On Thursday, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Article 6.4 Supervisory Body approved the first batch of carbon credits under the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism. The project? A South Korean-backed clean-cooking initiative in Myanmar, issuing some 60,000 tonnes of CO₂-equivalent emission reductions from efficient cookstoves. Some in the climate commentariat celebrated a “major milestone” in the UN’s Paris Agreement.
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell hailed it as proof that markets can deliver “real-life benefits”:
Over two billion people globally are without access to clean cooking, which kills millions every year. Clean cooking protects health, saves forests, cuts emissions and helps empower women and girls, who are typically hardest hit by household air pollution… [the new mechanism] can support solutions that make a big difference in people’s daily lives, as well as channelling finance to where it delivers real-life benefits on the ground.
Paris not much better than Kyoto
Given the appalling living conditions of people in very poor developing countries such as Myanmar, most if not all more fortunate observers among us would very much wish that the UNFCCC can “channel” finance to deliver “real-life benefits on the ground”. Article 6.4 is the direct descendant of the Kyoto Protocol’s Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and its supervisory body is tasked to promote a global carbon market.
The CDM was a United Nations-run carbon offset scheme under the Kyoto Protocol allowing countries to fund greenhouse gas emissions-reducing projects in
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Interesting graph. How many trillions have we spent “reducing” CO2 emissions? Not a blind bit of difference…
If CO2 that is allegedly causing climate change was really doing that, then the first thing that any government would do would be plant millions of trees. Trees suck in billions of tonnes of CO2 and half of their weight is water, which would be in the trees instead of causing the alleged sea level rise by running into the oceans.
And if they were really concerned about people they would allow 1 billion people in the third world who do not even have any electricity to access to their coal and gas so as they could develop their economies and get prosperity. But instead they coerce them into leaving their fossil fuels in the ground and fob them off with some money for turbines.
Climate Change is an eco socialist scam. ——CO2 is not a proxy for planetary health. It is WEALTH that is. ——Once countries become wealthy they are better able to protect the environment. Not the phoney environment and the manufactured climate crisis, but the real environment. Wealthier countries can afford to have better and more effective environmental regulations. But instead what we get is regulations, mandates, taxation, carbon trading and credits, astronomical energy prices, food shortages,… Read more »
Our area’s local government is proud to have planted many thousands of trees. In a park near where we used to live they have to my knowledge planted over 50 trees over the past 4 years. The first lot were all destroyed by vandals. Most of the second lot too. Several were smashed down by grass cutting tractors. Quite a few were the wrong sort to be planted in water meadows and just upped and died. None of the 50 or so remain. We actually have fewer trees than before as a few more mature trees were vandalised by stripping the bark off them.
As soon as you work out ‘Climate Science’ has nothing to do with the climate, then it all falls into place.
Let’s imagine (fantasy) that I somehow came up with a method of generating electricity and heat, at a household level, at near-zero cost and without pollution. Something so simple that it could be used both by people in Western countries and people in the Third World will little access to technology. Let’s say I travelled around showing people everywhere how to do it, claiming only travel expenses and enough income to give me a decent life. What would happen?
I’d be banged up in an instant, and the technology banned as Not Safe, Not Secure and probably even Terroristic. Possibly “anti-semitic” as well – I have no idea what the chain of argument there might be, but it’s the trendy term for Things Which Must Not Be Allowed.
But once my new Intermediate Tech was safely in the hands of a BigCorp, they could sell an Approved version of what I was offering for free back to everyone, at a gigantically inflated price. (Not to the people in the Third World, of course – they have no money, not interested!). And everything would be OK then.
That’s what all this is about. Not pollution, not progres, but control, vested interests,… Read more »
You’d die in some unfortunate incident, and all of your technology would disappear from your shed;
https://youtu.be/-ZRwlYtAMps?si=nvBqO9JjV8SIBaRC
This guy’s YouTube channel is one of the better ones out there. This episode stands out as being one that tells you how things *really* are behind the scenes…
(The advert finishes at 4:00)
Suggestion re adverts on YouTube. Hold your nose and pay YT for Premium Lite at £8 per month. Cuts out the majority of ads and well worth it
“Clean cooking” ?
2 Billion without cooking facilities and they are banging on about clean cooking!
Just use all this stupid carbon credit wastage to buy and set up and install millions of LPG gas bottle cooking units and supply chains on the ground..now that would seriously help these people…f-ing carbon credits my arse!
Too many people pushing ‘the thing that gives me a well-paid job’.