Surface Pro (2017) vs Surface Pro 4
I've recently been doing some work connected with the prevention of industrial pollution, and I discovered something that came as a complete surprise. It concerns carbon credits.
Before you click on the link let me make it clear that it goes to an environmental charity website. I am not connected with the charity, and this is in no way an appeal for donations, or anything like that - it's just that the animation which explains the situation is hosted on the site. I think that some of you will find it interesting, to say the least.
click here to watch the animation.
was how some companies can actually make more money by generating fraudulent carbon credits - in other words, by producing more of the polluting gas these companies make a bigger profit.
And they can then add the carbon credit extra profits to the profits from the manufactured goods to build even bigger plants to make more goods which make more... ad infinitum.
Go straight to jail. Do not pass "Go". Do not collect £200 - but they would then buy a "Get out of jail free" card with the profits from their other activities and continue making carbon credit 'profits'.
Whereas the company that tries to be green genuinely finds that the costs of so doing are exorbitantly high and they cannot afford to invest in the technology.
#it's the same, the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame,
It's the rich what gets the pleasure,
Ain't it all a blooomin' shame.#
We have a dichotomy in my area. A company has, on appeal, been given planning permission to build a bio-mass power plant that will be fuelled by palm oil. So, they will cut down established tropical plantations (probably of trees) to get the oil, then ship it all the way to the UK and then burn it to make electricity. Common sense?
And, just a few miles up the motorway, a large Japanese car manufacturer, who wants to put up some wind turbines to reduce their power costs (and, thus, reduce carbon emissions) is facing massive opposition from the local 'nimby' force. I cannot imagine a large car manufacturing plant being in an area of outstanding beauty (and having seen the area, it is not one that has even any natural beauty - let alone outstanding).
I am not what one might call a 'died in the wool' green; but, even at my advanced years, I do wonder what will become of the planet form my children/grandchildren. The planet will not, of course, actually die. We'll just kill off all living things on it at this rate.
I was once given a wise adage... "The children do not inherit the Earth; we are borrowing it from them."
I shall now get down off my soap box.
..hang on whilst I just refer to my handy dictionary to refresh my mind about the meaning of the word 'con'.
Then you've missed the point.
The harmful HFC-23 is a by product of manufacturing the R-22 refrigerant.
Companies who destroy the harmful HFC-23 receive carbon credits for doing so. The cost of destroying the HFC-23 is very much less than the value of the carbon credits, so they've worked out that if they deliberately manufacture HFC-23 and then destroy it they can get even more carbon credits and make a huge amount more profit.
It's fraudulent because they are only supposed to receive credits for HFC-23 that is produced during the manufacture of R-22. They're deliberately cheating the system.
It has nothing to do with Bob controlling pollution and everything to do with Bob being a cheat. Bob's manufacturing the pollution quite deliberately, then destroying it, and getting paid to do so.
This trading in Carbon Credits as been going on for quite a long time now.
When British Steel became Corus, then the sell-offs by the billionaire owners, there was quite a bit of media interest especially regarding carbon credits, and how these could be traded among companies.
This whole environmental subject as quite a number of hidden quarters, which would surprise many people on how some companies can take certain advantages, with financial gains. You just have to know how the system works.
I have a friend who runs a fairly large processing plant. Every year the company as to submit certain information regarding usage of electricity and other essential amenities, including recycling. A few years ago, the company was heavily fined because they had exceeded their quotas. Had they been able to buy credits, then the fine might not have been as much.
In the end, whatever way you look at it, the public will pay more for perhaps the benefit of others!.
I currenty work for a large manufacturing company that annually sells their supplus credits for approx £30,000.
However to get those savings the company have invested over 12 Million (£12,000,000)in new technology.
I agree the new technology has made the plant more efficient, and increased the output per worker, but thats business.
At the current rate, it will take 400 years to get the investment back, so is the company profiting from carbon Credits. You tell me!
I don't think the suggestion is that all companies re profiting from carbon credits. The point being made is that some companies in developing countries have latched on to the idea that they can cheat the system by deliberately making excess quantities of a harmful gas, and then destroying it,thereby getting more carbon credits than they are properly entitles to.
They then sell these credits to European companies and pocket a very big profit.
"...it seems, it's yesterday's problem as the trade is to be stopped"
It's to be stopped because of the campaign run by the charity I linked to. They've been lobbying the European Commission - successfully by the look of it.
But can charities win over big business or larger commercial gain?.
You only need to look at the subsidy practices that have gone on in the past, are doing so now, and will in the future.
When you have legal documents or rules and regulations that have two ways of translation, depending on who is doing the translation and final work, then there alway will be a way 'around things'. Perhaps more so, if you have the financial clout and contacts to start with.
Perhaps to add on this subject, when was the last time the EU had their accounts 'signed-off'?.
I think all this is called 'turning a blind eye'?.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.