China Invents Carbon-Neutral Oil!
By Paul Homewood
You could not make it up (but the Chinese can!)
SINGAPORE: China‘s refining giant Sinopec Corp said on Wednesday it has jointly certified the country’s first carbon-neutral crude oil cargo with shipping giant Cosco Shipping and China Eastern Airlines .
The 30,000-tonne cargo was produced by Sinopec in Angola and shipped by Cosco Shipping to an east China-based Sinopec refinery for processing, Sinopec said.
To offset the carbon dioxide produced during the process from crude production to shipping to consumption by vehicles and airplanes, the three state firms bought Chinese Certified Emissions Reductions credits.
These credits that will go to investing in carbon-reducing projects such as tree planting, solar, wind and biomass power generation in China.
Quite apart from the fact that carbon credits such as these are worthless, what about the double counting involved?
All of the solar, wind and biomass power talked about will be treated as carbon free anyway, so how can China claim that this oil is too?
You will recall that President Xi promised a few months ago that China would be “carbon neutral” by 2060, carefully avoiding any promise of zero emissions.
Now we know that it will all be smoke and mirrors, with real world emissions being masked by dodgy accounting practices.
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Paul, you haven’t yet picked up on the Nobel prize for climate change computer “geeks” that the BBC is trumpeting all over th news!
Giving all that money to a guy (Manabe) who made an obvious forecast years ago that needed no special expertise is a sign that the Nobel Committee is playing politics…again.
They even admitted it when questioned about the award.
The atmosphere is a strong Brownian motion producer therefore chaotic. What exactly have they done to reduce the “uncertainty”? By its very nature chaos is not predictable.
pardonmeforbreathing – I disagree. I think I can predict, with a high degree of accuracy, that it will all be chaotic.
And chaotic systems have a propensity to become pseudo-stable for a period. Much like the current period of temperatures.
Nobel Science prizes are different to the Nobel PEACE Prize, which is very political
China learnt from the old war fiasco.
It will take her own way.
*cold*
‘These credits that will go to investing in carbon-reducing projects such as tree planting, solar, wind and biomass power generation in China.’
‘Such as’ meaning it hasn’t actually happened. But you can count on it! You can trust Sinopec and China.
One wonders who China’s audience is for such nonsense.
BBB Johnson
Have a read about “Blue Oil”.
This is oil produced by enhanced recovery using CO2. It sequesters more CO2 than is released in refining, transporting and consuming the oil.
It’s well-established technology that has been in use for many years. The rising interest in CCS is making it look very attractive. The oil company gets paid for sequestration on top of the value of the oil.
So what’s left over is the massive CO2 output that happens when the end uses use the oil.
Western companies have been using this scam for years. The whole ‘carbon credit’ malarky is a giant scam to steal from the poor and give to the rich. If you believe the adverts 150% of UK electricity is ‘green’.
All of the Carbon Credits / Global Warming scam is about taking money from Western economies to bring about a “One World socialist government” .
https://thenewamerican.com/un-agenda-2030-a-recipe-for-global-socialism/
So , anything that favours China will be looked upon favourably by the media while they tell lies about how we should going back to the dark ages & giving all of our money to promote the Climate Change agenda .
Carbon credits are Indulgences so you can carry on sinning.
Carbon credits are a complete fraud handing certain people billions to absolutely no effect whatsoever.
Agreed Phil – just like medieval Indulgences.
Carbon neutral fossil fuels, I knew some genius would solve the problem. So can we cancel the IPCC, the climate act etc. ?
Tim,
The Drax “carbon” magicians (now you see it – phut! – now you don’t) were years ahead in this game. OK OK so wood is not a fossil fuel – but it would be if you left it for a while…
In any event, it takes a huge amount of fossil fuel to harvest the wood, dry and process it, ship it across the Atlantic etc etc.
Hm.
The extraction from the ground may or may not be ‘carbon neutral.’
The burning of it certainly won’t be!
“The burning of it certainly won’t be!”
Can you not pay a shamen to wave his magic stick and make it go away?
We’re getting to that level of ridiculousness.
The carbon credit business is on a parallel with the indulgences sold by Bishops in medieval times to rich men to absolve them of their sins where as long as they regularly greased the bishops palms they could commit as many sins as they wished and still get to heaven but no fewer sins were actually committed.With carbon credits rich men can fly to their climate conferences and smugly buy carbon credits to offset the emissions of their private jets but the reduction in CO2 is nil.
Haven’t they heard? The world only has ten, nine, eight, seven… years left before we’re irreversibly doomed so tree planting is a hopeless idea.
the carbon world is like buses. When the first ten years has past another final ten years will be on schedule from the COP depot
They want to plant a billion trees and that’s a good idea if done correctly. But they will be saplings and they come in the 5 cent plastic pots or the plastic bag type. Those petro chemicals sure are here to stay.
It’s not a Ponzi scheme. It isn’t be stupid and corrupt but it’s not a Ponzi.
Carbon credits are the new Ponzi scheme, but the purchasers just look at them as another tax to be endured, lets them appear to be green and continue to trade. The usual suspects are selling them.
Yep, great Ponzi. My brother in law has made thousands from buying them cheap in one country and selling expensive in another. total scam but as he says ‘ if they setup this sh-t why not grab a share’.
It’s plain that the Chinese do not understand ‘carbon neutral’ – welcome to the club!
…do not understand ‘carbon neutral’ – oh, but they do, I’m sure. They and people like Dale Vince and Gummer – not to mention those ‘gas-suppliers’ who have just gone out of business.
Even though it is not really Carbon-neutral the Chinese will find at least one fool to buy into the charade – and you can just bet he will be trumpeting it all over the COP26. Step forward our own Bozo-in-chief, Boris Johnson!
There is precedent here, Google have declared themselves Carbon Neutral since 2007 and will be carbon zero by 2030. If you believe that then anything is possible.
Does that mean that every employee of Gurgle will have to have 20% of their bodies surgically removed because carbon forms 20% of each and every one of our bodies. Also none of them will be allowed to breath because with each breath we exhale 40,000ppm of CO2.
Equally could this be a cynical claim considering only people who work in their offices when all of them are sent to work from home by 2030 so therefore do not count for the weasels.
F1 as a whole has been carbon neutral since 1997 by means of carbon offsetting.
Sky claim they’ve been Carbon Neutral since 2006
What’s the difference between net zero and carbon neutral?
I think carbon neutral is the new more neutral term. Net zero is too readily associated with a zero economy.
Net Zero is the new phrase
before that we had claims of Low Carbon
Then Electric corps got the trick of buying certificates
… this meant the electricity is not really low carbon, but corps claimed to Carbon Neutral
Net Zero allows a govt or large org to still output carbon, but mix it in with tree planting or CCS etc. and claim that altogether the org is Net Zero
So there is some overlap but generally Carbon Neutral is applied to one system
Net Zero is used a group of systems
So the Chinese have learned the double speak of the weasels infesting the climate subsidy farming racket and are showing that they are up there with the best.
Who is surprised by that, I for one am not. This whole circus progressed by distorted
language and hyperventilation stopped being serious and scientifically relevant on day one, 40 odd years ago so here is the progression,
The Chinese show they have a sense of the absurd and are just as clever with the weasel words as the rest of the worthless rent seekers, the only difference being that the rent seekers just want simple power and money, where as the Chinese want to rule the World.
Absolutely right.
Add to that a healthy ( or not ! ) dose of brainwashing.
And you get ‘Four legs good, two legs better ).
It’s just occurred to me (face-palm!) that It’s not ‘Net-zero Carbon’ – it’s NOT-Zero Carbon!!!
Imaginary solutions to imaginary problems, you can see how the Chinese are trolling the West.
Whole bunch of my posts on the Putin thread appear to be on vacation in the spam folder?
5 are there now
A 30,000 tonne cargo is rather small for crude oil. Less than 250,000 barrels, so only a day or two of distillation at a modest sized refinery. Compare with Chinese refinery throughput of around 14mb/d every day. Tokenism.
Over at NTZ Fred F. Mueller makes a too wow to be true claim
He claims all the institutions have overlooked a major natural sequestration of CO2.
https://notrickszone.com/2021/10/06/have-scientists-ignored-11-7-trillion-tons-of-sequestered-carbon-45-times-mans-addition/comment-page-1/
Perhaps one flight a week then.
April : they stuck a few panels on a petrol station roof
“‘carbon-neutral’ gas station”
Some sums. Call it 20m square of solar panels at 300W/sq m capacity. So 120kW producing say 15kW on average, or about 130MWh per year. Diesel is 10kWh/litre so this is equivalent to 13,000litres of diesel. Less than half a road tankerful. Perhaps 1% of sales.
Another sham.
Long running ad campaign here in Australia was for Castrol oil:
Oils ain’t oils (1988)
I’m reminded of the Goon Show for some reason.
Syukuro Manabe is usually described as the first scientist in the world to build computer models predicting climate change. Manabe is cited no less than 57 times in the IPCC First Assessment Report, (FAR) WGI, including 22 times in Chapter 5 of which he was a Lead Author, 8 times in WGII and six times in WGIII. He is cited no less than 43 times in the Second Assessment Report, (SAR) WGI and six times in WGIII.
Self-cite is no guarantee of sound science.
Should have been a reply to Broadlands comment on Manabe.
The Chinese have been taking lessons from Al Gore in how to make money from climate change.