Tag Archive for: carbon emissions

Green Firm That Advised SEC On Proposed Emissions Rule Sold Carbon Credits From Chinese Region Known For Slave Labor

The Biden administration’s plan to impose climate disclosure requirements on the financial sector draws on the input of a green consultancy that sold carbon credits derived from China’s Xinjiang province, according to a Daily Caller News Foundation review of public documents.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is set to release its final climate disclosure rule in the coming months, and the agency’s proposed rulemaking documents cite the Swiss-based climate consultancy South Pole multiple times. Likewise, the SEC spoke with a high-ranking South Pole employee about the rule after the firm had sold carbon credits generated in a region of China known for forced labor.

South Pole touts itself as “[striving] for a world where businesses, governments and communities make climate action the new normal.” In a November piece, the investigative group Follow the Money reported that South Pole sold carbon offset credits derived from projects in Xinjiang, China, the epicenter of the Chinese Communist Party’s repressive campaign against Uyghur Muslims.

“Given the specious, often clearly fraudulent nature of the carbon credits rubric in general, can anyone be surprised about South Pole’s apparent scam? If our media establishment were doing its job, the carbon credits grift would rank as one of the major scandals of our time,” David Blackmon, a 40-year veteran of the American oil and gas industry who now regularly consults and writes about the energy sector, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “The fact that the Biden SEC would rely on these apparent grifters so strongly as support for a major, economically destructive regulatory action is unsurprising, and just in keeping with the overall gaslighting character of the Biden regime.”

South Pole is cited several times in the SEC’s disclosure proposal, and the company’s director of sustainable finance, Rebecca Self, joined a January 2022 call with SEC staff to discuss the potential costs of reporting climate-related risks and statistics, according to a publicly available SEC memorandum.

South Pole sold carbon offset credits derived from Xinjiang for several years, stopping in 2021, according to Follow the Money. South Pole would buy the credits from their Chinese partner for less than one euro each, and then resold them to clients like Spotify, British Petroleum and the European Youth Parliament for more than four euros apiece.

The carbon market allows companies to buy and sell carbon credits that nominally offset emissions generated in their operations. “Carbon credits are measurable, verifiable emission reductions from certified climate action projects,” according to South Pole’s own definition.

It is important to note that it is unclear whether any of the operations that formed the basis for South Pole’s credits had any exposure to forced Uyghur labor, according to Follow the Money. However, the ubiquity of forced labor in the region during the time that the company was selling the credits certainly raised those risks above typical risk levels seen elsewhere in the world.

Within the first few years after its founding in 2006, the firm identified Xinjiang’s cotton fields as a potential source for carbon credits, according to Follow the Money. The region’s cotton farmers, many of whom are Uyghurs, would typically burn the twigs and sticks created as a harvesting byproduct on the fields, leave them to rot or collect and dump them elsewhere.

Rather than wasting those twigs, South Pole realized that they had potential value as offsets if they could be converted into fuel at a Chinese biomass plant, according to Follow the Money. This realization reportedly became the basis for the firm’s Xinjiang-derived carbon credits. The company has drawn scrutiny for its operations in other parts of the world beyond China as well.

South Pole is alleged to have sold credits derived from its landmark Kariba Forest Protection project in Zimbabwe, despite knowing that the Kariba project may have only actually produced one-third of the offsets the company claimed to the public, according to a separate investigation conducted by Follow the Money.

If the SEC’s March 2022 proposal is finalized in its current form, the SEC would require publicly-traded corporations to disclose climate-related risks to their businesses in financial filings. Additionally, the SEC’s proposal would require companies to disclose the greenhouse gas emissions directly caused by their operations, those generated by the energy and electricity they use to power their operations and indirect emissions produced in companies’ upstream and downstream supply chains.

Scores of congressional Democrats have urged the SEC and the agency’s chairman, Gary Gensler, to swiftly adopt the disclosure standards. However, many corporate interests, including BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, have reportedly pushed back against the rule as proposed, and reports have surfaced suggesting that the agency may water down the proposal when it moves to finalize the rules sometime in early 2024 after several delays.

The SEC, South Pole and the White House did not respond immediately to the DCNF’s requests for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: ‘Power Grab’: As California Closes In On A Sweeping Emissions Law, Biden’s SEC Could Roll Out Its Own Version

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Supreme Court Delivers Massive Blow To Biden’s Climate Agenda

The Supreme Court delivered a massive blow to the Biden administration’s climate change plan Thursday, severely limiting the power of federal agencies.

The Court, in a 6-3 decision, limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants, significantly curtailing the power of the federal agency. The decision restricts the agency to regulating individual power plants and not the entire power sector.

“Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan,” Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion.

The case stems from an Obama-era EPA climate rule and addresses the scope of Congress’s ability to delegate legislative authority to executive agencies.

In August 2015, the EPA adopted the Clean Power Plan that sought to cut carbon emissions by 32% from power plants by 2030.

However, in early 2016, the Supreme Court blocked the plan’s implementation in a 5-4 vote. Plaintiffs successfully argued that the EPA had exceeded its congressional mandate under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which broadly authorizes the agency to issue the “best system of emission reduction.”

The Trump administration repealed the Clean Power Plan and created the Affordable Clean Energy Rule, which included looser restrictions and allowed states to regulate their standards.

“Unlike the Clean Power Plan, ACE adheres to the Clean Air Act and gives states the regulatory certainty they need to continue to reduce emissions and provide a dependable, diverse supply of electricity that all Americans can afford,” former EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler said in a statement at the time.

Hillsdale College Associate Professor of Politics Joseph Postell said the case has to do with the EPA’s authority to regulate major sources of air pollution that are stationary, like smokestacks.

“Does the statute allow the Obama administration to force the state of West Virginia to put more clean power into its energy grid as a means of reducing carbon emissions or does the Clean Air Act force the states to implement technology controls at the actual existing plants?” Postell said.

Postell said the new Trump rules regulated only the existing sources of air pollution rather than requiring new energy generation from sources like wind and solar.

“The Trump administration basically advanced version of what is now known as the major questions doctrine,” Postell said. “When there is a question of major importance or a major question. It has to be resolved by Congress and cannot be kicked over to the agency.”

In 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated everything the day before Biden’s inauguration, according to SCOTUSblog. While the Biden Administration could reinstate the Clean Power Plan, it has instead chosen to draft alternate power plant emissions rules.

The Biden Administration was awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling before releasing its plan, the Washington Post reported.

Following the repeal, West Virginia led a coalition of 20 other Republican-led states and coal companies to file an appeal to ask the Supreme Court to challenge the appeals court decision.

The plaintiffs argued that the appeals court wrongly grants “an agency unbridled power—functionally ‘no limits’—to decide whether and how to decarbonize almost any sector of the economy.” They asked the Supreme Court to preemptively intervene before the EPA issues additional emissions reduction plans or rules using this authority.

Click here to read the full decision: Supreme Court — West Virginia vs EPA





Jen Psaki Says US Needs To Move Away From Crude Oil Altogether Amid Ukraine Crisis

Biden Backs Changing Filibuster To Codify Roe V. Wade

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.