One of the largest sellers of ‘carbon’ offsetting credits – the virtue-signalling tokens pushed by high-end restaurants and business class airlines – finds itself ensnared in a controversy over exaggerated claims.
And the founder of an electric truck maker, committed to reducing ‘carbon’ emissions, has been jailed for misleading investors.
We have, recently, started to witness a succession of what might be termed “green scandals”. But, could these be just the tip of the iceberg?
Governments around the world are throwing hundreds of billions of dollars, euros, pounds at hitting their ‘net zero’ targets. And history teaches us one very simple lesson.
Where there is “free” money available in such huge quantities, fraud and massive waste often follow – and this may be becoming evident now.
It has been a bad few weeks for anyone who thought all the money poured into our low ‘carbon’ transition would be well spent.
This week, Portugal’s long-serving prime minister, António Costa, resigned after police raided his official residence as part of a corruption probe into his administration’s handling of lithium mining, one of the crucial materials for electric cars, and a ‘green’ hydrogen project.
The results of the investigation, of course, remain to be seen, but one has to wonder how likely it is that the Socialist Party politician will ever return to power.
Meanwhile, South Pole, the Swiss-based leader in ‘carbon’ offsetting, is fighting off allegations that it inflated the impact of the climate products it sold. It has reportedly cut ties with a huge forest protection project in Zimbabwe, and laid off staff to cope with the fall-out.
And it is not that long since Trevor Milton, the founder of the electric truck maker Nikola was found guilty of fraud for misleading investors, precipitating a collapse in the share price of a company which, at one point, was worth more than Ford.
Taken together, a picture is beginning to emerge of some political leaders, projects and companies finding themselves the subject of controversy, scandal and, at worst, fraud.
Meanwhile, in a separate development, Shell is suing Greenpeace for $2m for disruption, a welcome sign that major companies are starting to defend their right to go about their business so long as they are within the law.
In a desperate scramble to meet targets that were set with seemingly little thought to how they might be met, governments are spending extraordinary amounts on ‘green’ industrial policies.
In the US, Joe Biden, the president, is spending an estimated $720bn on the energy transition; with open ended tax credits the final bill is likely to break through the $1 trillion barrier.
The trouble is, these sorts of commitments, and the very real concern that success will be judged not on outcomes but rather on how much money is “invested”, throw up countless opportunities for sharp practice.
When a new factory is being subsidised with millions of dollars, it is not that hard to overspend on consulting or management fees. When so much money is being committed to ‘carbon’ offsetting, it is not hard to see how the figures might end up being inflated.
There is a very real concern that adequate checks and balances are not being placed on some of these investments. When there is a wide government safety net, where is the incentive to ensure ‘green’ projects are being delivered on time for the lowest cost possible?
Even in the private sector, one has to wonder whether new start-ups promising to revolutionise electric vehicles, or tidal power, or fusion energy, are really worth the valuations they are being given.
The point is this: some “green projects” don’t have to meet normal commercial criteria, and even when they are subjected to the same kind of scrutiny that a regular investment would be, red flags can be missed by woke capitalists eager to back businesses that could, they hope, change the world.
We are pursuing old-fashioned central planning, expecting politicians to pick winners rather than allowing the market discovery process to steer us towards the most cost-effective solutions. Far better to tax emissions, letting the market decide how to reduce them and which technologies to use.
This might not hand political leaders the opportunity to boast about how much they are “investing”. But industrial policy always leads to waste – and that doesn’t change because there is a ‘green’ label attached.
Of the hundreds of billions that are being spent, much of it will simply disappear into thin air, and much of the 2030s could be spent investigating and prosecuting hundreds if not thousands of frauds.
Money that was desperately needed elsewhere will have been frittered away.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.