released back to atmosphere, no matter what reason. It should be like an insurance policy where the owner of the credit is the insurer.
Everyone, plus my dead grandmother, knows that carbon emission offset certificates are a con. And those companies promoting it and helping to defraud their own customers and taking their hard earned money should go to jail. It’s amazing how big companies always get away with their BS.
There is one fundamental problem with aspects of this video: Chopping down a forest is HOW you capture carbon, a forest is a TEMPORARY carbon storage since rotting wood emits carbon. As long as the wood you chop doesnt decay its carbon that you take out of the cycle. Chopping forests is bad for completely different reasons like erosion of soil, removing heat sinks and destroying animal habitats.
So what you’re saying is the 2x4s in my house are carbon sinks? So shouldn’t I get carbon credits for every year I don’t burn my house down?
@@franciscodanconia4324 that is actually flawless logic by how that system is designed. Which shows you how bad the system is.
@@franciscodanconia4324 - no, the lumber in your house is not a carbon sink. It is a static store of carbon.
@@JanBruunAndersen you missed the joke.
It's ironic because "carbon credits" are a scam of their own 😂
ESG ESG ESG rofl
As is carbon induced climate change
1st video, recommended by YT 'cause of the content I watch. Loved it :) Very... complete research, with the bonus of completing the compreension with the explanation of concepts.
Subscribed and will watch all :)
I often try to explain to people that "the free market" doesn't exist without perfect information-- it has nothing to do with subsidies or prohibitions, only that all parties to a transaction are aware of all facts that impact and relate to that transaction. In a free market, where I need a car, I would say "Wow, this car is cheap-- but it's cheap because it was recovered from being underwater in Hurricane Cathal. Knowing that, I see now how it is not a value," and then the seller would say, "Damn, it's like I can't scam people in a free market."
It's called "perfect information"-- demand perfect information, or you're really just in a con game.
Carbon credits are a scandal. Shell is just playing the dumb game.
Carbon credits could have worked if legislators weren't corrupt. Not saying we should run head-first into it in ignorance of course.
"Shell is just playing the dumb game" is justifying any bad behavior. From petty theft to genocide there's just no limit to crime when you remove morality and accept it as an expected value game.
Why should they care as long as it relieves the punitive taxes/regs/inspections that idiots throw at them?
@@0xCAFEF00DEven if you believe the concept is sound, carbon credits would only serve to allow big corps to be the only ones allowed to get anything done
@@0xCAFEF00D This implies it is not inherently wide-open to potential corruption by its very nature. It is. This talk pretty much covers that.
Should just have a straightforward Carbon Tax. None of this credits or cap and trade BS.
Great topic
Good stuff my man. Thank you for the detailed analysis. Much appreciated.
im not actually listening to anything in the video but your voice feels soothing & the rate at which i fall asleep is much better when i listen to it so thank you pat
Carbon Credits- The greatest scam ever.
There's bigger
*cough* covid vaccines *cough*
Social security...
Amusing that Greenpeace is also always against effective solutions, such as deploying more modern nuclear fission plants with designs already proven in commercial operation.
Those idiots are angry at anything anyone does. Even the peace treaties that end wars.
I think this is a political position inhereted from their founding generation in the 80s and should be reevaluate. But the real issue with this is that those plants will come way too late if you start building them now. Renewables are easy especially as the US barely uses them to this date. There are countries that already have 40+% renewables and still have a stable grid and decent prices.
@@nami1540 A grid based on "100% renewables" is the biggest grift of all. 40% is possible only with full back up by coal and gas plants. And there is not enough copper in the world anyway to make 100% renewables work.
Part political, part investigative, part activist. They do play a part, including in this informative post
@@ronald3836 i wonder why you would need more copper for decentalized renewables? one of the points is to create the electricity whre its actually used, which teduces the amount of copper needed..
Admirable amount of research done here.👍
The example with radio station is bizarre. An investment fund with deep pockets can buy one of the stations, drown out another one, make it lose profitability because no one would be able to listen to it and buy the other one getting more a the spectrum. That happens a lot IRL and results in worse service and higher prices.
Those trees must be huge today
Wow, Cook Unity delivery meals are so high end you're required to wear a jacket while unpacking them!
Make me laugh as well.
I gess that Patrick as a built-in jacket
@@adrienadrien5940that was Patrick’s casual suit for relaxing at home 😂
Dutch farming debate touches on this. Farmers argue that forcing them to reduce even more emissions will destroy dutch farming, forcing up imports of less climate friendly meat.
The research you do for these videos is very impressive.
Carbon credits are like the 21st century version of church indulgences.
Careful Patrick we don't want you to go missing😅
Thank you for your research and dispassionate analysis of an important topic which is often distorted by emotion and passions regarding an important topic
Great video. Thank you Patrick!
No matter what method becomes the best carbon credits method, there will always be schemers who can cheat whatever system is out there.
Which is why cheating these sort of systems should not have a slap-on-the-wrist fine. Dole out death penalties. No CEO wants to go to the chopping block over a few million dollars.
@@bulletflight Ahaha, very reasonable. Or, perhaps, you could lower your standards of living and stop buying polluting products? Just a thought, dont accuse me of being a carbonterrorist.
You three
---at the current time of writing---
are missing the point.
It was all set up to be a scam, a lot proven by factoids such as HSBC setting up for this for long time, whihc is why they own Greenpeace, which is also why its founder resigned, seeing through what it was being pushed into doing, which is world wide genocide of the human populations, having nothing to do with anything good, run by a load of intelligence agents, who'd be just as happy operating #OperationPhoenix, or #IranContra, which is why the US is the onl country to openly operate a terrorism university, called *the Scool of the Americas".
The problems with carbon offsetting is that everyone is incentivized to look the other way (business, consumer and the government). But if we push the government to create powerful independent oversight group, similar to financial market oversight and regulator, think will start to change. Right now, it is too haphazard and often left to group that doesn't have a clear role and responsibility for C02 tracking and offsetting.
First time I've been excited about a sponsor! I've been eating Cook Unity food for years! If you love variety and hate to cook, it's an awesome deal.
The problem with sequestration, it needs to be in a stable form. Putting coal back in the ground, or adding certain rock to the ocean (which would also help counter acidification). However companies tend to prefer compressed co2 in aquifers (where it will leak immediately), or gas reservoirs (where it will leak at some time).
WOW Thanks for cheering me up Patrick.
Thanks to our growing list of Patreon Sponsors and Channel Members for supporting the channel. www.patreon.com/PatrickBoyleOnFinance : Paul Rohrbaugh, Douglas Caldwell, Greg Blake, Michal Lacko, Dougald Middleton, David O'Connor, Douglas Caldwell, Carsten Baukrowitz, Robert Wave, Jason Young, Ness Jung, Ben Brown, yourcheapdate, Dorothy Watson, Michael A Mayo, Chris Deister, Fredrick Saupe, Winston Wolfe, Adrian, Aaron Rose, Greg Thatcher, Chris Nicholls, Stephen, Joshua Rosenthal, Corgi, Adi, maRiano polidoRi, Joe Del Vicario, Marcio Andreazzi, Stefan Alexander, Stefan Penner, Scott Guthery, Luis Carmona, Keith Elkin, Claire Walsh, Marek Novák, Richard Stagg, Stephen Mortimer, Heinrich, Edgar De Sola, Sprite_tm, Wade Hobbs, Julie, Gregory Mahoney, Tom, Andre Michel, MrLuigi1138, sugarfrosted, Stephen Walker, Daniel Soderberg, John Tran, Noel Kurth, Alex Do, Simon Crosby, Gary Yrag, Mattia Midali, Dominique Buri, Sebastian, Charles, C.J. Christie, Daniel, David Schirrmacher, Ultramagic, Tim Jamison, Deborah R. Moore, Sam Freed,Mike Farmwald, DaFlesh, Michael Wilson, Peter Weiden, Adam Stickney, Agatha DeStories, Suzy Maclay, scott johnson, Brian K Lee, Jonathan Metter, freebird, Alexander E F, Forrest Mobley, Matthew Colter, lee beville, Fernanda Alario, William j Murphy, Atanas Atanasov, Maximiliano Rios, WhiskeyTuesday, Callum McLean, Christopher Lesner, Ivo Stoicov, William Ching, Georgios Kontogiannis, Dru Hill, Todd Gross, D F CICU, JAG, Pjotr Bekkering, Jason Harner, Nesh Hassan, Brainless, Ziad Azam, Ed, Artiom Casapu, Eric Holloman, ML, Meee, Carlos Arellano, Paul McCourt, Simon Bone, Richard Hagen, joel köykkä, Alan Medina, Chris Rock, Vik, Fly Girl, james brummel, Jessie Chiu, M G, Olivier Goemans, Martin Dráb, Boris Badinoff, eliott, Bill Walsh, Stephen Fotos, Brian McCullough, Sarah, Jonathan Horn, steel, Izidor Vetrih, Brian W Bush, James Hoctor, Eduardo, Jay T, Claude Chevroulet, Davíð Örn Jóhannesson, storm, Janusz Wieczorek, D Vidot, Christopher Boersma, Stephan Prinz, Norman A. Letterman, georgejr, Keanu Thierolf, Jeffrey, Matthew Berry, pawel irisik, Daniel Ralea, Chris Davey, Michael Jones, Alfred, Ekaterina Lukyanets, Scott Gardner, Viktor Nilsson, Martin Esser, Paul Hilscher, Eric, Larry, Nam Nguyen, Lukas Braszus, hyeora,Swain Gant, Kirk Naylor-Vane, Earnest Williams, Subliminal Transformation, Kurt Mueller, KoolJBlack, MrDietsam, Saaientist, Shaun Alexander, Angelo Rauseo, Bo Grünberger, Henk S, Okke, Michael Chow, TheGabornator, Andrew Backer, Olivia Ney, Zachary Tu, Andrew Price, Alexandre Mah, Jean-Philippe Lemoussu, Gautham Chandra, Heather Meeker, John Martin, Daniel Taylor, Nishil, Nigel Knight, gavin, Arjun K.S, Louis Görtz, Jordan Millar, Molly Carr,Joshua, Shaun Deanesh, Eric Bowden, Felix Goroncy, helter_seltzer, Zhngy, lazypikachu23, Compuart, Tom Eccles, AT, Adgn, STEPHEN INGRA, Clement Schoepfer, M, A M, waziam, Deb-Deb, Dave Jones, Julien Leveille, Piotr Kłos, Chan Mun Kay, Kirandeep Kaur, Jacob Warbrick, David Kavanagh, Kalimero, Omer Secer, Yura Vladimirovich, Alexander List, korede oguntuga, Thomas Foster, Zoe Nolan, Mihai, Bolutife Ogunsuyi, Hong Phuc Luong, Old Ulysses, Mann, Rolf-Are Åbotsvik, Erik Johansson, Nay Lin Tun, Genji, Tom Sinnott, Sean Wheeler, Tom, Артем Мельников, Matthew Loos, Jaroslav Tupý, The Collier Report, Sola F, Rick Thor, Denis R, jugakalpa das, vicco55, vasan krish, DataLog, Johanes Sugiharto, Mark Pascarella, Gregory Gleason, Browning Mank, lulu minator, Mario Stemmann, Christopher Leigh, Michael Bascom, heathen99, Taivo Hiielaid, TheLunarBear, Scott Guthery, Irmantas Joksas, Leopoldo Silva, Henri Morse, Tiger, Angie at Work, francois meunier, Greg Thatcher, justine waje, Chris Deister, Peng Kuan Soh, Justin Subtle, John Spenceley, Gary Manotoc, Mauricio Villalobos B, Max Kaye, Serene Cynic, Yan Babitski, faraz arabi, Marcos Cuellar, Jay Hart, Petteri Korhonen, Safira Wibawa, Matthew Twomey, Adi Shafir, Dablo Escobud, Vivian Pang, Ian Sinclair, doug ritchie, Rod Whelan, Bob Wang, George O, Zephyral, Stefano Angioletti, Sam Searle, Travis Glanzer, Hazman Elias, Alex Sss, saylesma, Jennifer Settle, Anh Minh, Dan Sellers, David H Heinrich, Chris Chia, David Hay, Sandro, Leona, Yan Dubin, Genji, Brian Shaw, neil mclure, Francis Torok, Jeff Page, Stephen Heiner, Peter, Tadas Šubonis, Adam, Antonio, Patrick Alexander, Greg L, Paul Roland Carlos Garcia Cabral, NotThatDan, Diarmuid Kelly, Juanita Lantini, hb, Martin, Julius Schulte, Yixuan Zheng, Greater Fool, Katja K, neosama, Shivani N, HoneyBadger, Hamish Ivey-Law, Ed, Richárd Nagyfi, griffll8, Oliver Sun, Soumnek, Justyna Kolniak, Vasil Papadhimitri, Devin Lunney, Jan Kowalski, Roberta Tsang, Shuo Wang, Joe Mosbacher, Mitchell Blackmore, Cameron Kilgore, Robert B. Cowan, Nora, Rio.r, Rod, George Pennington, Danial Ramzan and Yoshinao Kumaga.
I cut down no trees while watching this video.
You do such a great job with these videos.
Thanks.
HA - “…not cutting trees down..” and the video of the two kids shaking the tree gave me a chuckle - HA. CHEERS from AUSTRALIA
Thank you for better news than the BBC.
He might take it the wrong way, but I'd like to joke, "[He's] almost as good as the BBC!".
People forget that it is not enough to plant the trees. You also need to bury the wood to prevent the sequestered carbon from returning to the atmosphere after the wood rots or burns.
Or build houses with it, create some "affordable" housing
Bury what wood??
@@FreddyFermin The wood from the trees. The lifecycle of carbon is that it will be captured by the trees, turned into cellulose (wood), and then when the tree dies, that cellulose will either be decomposed by bacteria or burn. Either way, that last step returns all that carbon to the atmosphere. The way to prevent that from happening is to bury it, and in millions of years it will become coal.
Most people don't understand how trees are carbon syncs. The carbon cycle isn't taught in school
@@tommy_1446you’re an idiot lmao. The tree dying doesn’t return it all to the atmosphere. That’s insane.
Most of it goes into the ground and stays in the ground.
The surprised gopher zoom at the end of the video had me in stitches.
Man, your videos are amazing.
The conclusion statement summarized the challenge very well. I hope we have the will and ingenuity to address climate change. In the 70's we found the will to address pollution (I know, the solutions were not perfect, but lakes and rivers that would have died are alive, and western cities have far less smog), but I fear the population is more cynical than it was then.
I think the CO2 issue is much larger and more encompassing. What we did with pollution was generally what carbon capture intends to do, filter, concentrate and safely dispose. Prevention wasn't so important as the quantities were much smaller, just scrub out the nasties from the stack. With CO2 there's just way too much emitted for that to be practical.
I would like to point out that the popular environmental theory in the 70s was that we were facing another ice age….
And a polluted river is a provable environmental damage. You can test the water and in most cases trace it back to a particular human polluter. Anthropomorphic climate change cannot be proven. It can be “modeled” but that’s not empirical proof.
Speaking of solving the problem, I would say it's looking bleak. On the notion that the current generation has to deal with the problem, it's naturally true. Nevertheless, it's good to remember that this problem has been developing for many years, going back several generations.
I just wanted to point it out, since I would argue that all the currently living generations must be encouraged to participate in solving the matter in question. Not that what you already did in order to improve the environment isnt significant. But, for all intents and purposes, only had a local and superficial impact. The total opposite of toody's challenges.
As stated, it's pretty bleak.
As daunting as the technical and economic challenges are, I believe they are surmountable. The social/political challenges worry me. The Covid pandemic showed that many people in the US were angry at being asked to make the relatively minor sacrifice of wearing a mask in public, and were eager to believe conspiracy theories about government efforts to address the problem. As a result, by the end of 2020, the US had 20% of the wolds Covid deaths, with only 5% of the world population.
There's more to the problem than just figuring out how to solve it, which isn't a given, at the moment.
Just consider the amount of people that still is in the fence about the certainty of the issue, add the ones that are actively interested in preventing a general consensus due to financial gains, let alone implementing some possible measure intended to mitigate the problem. Plus the few which might believe in it, but still think it won't be as bad as advertised.
Even if you assume the amount of people falling into one of those categories to be minimal, you will still be forced to deal with them before making any progress. After all, they will be some of the most wealthy and influential individuals globally. Among those more likely to be persuaded are the ones that will be needed the most in order to implement any possible plan: Politicians.
Let's just hope the environment deteriorates gradually enough for the general public to be persuaded to act upon it, whilst still allowing any given action to be effective in solving the problem.
The British put a bounty on cobras in India, it worked great as a source of income for the newly evolved snake farmers. Once the British stopped paying the bounty the cobra population exploded and the venomous snake problem became worse. There is nothing new under the sun, the verbiage changed and the results remained the same.
Love your bespoke suits -- and your erudite explanations!
A non fake carbon credit is a rare thing.
About as rare as honest government.
I love economics. You can get a Nobel prize for a theory that applies in 1% of real world cases. Job done.
No wonder economists invented this "Nobel Prize" for themselves.
@@EdwinSteiner There is no Nobel Prize in Economics. What there is is an Economics Prize instituted by the National Bank of Sweden (when they celebrated their 300 year anniversary in 1968) in memory of Alfred Nobel. The prize has nothing to do with Alfred Nobel or the prizes he instituted, it just happens to be presented at the same time and by the same person (the King of Sweden).
I’ve watched enough clips of The Big Short to understand it’s the same shit all over again
When scammers get scammed by scamming the scam but then get caught scamming the scam because the scammers are governments.
Thank you for covering this important topic.
400 people were waiting....crazy.
I know. Should be more people.
Im still waiting... what are we waiting for btw?
I work adjacent to the carbon offset economy. While I am not directly involved in the project, my boss is. We are working on developing carbon capture and storage technology. If my department is typical, as is all of the companies we work through / for developing CCS, the entire project is one giant fraud from beginning to end.
While I personally haven't been involved in the "industry," my father has, and he tells a similar story.
Patrick's kitchen is spotless! 😂