Eine systematische Überprüfung ergab, dass nur 16 % der ausgegebenen Emissionsgutschriften tatsächliche Emissionsreduktionen darstellen, basierend auf einer Analyse von Projekten, die 1 Milliarde Tonnen CO2e abdecken (20 % aller ausgegebenen Gutschriften).

Abstract:

“Carbon markets play an important role in firms’ and governments’ climate strategies. Carbon crediting mechanisms allow project developers to earn carbon credits through mitigation projects. Several studies have raised concerns about environmental integrity, though a systematic evaluation is missing. We synthesized studies relying on experimental or rigorous observational methods, covering 14 studies on 2346 carbon mitigation projects and 51 studies investigating similar field interventions implemented without issuing carbon credits. The analysis covers one-fifth of the credit volume issued to date, almost 1 billion tons of CO2e. We estimate that less than 16% of the carbon credits issued to the investigated projects constitute real emission reductions, with 11% for cookstoves, 16% for SF6 destruction, 25% for avoided deforestation, 68% for HFC-23 abatement, and no statistically significant emission reductions from wind power and improved forest management projects. Carbon crediting mechanisms need to be reformed fundamentally to meaningfully contribute to climate change mitigation.”

That’s still a pretty significant reduction, and the money spent vs actual carbon reduced probably represents the actual amount of money that would need to be spent to reduce carbon emissions by a given amount, instead of the artificially low prices advertised by the carbon credit market.

Did anyone *not* predict that carbon credits were just wealth transfer and bookkeeping that has nothing to do with actual carbon reduction?

This is why some non-luxury vehicles are priced into the $50-90k range now, isn’t it?