The Climate Trust Scam

A couple of years ago, the Antiplanner described a Portland program of accepting carbon-offset funds to do traffic signal coordination. While I support signal coordination, the claimed benefits seemed outlandish. When I found out that the money came from an organization called Climate Trust that was co-founded by the director of Portland’s Office of Sustainable Development, I smelled “scam.”

I didn’t pursue it any further, but it turns out I was right. According to this 2009 report from the Cascade Policy Institute, the Portland-based Climate Trust has been legally extorting money from energy companies for more than a decade and then failing to spend that money on activities that truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

What I didn’t know when I wrote about the traffic signal program was that a 1997 Oregon law required new electrical power plants to limit greenhouse gas emissions. If they can’t meet the emission standards, they can buy “voluntary” carbon offsets from Climate Trust, which was created in 1997 and (as of 2009) is the only organization qualified to accept such funds. But the emission standards are regularly reduced to 17 percent below the emissions from the cleanest power facilities in the country. Thus, the carbon offsets the companies buy are anything but voluntary. Once they pay their money to Climate Trust, however, they are not responsible for insuring that the money is truly used to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Washington, Colorado, and other western states have similar laws leading electric companies in those states to “voluntarily” contribute to Climate Trust.
You can surf internet to know much about these prescription drugs online generally don’t feel very confident about the consumption frequency and measure.This drug is potentially capable from each angle to provide its users with enough stamina required for a successful sexual encounter. online cialis pills http://davidfraymusic.com/news/ An individual must store the pill well to avoid wastage. generic sildenafil canada How does Kamagra Act in Body? Kamagra contains sildenafil citrate, which is a clinically demonstrated medication. http://davidfraymusic.com/buy-7835 cialis for sale cheap (Sildenafil Citrate) is a drug used to treat erectile dysfunction (impotence) Sexual Hormone- Sometimes, erectile dysfunction is caused because of poor regulation of blood in the male organ is needed to keep it erect during intercourse. This variation in this concerned body parameter helps the erectile dysfunction prescribed find out this commander cialis by the physicians for men wishing to get an effective treatment for the disorder.
A genuine carbon-offset program must meet two tests. First, projects funded by the program must be “additional” to what would be done without the funding. In other words, you shouldn’t give money to a timber company for reforesting land that it would have reforested it anyway. Second, the carbon savings must be verified. The report shows that many Climate Trust projects violated one or both of these requirements. In the case of the traffic signal coordination, the report says Portland’s coordination program began two years before receiving any money from Climate Trust, and the benefits of the program were never verified. The report also notes that Climate Trust paid Portland nearly three times as much per ton of supposed carbon offset as the energy companies paid Climate Trust for offsets.

Under the Oregon law, 80 percent of the funds paid by the energy companies must be spent on offsets, while the other 20 percent is available for monitoring and administration. The 2006, 2007, and 2008 form 990s for Climate Trust are not clear on how much of the organization’s income comes from energy companies, but it is clear that the group spends far less than 80 percent of its funds on offsets.

In 2006, Climate Trust spent about two-thirds of its funds on carbon offsets, while most of the rest went for payroll and professional fees. In 2007, the share going to carbon offsets declined to 64 percent. By 2008, as near as I can tell, none of Climate Trust’s money went for carbon offsets. Instead, 73 percent of its $1.65 million budget went for salaries, fees, and other compensation. It also spent more than $120,000 on travel and conferences and $95,000 on rent and office expenses. In 2008, Climate Trust paid its executive director $154,000, not counting health insurance and other fringe benefits. At least one other staff member whose title was “director of offset programs” was paid more than $100,000 and a third one received $88,000. (If Climate Trust is all about offset programs, why isn’t the executive director the director of offset programs?)

Yes, this sounds like a scam, one financed in part by Oregon electricity users and taxpayers. If this is what cap-and-trade is all about, Americans are very lucky that Congress currently appears unlikely to pass a cap-and-trade bill this year.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

4 Responses to The Climate Trust Scam

  1. Frank says:

    “It also spent more than $120,000 on travel…”

    Travel that no doubt generated carbon. Ah, the hypocrisy of climate alarmists.

  2. bennett says:

    “Second, the carbon savings must be verified.”

    Enforcement is 9/10 of the law. Similar problems are associated with states that have adopted energy codes (i.e LEED). Verification is a nasty problem, especially for a group with a payroll like Climate Trust. To accurately verify everything is going to be a huge increase in administrative cost. But lets be honest, and outside group (most likely the government) should be the one’s doing the verification (more taxes).

  3. Dan says:

    I don’t live in Cascadia any more, so am not up on the issues, but one wonders what the structure of the offsets might be. That is: if the only option is, say, tree planting near where the funds were collected, and no opportunities were available, the money should either be banked or allowed to, say, replant rainforest/taiga.

    That is: one suspects cherry-picked faux outrage here and I suspect there is more to the story, based on past performance.

    DS

  4. Scott says:

    The carbon trading is such a scam, even under ideal conditions with no dishonesty & no admin costs. BTW, Enron had plans on this scam & Goldman Sachs does now. Algore is heavily invested in this fraud too.

    One big reason is that the amount of CO2 “offsetted” is not removed; measurements are way off, on many levels. Plants grow anyway; the net difference of CO2 intake by bigger plants is not considered. The additional CO2 expended to create “offset” is not considered.
    A 2nd reason is that this supposed removal of some CO2 could be done regardless of the “license” to emit more CO2.

    If there was this ability to offset CO2, then why is it not done for the total CO2 emission?

    Just suppose that this AGW hoax turns out to be true. There are 2 main paths to take that are not really written about:
    1.Adaptation
    2.New technology, which is not even known.
    There are at least 40 years of habitable climates.
    There could be a solution in 15 years.
    Current tech cannot solve. The CO2 emissions proposed, by the AGWers, need to go to about 1880 per capita levels.

Leave a Reply