Carbon trading fraud in Belgium – "up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities"

This news was mentioned in my newspaper this morning: the whole sideline-article measured less than an inch… “Nothing to see here!”
I’m not surprised a Dutchman is involved: if we see a business oportunity we jump on it. If it’s legal or not is not an issue if there’s money to be made.
Or as our prime-minister put it “Show some of that V.O.C.-mentality!”.
V.O.C. -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

With stories like this, it’s good to know that the Nobel prize-winning IPCC has done such a splendid job helping the “policy makers” with their “decision making”…

20+ Lawmakers Hit Copenhagen on US Dime
Full delegation—including staffers, plus wives—over 100
(Newser) – More than 20 members of Congress hit the Copenhagen climate conference last month, a CBS investigation finds—and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office, which was in charge of the guest list, is being shifty about what it all cost. Of the fact that lawmakers (and some wives) commandeered three military transport jets while a contingent of staffers flew commercial, Sharyl Attkisson observes that, “even if Congress didn’t get a global agreement, they left an indelible footprint all the same.”
With the total (and bipartisan) delegation numbering well over 100, CBS looks at what makes up the tab:
* Three military jets at $9,000 per hour: $168,000 in flight time alone.
* Dozens of commercial flights at $2,000 a pop.
* 321 hotels nights booked, many at a five-star joint.
* Plus meals.
Indeed, notes Republican Sen. James Inhofe, a climate skeptic who went on his own, “The worst thing that happened there is they ran out of caviar.”

Is it really a crime to scam a scammer?

Let’s see:
Company A (A) produces 15,000 tons (okay, tonnes for non-US) of CO2 per annum.
Company B (B) produces 1,000 tons/tonnes of CO2 per annum.
The Gummint (G – generic) buys into (literally) the position that CO2 is a pollutant, and declares that anyone producing more that 10,000 tons/tonnes of CO2 p.a. will be taxed on the excess at the rate of $10 per ton/tonne.
Carbon Trader (C) appears and says, “I can make everybody happy, all the time, *and* I’ll save Teh Planet while doing so!”
C turns to B and says, “I’ll give you a dollar for every ton/tonne of CO2 you *don’t* produce between 4,000 and 10,000 tons/tonnes. C then gives B $6,000 for the difference between 4,000 and 10,000 tons/tonnes.
C then turns to A and says, “I’ll sell you offsets which will allow you to keep right on doing what you’re doing, avoid the taxes on that 5,000 ton/tonne excess you’re currently producing, *and* I’ll charge you less than the rate at which the Gummint will tax you.” C then charges A $5 per ton/tonne and sells A 5,000 of the non-produced tons/tonnes from B. C charges A $25,000.
G then enters the picture and says, “Hey — you promised that *everybody* would be happy, and I’m…oh, wait. I can tax A’s offsets at a lesser rate because he’s now “green” and I can tax the cash that B got as windfall profits *and* collect taxes from C on his profits. Cool!”
Now, A continues to pump out 15,000 tons/tonnes of CO2 p.a., B stays the course and pumps out 1,000 tons/tonnes p.a., C is making $4 per ton/tonne with every trade, G is collecting money from *everybody*, and the only ones who aren’t happy are A’s customers because A passed along the increased price of doing business to *them*. And, ummmmm, A is the local power plant, or the trucking firm that brings food from the farms to the markets, or the oil refinery, or the auto manufacturer.
Soooooo, there’s no reduction in CO2, there’s no additional goods being produced, the only thing that’s changing hands is money, and the only one getting hurt by it is the general public, which now has to pay more for A’s product.
Gee, what could go wrong?

I keep thinking of all those farmers who sighned up to make money from carbon credits last year. I bet they would love to visit with the salesman who convinced them to sign up and agree to certain land use pratices for what is zero dollars now.

“It estimates that in some countries, up to 90% of the whole market volume was caused by fraudulent activities.”
Don’t they mean that 90% of the whole market is subject to another layer of fraud? It’s a new definition of “pyramid scheme”… the base is the 100% fraudulent claim that VAT will reduce carbon emissions. The next layer is the 90% fradulent trading of said vat credits… the next layer up is 80% fraudulent distribution of funds… then 70% fraudulent spending of said funds in third world nations… 60% fraudulent provision of goods from said purchases… 50% fraudulent use of said equipment… 40% fraudulent accounting of outcome… 30% fraudulent reporting on program outcome… and so on, down to the completely sincere and gullible who actually buy carbon credits believing they are saving the world.

“Pouring the empty into the void” business. What kind of goods do these guys manufacture?, is it not the same as printing fake currency?, is it not the same like plastic´s invention?
Chemically pure speculation should be banned in the world, anything which entails the equivalent to printing money should be considered a forbidden activity. Any “stock” exchange should be exactly that: The exchange of goods´stocks, not of imaginary shares.

Well, there goes my hope to make some extra money off my renewable, CO2 gobbling, recyclable trees. Nothing like you “deniers” to bust people’s bubbles 😛
/sarcasm

This is really a story about tax evasion. Carbon markets have there issues but I don’t see this as casting a negative light on carbon, as the scam could apply to any number of commodity markets.
The CCX price is also grossly misleading with regards to what is going on in the US carbon market. The real pre-compliance market is in California under the Climate Action Reserve where carbon sells for $7 to $10 per ton. The CAR market has led to the decline of the CCX price.

Imagine that! Carbon trading is a dream come true for criminals and fraudsters.