Criminal Charges Announced Over Multi-Year Fraud Scheme in a Carbon Credits Market (marketwatch.com) 25
This week the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York unsealed charges over a "scheme to commit fraud" in carbon markets, which they say fraudulently netted one company "tens of millions of dollars" worth of credits — which led to "securing an investment of over $100 million."
MarketWatch reports: Ken Newcombe had spent years building a program to distribute more environmentally friendly cookstoves for free to rural communities in Africa and Southeast Asia. The benefit for his company, C-Quest Capital, would be the carbon credits it would receive in exchange for reducing the amount of fuel people burned in order to cook food — credits the company could then sell for a profit to big oil companies like BP.
But when Newcombe tried to ramp up the program, federal prosecutors said in an indictment made public Wednesday, he quickly realized that the stoves wouldn't deliver the emissions savings he had promised investors. Rather than admit his mistake, he and his partners cooked the books instead, prosecutors said... That allowed them to obtain carbon credits worth tens of millions of dollars that they didn't deserve, prosecutors said. On the basis of the fraudulently gained credits, prosecutors said, C-Quest was able to secure $250 million in funding from an outside investor.
"The alleged actions of the defendants and their co-conspirators risked undermining the integrity of [the global market for carbon credits], which is an important part of the fight against climate change," said Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
From announced by the U.S. Attorney's Office: U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said... "The alleged actions of the defendants and their co-conspirators risked undermining the integrity of that market, which is an important part of the fight against climate change. Protecting the sanctity and integrity of the financial markets continues to be a cornerstone initiative for this Office, and we will continue to be vigilant in rooting out fraud in the market for carbon credits...."
While most carbon credits are created through, and trade in compliance markets, there is also a voluntary carbon market. Voluntary markets revolve around companies and entities that voluntarily set goals to reduce or offset their carbon emissions, often to align with goals from employees or shareholders. In voluntary markets, the credits are issued by non-governmental organizations, using standards for measuring emission reductions that they develop based on input from market participants, rather than on mandates from governments. The non-governmental organizations issue voluntary carbon credits to project developers that run projects that reduce emissions or remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
CQC was a for-profit company that ran projects to generate carbon credits — including a type of credit known as a voluntary carbon unit ("VCU") — by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. CQC profited by selling VCUs it obtained, often to companies seeking to offset the impact of greenhouse gases they emit in the course of operating their businesses.
The company itself was not charged due to "voluntary and timely self-disclosure of misconduct," according to the announcement, along with "full and proactive cooperation, timely and appropriate remediation, and agreement to cancel or void certain voluntary carbon units.
MarketWatch reports: Ken Newcombe had spent years building a program to distribute more environmentally friendly cookstoves for free to rural communities in Africa and Southeast Asia. The benefit for his company, C-Quest Capital, would be the carbon credits it would receive in exchange for reducing the amount of fuel people burned in order to cook food — credits the company could then sell for a profit to big oil companies like BP.
But when Newcombe tried to ramp up the program, federal prosecutors said in an indictment made public Wednesday, he quickly realized that the stoves wouldn't deliver the emissions savings he had promised investors. Rather than admit his mistake, he and his partners cooked the books instead, prosecutors said... That allowed them to obtain carbon credits worth tens of millions of dollars that they didn't deserve, prosecutors said. On the basis of the fraudulently gained credits, prosecutors said, C-Quest was able to secure $250 million in funding from an outside investor.
"The alleged actions of the defendants and their co-conspirators risked undermining the integrity of [the global market for carbon credits], which is an important part of the fight against climate change," said Damian Williams, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York.
From announced by the U.S. Attorney's Office: U.S. Attorney Damian Williams said... "The alleged actions of the defendants and their co-conspirators risked undermining the integrity of that market, which is an important part of the fight against climate change. Protecting the sanctity and integrity of the financial markets continues to be a cornerstone initiative for this Office, and we will continue to be vigilant in rooting out fraud in the market for carbon credits...."
While most carbon credits are created through, and trade in compliance markets, there is also a voluntary carbon market. Voluntary markets revolve around companies and entities that voluntarily set goals to reduce or offset their carbon emissions, often to align with goals from employees or shareholders. In voluntary markets, the credits are issued by non-governmental organizations, using standards for measuring emission reductions that they develop based on input from market participants, rather than on mandates from governments. The non-governmental organizations issue voluntary carbon credits to project developers that run projects that reduce emissions or remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.
CQC was a for-profit company that ran projects to generate carbon credits — including a type of credit known as a voluntary carbon unit ("VCU") — by reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. CQC profited by selling VCUs it obtained, often to companies seeking to offset the impact of greenhouse gases they emit in the course of operating their businesses.
The company itself was not charged due to "voluntary and timely self-disclosure of misconduct," according to the announcement, along with "full and proactive cooperation, timely and appropriate remediation, and agreement to cancel or void certain voluntary carbon units.
What?!?! (Score:5, Insightful)
Fraudulent carbon credit programs? You don't say!
Re:What?!?! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cryptocurrency that you mine with proof of non-work.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a cryptocurrency that you mine with proof of non-work.
Dire Straits was so ahead of their time.
Re: (Score:2)
Took me a bit to connect that, forgot this was their song:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Interesting story behind that song as well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: What?!?! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But you repeat yourself.
Like that Old Comic Says . . . (Score:3)
Good thing that it wasn't mere one-sided, disingenuous propaganda, eh?
Carbon credits are a fraud? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon credits aren't a fraud, they are an economic tool to transfer money. People selling carbon credits are a fraud.
Expected (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is why we allow people to buy and sell carbon credits, rather than actually reduce their emissions.
Because they fucking lobbied for it. The real question is, did you lobby otherwise?
I didn’t think so.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is why we allow people to buy and sell carbon credits, rather than actually reduce their emissions.
Because they fucking lobbied for it. The real question is, did you lobby otherwise?
I didn’t think so.
Here’s the hilarious thing in all this, they are bought off cheap, a 200+ year old democracy with the most powerful arsenal in the world for a motor coach (NOT RV he was VERY adamant) here or booking floors of expensive hotels where no guests show up or fake watches for $100k. If somehow we the people banded together and bought off politicians, we could massively swing the country back to represent citizens first instead of rich entities, or at the very least up the ante on how much it costs.
Re: (Score:2)
If somehow we the people banded together and bought off politicians
You do that with your votes
we could massively swing the country back to represent citizens first instead of rich entities
It sounds like you're saying one or the other instead of both. The US constitution was designed such that there are checks and balances to prevent one entity or group of entities from overpowering another. To ask otherwise is to believe there can be a world where all people are not equal, but identical.
Re: (Score:2)
Carbon credits totally make sense to these assholes. They know they're fucking worthless, that's the whole point. It's not about solving any particular problem, it's about giving the illusion of it so you can claim a moral high ground. Part of the broader progressive "do as I say, not as a I do" mentality. They want to feel justified while they shame other people for doing the exact same shit that they themselves are some of the worst offenders of. Better known as virtue signaling. Note the distinction from
Re: (Score:2)
If you make a system that allows someone to sell something that has no physical existence and do not create a system that audits it in real time, someone will game the system. The real question is why we allow people to buy and sell carbon credits, rather than actually reduce their emissions.
Precisely why emissions should be checked on regular time periods by satellite and everything put up in a transparent database. Credits for things like “development X was never implemented so give me credits” when it never was going to exist in the first place just shouldn’t even be an option. These things can indeed be done well, but it’s so badly botched im just uncertain if it’s somewhat criminal but also incompetence or if it’s pure criminal activity effectively le
Re: (Score:2)
The real question is why we allow people to buy and sell carbon credits, rather than actually reduce their emissions.
Because not all processes have emissions which are reducible, and because the expertise to build systems to combat climate change may not lie within the companies who produce emissions. It's a system that prices carbon while (in theory) funding alternate means of addressing it, by moving money from those people who externalise costs, to those people who attempt to minimise those external costs.
In economic terms carbon credits are a really good system. If technology catches up (it won't) in a way to extract
Congress makes the system into a game... (Score:2)
Meta \o/ (Score:1)
Why not just say:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just imagine if... (Score:2)
...all of the energy, creativity and time spent on coming up with clever criminal scams could instead be redirected to doing good
Re: (Score:2)
...all of the energy, creativity and time spent on coming up with clever criminal scams could instead be redirected to doing good
Good is rarely as profitable.