7 ms·

It says here that fraud happened on german side. The chinese company reported that documents have been modified on the german controlling side without their app

by bluelu 2y ago

It says here that fraud happened on german side. The chinese company reported that documents have been modified on the german controlling side without their approval, and that potential fraud is happening and they should investigate. However nothing was done. "Dabei waren die Gefahren Geld nach China zu zahlen für solche Projekte dem Bundesumweltministerium eigentlich bekannt. Zuletzt im April meldete sich ein chinesischer Öl- und Gaskonzern von selbst bei dem von Steffi Lemke (Grüne) geführten Umweltministerium und erklärte deutlich, dass von Betrugsfällen auszugehen ist. „Wir vermuten, dass es eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit gibt, dass Dokumente gefälscht wurden und wir bitten dringend, dass Ihre Behörde dazu ermittelt“, teilte der chinesische Konzern dem Ministerium mit. Dieses wimmelte wohl ab, wie die Welt berichtet. Deutsche Prüfstellen haben anscheinend einige Daten der Anlagen des chinesischen Unternehmens geändert und ohne dessen Zustimmung verwendet. "

Gasp0de 2y ago
I understood it in a slightly different way: The multinational oil companies owning these Chinese companies wrongly claimed that these would save millions of tonnes of CO2. The German authorities accepted this claim even though there was reasonable doubt and it could not be verified because China doesn't allow German authorities to come to China and verify it. The way you phrased it made it sound as if Germany (as in the government) was somehow trying to profit from it. However, they are the ones being frauded.
- AnonCoward42 2y ago
  It is reasonable to assume that they are in on it. At the very least they got out of their way not to change it, even when they were being notified about potential fraud.
  - neuronic 2y ago
    I also understood it this way (native German). In Germany companies want to claim "as much saved CO2" as possible. > Das Ziel war, möglichst hohe CO₂-Einsparungen in Deutschland geltend zu machen. The federal authorities knowingly approved the fraudulent UER projects. What's spicy is that the secretary is a green party member. > Das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle genehmigten 75 dieser UER-Projekte – fast ausschließlich in China. Und das, obwohl weitere Hinweise dafür sprachen, besser nicht dort zu investieren. Denn China lässt unabhängige Kontrollen im eigenen Land nicht zu. Peking verweigert entsprechenden Prüfer:innen die Einreise. Also, apparently a simple look at satellite images should have at least caused suspicion when Chinese companies raised the concerns. There is still no reaction from Steffi Lemke. > Was Rostek mit dem „Durchwinken“ meint, ist die anscheinend unzureichende Prüfung der Bauvorhaben durch das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle. Über Satellitenbilder wäre einfach zu erkennen gewesen, dass einige der eingereichten chinesischen Vorhaben schon vor dem eigentlichen Baustart existiert haben.
    - AnonCoward42 2y ago
      Hallo, fellow German here. > The federal authorities knowingly approved the fraudulent UER projects. What's spicy is that the secretary is a green party member. I am not under the impression that anyone has illusions about the Green party here. It is evident they are greenwashing and destroying environment (for the climate of course) among other things they supposedly "don't stand for". The reasons they get votes still is likely due to choosing the lesser evil, even if that is also untrue, or conscience. I have seen the sentiment here too, so I have no illusions that this is going to change either no matter what the Green party does. > Über Satellitenbilder wäre einfach zu erkennen gewesen, dass einige der eingereichten chinesischen Vorhaben schon vor dem eigentlichen Baustart existiert haben. IANAL, but getting money for projects that existed prior sounds legally actionable as fraud even. Tho the plaintiff would be the government in the end, so it might not happen anyway.
      - illiac786 2y ago
        > I am not under the impression that anyone has illusions about the Green party here. It is evident they are greenwashing and destroying environment (for the climate of course) among other things they supposedly "don't stand for". Sources? Details? Lots of hate, zero substantiation. The greens are the party that pushed environment protection for decades, long before anyone cared. The problem they have is they are held to a different standard than other parties for one and secondly their programme is thought to be only about ecology. It has become a national sport in France and germany amongst politicians to blame the greens for environmental measures which are constraining for the average citizen. Even when for example in France they are not even in the government. In Germany their members are regularly attacked (as in violence) due to the amount of hate other parties generated about them. It’s really sad, and I think we need a party which is strongly for ecology but not called “the greens”, otherwise it’s too easy for populists to bash them.
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  But, crucially, it seems that the Chinese subsidiaries are the ones that came forward to set the record straight to the German government. So basically it seems to be multinational corporations defrauding Germany by trying to hide behind Chinese laws.
  - hummuscience 2y ago
    Not "the Chinese subsidiaries". Only one of them.
  - waihtis 2y ago
    Oh yes, because China, the #1 polluter in the world (exceeding US, Europe, Russia and Brazil combined together) is very known to be the first and foremost voice in greening endeavours
    - navane 2y ago
      They would benefit from exposing big western coorporations. By dragging them down, they go relatively up.
    - tbarbugli 2y ago
      isn't China producing more electricity with solar than all other countries combined (with solar)?
      - ffsm8 2y ago
        No? It's however (according to China's official statistics) the country with the highest solar energy production. It also burns the most coal for electricity though, that makes it clear that China just needs an insane amount of electricity. Regardless wherever it's green, brown or toxic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_solar_generation_2021.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_solar_generation_...
    - okasaki 2y ago
      Really? China's co2 emission per capita is half of the US.
- m000 2y ago
  > The way you phrased it made it sound as if Germany (as in the government) was somehow trying to profit from it. However, they are the ones being frauded. As made evident by the english name of these initiatives (Upstream Emission Reduction - UER), this originates from the EU. It seems that UER is one of the options to achieve greenhouse gases reduction goals set by EU (see [1]). So, allowing your local industries to cheat on UER reporting, does bring in an (unfair) advantage to Germany. [1] https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/guidance_note_on_uer_en.pdf https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/guidance_n...
  - ffsm8 2y ago
    right, because companies stealing from the german government is clearly giving giving the nation a competitive advantage. Totally true, anything else insight worthy from your side? The German government was defrauded by German companies collaborating with Chinese companies. Calling that a competitive advantage is like saying German companies have a competitive advantage because some have been stealing billions of taxes over the last few years via CumEx. It'd also be the same as saying that India's medicine factories have a competitive advantage because they're able to illegally dumb toxic waste in rural areas, which is currently the world's biggest breeding ground for super bacteria (resistant to antibiotics) The article doesn't blame China, it's just plainly stating that the currently undertaken initiatives in China are almost all fraudulent. That doesn't mean that Chinese government is stealing from Germany.
    - m000 2y ago
      > right, because companies stealing from the german government is clearly giving giving the nation a competitive advantage. It obviously is. We are talking about intra-EU advantage, where the same GHG rules apply. If e.g. French industries actually invest in reducing their GHGs instead of using a fraud scheme, isn't that an advantage? > Calling that a competitive advantage is like saying German companies have a competitive advantage because some have been stealing billions of taxes over the last few years via CumEx. Also a competitive advantage. If, let's say now, Spain does more rigorous checks for tax fraud than Germany, then their industry growth is comparatively stifled. And did the participating industries get anything more than a slap in the wrist? German stakeholders pointing each other, and then everybody pointing outside of Germany may work internally, but is not fooling anyone else on the outside. Germany is totally ok to turn a blind eye on eschewing (supposedly) common EU rules when it is to the advantage of their economy. > Totally true, anything else insight worthy from your side? Nein mein herr. Das ist alles mein herr. /s
- blitzar 2y ago
  Would the CEO of a Multinational oil company lie to you for money?
  - red-iron-pine 2y ago
    especially about things related to carbon emmissions?

by bluelu 2y ago

Gasp0de 2y ago

I understood it in a slightly different way: The multinational oil companies owning these Chinese companies wrongly claimed that these would save millions of tonnes of CO2. The German authorities accepted this claim even though there was reasonable doubt and it could not be verified because China doesn't allow German authorities to come to China and verify it. The way you phrased it made it sound as if Germany (as in the government) was somehow trying to profit from it. However, they are the ones being frauded.

AnonCoward42 2y ago
It is reasonable to assume that they are in on it. At the very least they got out of their way not to change it, even when they were being notified about potential fraud.
- neuronic 2y ago
  I also understood it this way (native German). In Germany companies want to claim "as much saved CO2" as possible. > Das Ziel war, möglichst hohe CO₂-Einsparungen in Deutschland geltend zu machen. The federal authorities knowingly approved the fraudulent UER projects. What's spicy is that the secretary is a green party member. > Das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle genehmigten 75 dieser UER-Projekte – fast ausschließlich in China. Und das, obwohl weitere Hinweise dafür sprachen, besser nicht dort zu investieren. Denn China lässt unabhängige Kontrollen im eigenen Land nicht zu. Peking verweigert entsprechenden Prüfer:innen die Einreise. Also, apparently a simple look at satellite images should have at least caused suspicion when Chinese companies raised the concerns. There is still no reaction from Steffi Lemke. > Was Rostek mit dem „Durchwinken“ meint, ist die anscheinend unzureichende Prüfung der Bauvorhaben durch das Umweltbundesamt und die Deutsche Emissionshandelsstelle. Über Satellitenbilder wäre einfach zu erkennen gewesen, dass einige der eingereichten chinesischen Vorhaben schon vor dem eigentlichen Baustart existiert haben.
  - AnonCoward42 2y ago
    Hallo, fellow German here. > The federal authorities knowingly approved the fraudulent UER projects. What's spicy is that the secretary is a green party member. I am not under the impression that anyone has illusions about the Green party here. It is evident they are greenwashing and destroying environment (for the climate of course) among other things they supposedly "don't stand for". The reasons they get votes still is likely due to choosing the lesser evil, even if that is also untrue, or conscience. I have seen the sentiment here too, so I have no illusions that this is going to change either no matter what the Green party does. > Über Satellitenbilder wäre einfach zu erkennen gewesen, dass einige der eingereichten chinesischen Vorhaben schon vor dem eigentlichen Baustart existiert haben. IANAL, but getting money for projects that existed prior sounds legally actionable as fraud even. Tho the plaintiff would be the government in the end, so it might not happen anyway.
    - illiac786 2y ago
      > I am not under the impression that anyone has illusions about the Green party here. It is evident they are greenwashing and destroying environment (for the climate of course) among other things they supposedly "don't stand for". Sources? Details? Lots of hate, zero substantiation. The greens are the party that pushed environment protection for decades, long before anyone cared. The problem they have is they are held to a different standard than other parties for one and secondly their programme is thought to be only about ecology. It has become a national sport in France and germany amongst politicians to blame the greens for environmental measures which are constraining for the average citizen. Even when for example in France they are not even in the government. In Germany their members are regularly attacked (as in violence) due to the amount of hate other parties generated about them. It’s really sad, and I think we need a party which is strongly for ecology but not called “the greens”, otherwise it’s too easy for populists to bash them.
tsimionescu 2y ago
But, crucially, it seems that the Chinese subsidiaries are the ones that came forward to set the record straight to the German government. So basically it seems to be multinational corporations defrauding Germany by trying to hide behind Chinese laws.
- hummuscience 2y ago
  Not "the Chinese subsidiaries". Only one of them.
- waihtis 2y ago
  Oh yes, because China, the #1 polluter in the world (exceeding US, Europe, Russia and Brazil combined together) is very known to be the first and foremost voice in greening endeavours
  - navane 2y ago
    They would benefit from exposing big western coorporations. By dragging them down, they go relatively up.
  - tbarbugli 2y ago
    isn't China producing more electricity with solar than all other countries combined (with solar)?
    - ffsm8 2y ago
      No? It's however (according to China's official statistics) the country with the highest solar energy production. It also burns the most coal for electricity though, that makes it clear that China just needs an insane amount of electricity. Regardless wherever it's green, brown or toxic https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_solar_generation_2021.png https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_solar_generation_...
  - okasaki 2y ago
    Really? China's co2 emission per capita is half of the US.
m000 2y ago
> The way you phrased it made it sound as if Germany (as in the government) was somehow trying to profit from it. However, they are the ones being frauded. As made evident by the english name of these initiatives (Upstream Emission Reduction - UER), this originates from the EU. It seems that UER is one of the options to achieve greenhouse gases reduction goals set by EU (see [1]). So, allowing your local industries to cheat on UER reporting, does bring in an (unfair) advantage to Germany. [1] https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/guidance_note_on_uer_en.pdf https://climate.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2016-11/guidance_n...
- ffsm8 2y ago
  right, because companies stealing from the german government is clearly giving giving the nation a competitive advantage. Totally true, anything else insight worthy from your side? The German government was defrauded by German companies collaborating with Chinese companies. Calling that a competitive advantage is like saying German companies have a competitive advantage because some have been stealing billions of taxes over the last few years via CumEx. It'd also be the same as saying that India's medicine factories have a competitive advantage because they're able to illegally dumb toxic waste in rural areas, which is currently the world's biggest breeding ground for super bacteria (resistant to antibiotics) The article doesn't blame China, it's just plainly stating that the currently undertaken initiatives in China are almost all fraudulent. That doesn't mean that Chinese government is stealing from Germany.
  - m000 2y ago
    > right, because companies stealing from the german government is clearly giving giving the nation a competitive advantage. It obviously is. We are talking about intra-EU advantage, where the same GHG rules apply. If e.g. French industries actually invest in reducing their GHGs instead of using a fraud scheme, isn't that an advantage? > Calling that a competitive advantage is like saying German companies have a competitive advantage because some have been stealing billions of taxes over the last few years via CumEx. Also a competitive advantage. If, let's say now, Spain does more rigorous checks for tax fraud than Germany, then their industry growth is comparatively stifled. And did the participating industries get anything more than a slap in the wrist? German stakeholders pointing each other, and then everybody pointing outside of Germany may work internally, but is not fooling anyone else on the outside. Germany is totally ok to turn a blind eye on eschewing (supposedly) common EU rules when it is to the advantage of their economy. > Totally true, anything else insight worthy from your side? Nein mein herr. Das ist alles mein herr. /s
blitzar 2y ago
Would the CEO of a Multinational oil company lie to you for money?
- red-iron-pine 2y ago
  especially about things related to carbon emmissions?