The climate change disconnect
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ commentisfree/ 2008/ oct/ 17/ climatechange-edmiliband

http://climateprogress.org/ 2008/ 10/ 20/ q-from-wsj-blog-are-bogus-carbon-offsets-really-that-bad/

. . . you favorably cited a Stanford study that concluded:

” … “between a third and two thirds” of emission offsets under the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) — set up under the Kyoto treaty to encourage emissions reductions in developing nations — do not represent actual emission cuts. ”

To which you said, “Talk about your sub-sub-sub-prime loans.”

I agree with you.

However, the EEA report mentioned in the AP study identifies such offsets as central to the ability of the EU-15 to meet its goals. That report states:

“The use of Kyoto mechanisms (clean development mechanism and joint implementation), currently planned by ten countries, would help to reduce emissions by a further 3.0 %.”

Other offsets account for an additional 1.4% of the reduction. And if you dig deeper, you’ll find some other surprises in the EU data as well.

[JR: Nothing funny about this. I hardly think that filling a gap of 1% with trees or CDM makes offsets "central to the ability of the EU-15 to meet its goals." I discuss this issue at length in a new post here.]

To meet this target requires a reliance on what you (accurately) call “rip-offsets” in the form of the CDM and other mechanisms.

If you read the report the EU-15 is -2.7% (2006) from its 1990 baseline and towards its goal of -8.0%. The EU cannot get another -5.3% without some accounting tricks and rosy assumptions for the next 18 (!) months. See Figure ES.1 here and corresponding discussion:

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/ eea_report_2008_5/ en/ Trends_and_projections_2008_executive_summary.pdf

[JR: Roger, that is not how they describe it and that is not how I would describe it.]

UK wind farm plans on brink of failure
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ environment/ 2008/ oct/ 19/ renewable-energy-greenhouse-carbon-emissions

Under the Kyoto Protocol, the EU‑15 must reach an
average annual level of greenhouse gas emissions
8 % lower than in the base year,
during the whole period 2008–2012.

While I look forward to Joe’s report, some of David’s questions may find preliminary answers in:

http://reports.eea.europa.eu/ eea_report_2007_5/ en/ Greenhouse_gas_emission_trends_and_projections_in_Europe_2007.pdf

re relocating, ie carbon leakage:
http://www.carbontrust.co.uk/News/presscentre/EU_ETS.htm

If you support the Democrats you should be making much more of the fact that McCain and Palin have 12 children between them! Or is it politically incorrect to comment on such things?

How much of this reduction was:

1. Actual reduction.
2. Met by offset projects in other countries.
3. Not reductions at all, but just relocating the emissions to other countries.

What exactly do you mean and why do you believe that?