Connect with us

Published

on

Shell has avoided paying compensation for nearly 2 million sham carbon credits it supported in China, as registry Verra has been unable to hold the world’s largest offsets buyer to account for the scandal.  

Verra told Climate Home the case is “unprecedented”, but it raises questions over the leading carbon standard’s ability to enforce its rules and guarantee integrity in the ailing voluntary carbon market – especially when critical decisions concern a dominant player like Shell.

The energy giant was closely involved in ten carbon offsetting programmes that aimed to slash methane gas released from rice paddies across eastern China. But, as Climate Home previously revealed, the carbon credits – which Shell partly used to justify sales of “carbon neutral” liquefied natural gas (LNG) – failed to cut planet-heating emissions as claimed.

After identifying serious issues and cancelling the projects in late August 2024, Verra informed a Shell subsidiary in China that the meaningless credits would need to be compensated.

So far, however, the carbon standard has been unable to claw back any of the 1.8 million credits generated by the ten projects, which were primarily used by Shell to offset real greenhouse gas emissions created by its vast fossil fuel operations. Other users of the phantom rice-farming credits include Chinese state-owned fossil fuel firm PetroChina, Singapore-based DBS Bank and UK energy supplier OVO Energy.

Hit-and-run

While the projects were originally set up by a small Chinese agritech firm called Hefei Luyu, Shell acted as their “authorised representative” in dealings with Verra, assuming “all applicable rights and responsibilities” equivalent to those of the project developer. Climate Home understands that both Hefei Luyu and Shell should have been on the hook for paying back the over-issued credits.

One of the agreements between Hefei Luyu and Shell

But on September 11 last year – less than two weeks after Verra’s compensation order – Hefei Luyu and Shell ended their agreement, enabling the fossil fuel multinational to abruptly abandon the projects.

Verra told Climate Home that “any business arrangements between the representative and the project proponent fall outside Verra’s purview to oversee or enforce”.

How Shell greenwashed gas with sham Chinese carbon credits

Commenting on the case, Danny Cullenward, a lawyer and climate economist at the University of Pennsylvania, said exiting the agreement does not relieve Shell of its past obligations. Those include being responsible for any potentially “false, fraudulent or misleading statements” made to Verra in the course of Shell’s work as the proxy project proponent, added Cullenward who analysed the project documents.

But, as yet, Verra has taken no action against Shell. In contrast, the carbon credit registry sanctioned Hefei Luyu after the Chinese company failed to reply to Verra’s emails and compensate for the credits. Hefei Luyu cannot hold an account on the platform or register new projects until compensation is delivered.

“Pathetic” – New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035

Verra told Climate Home there is nothing more it can do against the Chinese firm, but added that it reserves the right to take further action in line with its rules, without providing further details on the potential measures. The registry has so far obtained compensation for 480,000 credits issued by other rice farming projects, unrelated to the Shell ones.

Cullenward said Verra had failed to explain why it cannot hold Shell accountable for the cancelled projects in China.

“If something in Verra’s internal rules prevents this outcome, Verra should identify and fix the loophole,” he added. “Otherwise it is practically begging to be defrauded in the future.”

Cullenward suggested that, even if Verra’s own rules prevent it from taking action in its registry system, the organisation could bring legal proceedings against Shell.

‘Rampant conflicts of interest’

Cullenward said the situation also illustrates the “rampant conflicts of interest inherent to unregulated carbon markets”.

Verra oversees carbon projects’ adherence to its rules, and has the power to suspend or cancel them – but it also relies heavily on the continued generation of new carbon credits to sustain its operations. Verra earns the vast majority of its income – close to 80% in 2023 – from charging a levy on each credit issued by its certified projects.

Shell is a dominant force in the carbon credit market, relying heavily on offsets to reach its climate targets to reduce emissions from its oil and gas operations. The energy company used 14.5 million credits in 2024 – nearly three times more than the second-largest buyer, Microsoft – according to data provider Allied Offsets.

“When they crack down on problematic practices, they hurt their own business prospects,” said Cullenward.

Shell announced on Thursday it had raised dividends paid to shareholders, despite a drop in profits in the fourth quarter of last year. At the same time, the firm has cut back investment in its clean energy division, which in 2024 amounted to seven times less than spending on oil and gas, according to analysis by campaigners at Global Witness.

In response to a request for comment from Climate Home, Shell repeated a statement it first made in August, which said the company was “disappointed to learn of the issues Verra identified with these [carbon] projects during their recent review” and indicated it would “continue to work closely with Verra to understand the impact of their findings”.

A Verra spokesperson told Climate Home that its system is working, as “Verra identified the issues with the projects and is following its quality control procedures to address them, including holding parties accountable for where they failed to conform to program rules and follow through on compensation”.

Verra is committed to “continual improvement” – and lessons learned from this case have been incorporated into “procedures that will substantially reduce the risk of these issues being repeated going forward”, the spokesperson added.

(Reporting by Matteo Civillini; editing by Megan Rowling)

The post Shell dodges paying compensation for sham carbon credits in China appeared first on Climate Home News.

Shell dodges paying compensation for sham carbon credits in China

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Climate-Fueled Wildfires and Dust Storms Drove Up Air Pollution Around the World Last Year

Published

on

A new report shows air pollution threatens the majority of the world’s population, while information gaps increase the risks.

A new report on global air pollution shows that the majority of the world’s population breathes unhealthy air, and climate change is making the problem worse.

Climate-Fueled Wildfires and Dust Storms Drove Up Air Pollution Around the World Last Year

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Australia must not follow dystopian US-style data centre path of Big Tech overreach and emissions blow out

Published

on

SYDNEY, Monday 23 March 2026 — Greenpeace Australia Pacific has labelled the Federal government’s new expectations for data centres and AI infrastructure released today as seriously inadequate, failing to address the massive impacts of the facilities on our energy systems and society, and enabling US-style Big Tech overreach and deregulation.

Greenpeace says the dizzying scale of new AI data centre development in Australia threatens to derail the energy transition by prolonging reliance on polluting fossil fuels, increasing electricity prices and consuming enormous quantities of water — all to power an industry which may be enabling socially harmful outcomes.

Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The frenzied build out of AI data centres in Australia is breathtaking, and following a dangerous US-style path where Big Tech corporations have carte blanche to drain local energy and water, and build new, polluting gas and diesel-powered plants to fuel their operations.

“Australia is following the US down the same dystopian path of unregulated AI data centre expansion and overreach by Big Tech corporations that are at best driving significant climate and environmental harm and at worst, generating illegal explicit images or supporting the US military to bomb civilians in Iran.

“These billionaire-run companies like Amazon, Open AI, Meta have time and again shown themselves to be morally impaired, with not even the best interests of humanity, let alone Australians, at the core of their decisions. Expecting them to just do the right thing because we ask nicely is baffling.

“We’re also seeing vested-interest lobby groups like the newly formed Data Centres Australia aggressively pushing to cut regulations that would protect Australians from the climate, environmental and social impacts of data centres.

“Last year, the Albanese government abandoned its own recommended AI guardrails when it announced its National AI Plan — a move applauded by these lobby groups.

“The gas lobby has also now seized on data centre growth to justify extracting more gas, just as the world needs to rapidly phase out fossil fuels for energy security and to tackle the climate crisis.

“We have a short and closing window to choose a different path in Australia — without strong guardrails, we risk replicating the US pattern where Big Tech corporations make huge profits at the expense of locals. The government must not roll out the red carpet to these corporations without adequate, legislated protections and scrutiny — not just ‘nice-to-haves’.”

ENDS

Media contact:

Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org

Australia must not follow dystopian US-style data centre path of Big Tech overreach and emissions blow out

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Courts’ Fight Over ‘Cop City’ Protests Raises Questions About Terrorism Laws and Environmental Activism 

Published

on

A years-long legal fight tied to protests over Atlanta’s Public Safety Training Center could shape how states wield terrorism laws against environmental protest movements.

ATLANTA—On a recent March morning, a large monitor at the front of a DeKalb County courtroom flickered to life as Superior Court Judge David B. Irwin appeared over Zoom. The hearing—with attorneys and out-of-state defendants joining remotely—centered on a question with national implications: Can activists who protested Atlanta’s controversial police training center be prosecuted as domestic terrorists?

Courts’ Fight Over ‘Cop City’ Protests Raises Questions About Terrorism Laws and Environmental Activism 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com