double-counting low-carbon energy, never counting high-carbon energy ...
[I refer to solar, wind, nuclear, hydro, geothermal, and biofuel energy as "low-carbon" energy because they do result in some net carbon emissions over their lifecycles, when you factor in their infrastructure requirements. I refer to coal, oil, and natural gas as "high-carbon" energy because they directly emit carbon emissions when consumed.]
Last night I was listening to an interview with Norway's environment minister talking about all the ways in which Norway has reduced its emissions. For example, the norm in Norway is to drive an electric car --> 90% of new vehicles purchased in Norway are electric. He spoke of how Norway has doubled its economic output while reducing its emissions by 40%. He said they still have a long way to go toward decarbonizing, and took responsibility for going the rest of the way during "our pivotal generation", but the trend sounded good. Yay, Norway!
Yet, Norway has been ramping up its natural gas production and has now replaced Russia as Europe's #1 supplier of natural gas. Norway is breaking new records in its natural gas production this year -- having more than doubled its production over the past 20 years.
How can a country both (1) take credit for reducing its emissions by 40%, and (2) double its production of high-carbon fuels?
The trick is that you only count the fuels you consume, not the fuels you produce. If you export your high-carbon fuels, then you get to deny responsibility for consuming them. Canada and the US use this trick also.
-----
But, this morning in the Wall Street Journal I found a "long read" deeply-reported article about how major corporations in the US are claiming Net Zero carbon emissions by purchasing "carbon offsets" from profitable wind farms in China and India. The corporations, such as Spotify, are actually emitting CO2, but they claim to be Net Zero because they're paying cash to a wind farm on the other side of the planet. The wind energy generated in India is actually consumed in India, by consumers other than Spotify, but via the magic of purchasing offsets, Spotify claims to not be emitting the emissions it is actually emitting.
Here the trick is that you do not count the high-carbon fuels you consume, you count the low-carbon fuels that you pay somebody else to consume.
-----
Do you see where we're going with this? It's a massive shell game. Nobody is tagged with either producing or consuming high-carbon fuels, so long as the fuels you produce are exported, and the fuels you consume are offset. Meanwhile, together we continue to produce and consume more high-carbon fuels. But Norway gets to say it is reducing its emissions, and Spotify gets to say it is Net Zero emissions.
I'm reminded of Krusty the Clown from The Simpsons, and how he'd lead the kids in his audience to chant, "Don't blame me, I didn't do it."
Last night I was listening to an interview with Norway's environment minister talking about all the ways in which Norway has reduced its emissions. For example, the norm in Norway is to drive an electric car --> 90% of new vehicles purchased in Norway are electric. He spoke of how Norway has doubled its economic output while reducing its emissions by 40%. He said they still have a long way to go toward decarbonizing, and took responsibility for going the rest of the way during "our pivotal generation", but the trend sounded good. Yay, Norway!
Yet, Norway has been ramping up its natural gas production and has now replaced Russia as Europe's #1 supplier of natural gas. Norway is breaking new records in its natural gas production this year -- having more than doubled its production over the past 20 years.
How can a country both (1) take credit for reducing its emissions by 40%, and (2) double its production of high-carbon fuels?
The trick is that you only count the fuels you consume, not the fuels you produce. If you export your high-carbon fuels, then you get to deny responsibility for consuming them. Canada and the US use this trick also.
-----
But, this morning in the Wall Street Journal I found a "long read" deeply-reported article about how major corporations in the US are claiming Net Zero carbon emissions by purchasing "carbon offsets" from profitable wind farms in China and India. The corporations, such as Spotify, are actually emitting CO2, but they claim to be Net Zero because they're paying cash to a wind farm on the other side of the planet. The wind energy generated in India is actually consumed in India, by consumers other than Spotify, but via the magic of purchasing offsets, Spotify claims to not be emitting the emissions it is actually emitting.
Here the trick is that you do not count the high-carbon fuels you consume, you count the low-carbon fuels that you pay somebody else to consume.
-----
Do you see where we're going with this? It's a massive shell game. Nobody is tagged with either producing or consuming high-carbon fuels, so long as the fuels you produce are exported, and the fuels you consume are offset. Meanwhile, together we continue to produce and consume more high-carbon fuels. But Norway gets to say it is reducing its emissions, and Spotify gets to say it is Net Zero emissions.
I'm reminded of Krusty the Clown from The Simpsons, and how he'd lead the kids in his audience to chant, "Don't blame me, I didn't do it."