In 2005, the European Union (EU) put into place a carbon trading scheme. Prices for carbon permits promptly plunged, and have remained depressed since then. The price for a permit to emit a tonne of CO2 went from 21.59 Euros in 2005, to 17.28 in 2006, to 0.68 in 2007, to 2.16 in 2008, to 13.03 in 2009. Today, however, you will be glad to know that some academics declared the scheme a resounding success …
Say what? Here’s what Reuters News Service had to say:
(Reuters) – The European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) is a success and its flaws have not harmed its basic aim of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, multi-national research showed on Friday.
Experts at French state bank Caisse des Depots, the Paris-Dauphine University, the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research in the United States and University College Dublin collaborated to evaluate the scheme’s trial period, which has widely been viewed as a failure.
The EU’s flagship carbon trading scheme requires companies to buy permits for each tonne of carbon they emit. Carbon output is capped and the level is lowered year by year.
The scheme’s first trading phase ran from 2005 to 2007. Installations in the 27-nation bloc were over-allocated with carbon permits and the carbon price fell to zero.
The research concluded that although there were many problems in the first phase, they were overcome and did not hamper the scheme’s ultimate objective of reducing emissions. … SOURCE
Now, as some of you might have noticed, I’m a suspicious fellow and I like to run the numbers myself. So, what numbers should we be looking at here?
After some thought, I decided that I would look at the change from the four years prior to the institution of the carbon trading scheme (2001 through 2004), to the first four years of the scheme (2005 through 2008). [Figures for 2009 are not yet available] That would let me see if things improved or got worse.
The most logical measures to look at, it seemed to me, were per capita fuel use and CO2 emissions . (Excel spreadsheet) Using per capita figures removes the effects of population changes . If we just looked at fuel use, for example, a population increase would affect the fuel use. I didn’t want to be measuring the effect of population changes, so I used per capita figures.
Using those measures, I decided to compare the EU with the US. Their economies are of a comparable size and development. Since the US is the global CO2 pariah, and has no carbon trading scheme, that would give me a good baseline to compare with the EU performance.
Without further prologue, here are my results:
Figure 1. Percentage change from the period before the EU carbon trading scheme (average 2001-2004) to the period after the carbon trading scheme (average 2005-2008). All measurements are per capita.
By every single measure, the US has outperformed the EU. And the most telling point is that per capita, EU carbon dioxide emissions have increased since 2005 when the scheme started, while US carbon dioxide emissions have decreased. For a scheme designed to reduce emissions, that’s not good news.
The US did better by every measure than the EU, and did it without any restriction on carbon. Now perhaps some folks in a think-tank somewhere call that a whacking great success for the trading scheme … but not on my planet. Call me crazy, but my conclusion is that the EU carbon trading scheme was a failure.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Obama goes for drilling, that deseves a post a WUWT!
Up to now the only buyers of these shares have been the members of the Club of Rome and their servants (Al Baby-aka “El Gordo”-among them).
They will keep on buying them, of course using bailout money (your money), just to leave the impression that this “market” is well and alive.
But …
for the governments that sold permits and made money off their sale, they surely consider the program a huge success. Facts and reality merely confuse the issue.
Every week Max Keiser looks at all the scandal behind the financial news headlines.
This week Max Keiser and co-host Stacy Herbert look at the scandals of Brown’s bottom, “the worst economic judgment of all time” and Bono’s private equity, “the worst investor in America.” Max chats to Brits in Trafalgar Square and also talks to Mark Schapiro, author of the Harper’s article, “Conning the Climate: Inside the Carbon Trading Shell Game”.
Skip to 13 minutes 20 seconds.
http://rt.com/About_Us/Programmes/Keiser_Report/2010-03-30/557608.html#
Barry goes Palin on America.
Drill baby, drill
Yes, their aim is intact, their results are a different story.
Henry (08:36:24) :
you are right. That is a good news that needs a mention.
But, I am waiting to see what the conditions are, and whether the “opening” is actually “opening” or it is a way to sweten the electoral process for himself. If this is done slowly enough, he can change, come dec 2012, immediately after his re-election
The EU gas usage increase might be caused by the inflated demand for spinning reserve for the wind turbines and PV. Gas powered plants are good for that.
Henry (08:36:24) :
Obama goes for drilling, that deseves a post a WUWT
To drill what?. Drilling it is a word with many uses, as To train in the military art; to exercise diligently, as soldiers, in military evolutions and exercises; hence, to instruct thoroughly in the rudiments of any art or branch of knowledge; to discipline
Perhaps he will drill you up to the point you disciplined enough being to belive in global warming, for example…no one knows in these intersting times.☺
So a contract is 12.67 Euros
A contract is 1,000 CER’s. Does that mean 1,000 tons CO2?
Again the total trading mess is both vague and misleading for a reason.
Like Michael Crichton pointed out, we’ve been decarbonising for ages without any of this green codswallop and hysteria.
Carbon trading is a definite success in our country. Government sold our credits to recently established garage company for 5euro/t and the company sold it to Japan for 8 euro/t, making fortune. Links go back to our government..
More, domestic companies were allocated credits by our ministry based on political affiliations. Some companies got twice as much credits as they really needed and the abundant credits they quickly sold abroad, making huge money from nothing.
More, according to Europol, 90% of carbon trading in some European countries has been subject of tax fraud, costing us 5 bln euro in the last year only.
THIS is the real reason for “science is settled” claim.
Another measure of Global Warming success is the performance of investment funds that specialize in global warming stocks. Not a stellar performance thus far.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2010/02/is-global-warming-good-investment.html
The carbon indulgences have surely been a great success for those who bought them at EUR 0.10 and sold at EUR 13. A new kind of lottery.
When you talk about the consumption of fossil fuels, it’s somewhat strange to say that the U.S. have “outperformed” Europe when its consumption went up more quickly, or down less quickly, than in Europe. The usual definition of “outperforming” used to be the opposite one.
At any rate, good luck to everyone who tries to import this terrible idea from our Old Continent. Sarkozy and Obama have already displayed some tension because both of them wanted to be viewed as the kings/leaders of this particular hoax. All these people have been disappointed. There are way too many “leaders” in this particular scam – and the only extraordinary thing that many of them may share is the prison.
Cheers
LM
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger creates emission regulations by decree, improperly bypassing the Legislature, according to the California Legislative Analyst: click
If you measure success as “Helping AGW parasties get rich off of fear mongering”, then carbon trading has been wildly successful.
This is much like the UK renewables obligation: a tax that doesn’t get recorded as a tax. The fact is that if governments invent these bogus schemes so they can pass them off as not being a tax but a market pricing mechanism. The result is that people like Brown can stand up and say: “we haven’t raised taxes” whilst getting an added £1billion a year revenue (which they then “invest” in photo opportunity windfarms who then invest it back in politics to ensure everyone except the ordinary citizen benefits).
Now, whilst Renewable obligations are a cunning (con) way to raise money to pay for renewables, if I am correct this carbon trading scheme is an out and out pseudo tax, taking money from carbon emitters in a way that avoids it coming up on the accounts as a tax.
And if past history is anything to go by, as soon as one party in the UK works out it can fleece the public without being caught, the scheme will be vastly extended by the next.
Just for fun – The European trading scheme:
Double your money! – by Richard… Monday, December 07, 2009
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/money-for-old-carbon.html
It’s so sad!
Certainly on its face, the Obama proposal looks like a very good proposal to allow drilling in much of the coastal basin that has previously not been allowed for oil and natural gas drilling. These are the first new leases allowed in almost two decades. I guess we can all be paranoid and say he will take them back after re-election, but doing that will be legally difficult if the rights have been auctioned.
USA Today described it as “Traditional energy sources such as oil and natural gas are needed for short-term economic needs, Obama said in announcing that the government will now allow drilling about 50 miles off the Virginia coast, the first new leases in two decades. The administration also said it will allow exploration of other potential drilling sites up and down the East Coast.”
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/03/obama-offshore-oil-drilling-needed-in-short-term/1
Luboš Motl (09:02:26) :
The carbon indulgences have surely been a great success for those who bought them at EUR 0.10 and sold at EUR 13
Hope those guys were clever enough to sell ASAP their euros and bought any third world currency..Armageddon will devaluate the first world surrencies in the blink of an eye.
Anthony and all,
There have been several scandals in Europe lately regarding carbon trading. BlueNext and Nord Pool exchanges stopped trading in mid March following Hungary’s trick, which sent the carbon ton price below 1 euro. Can see more in http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2010/03/bolha-do-carbono.html (in Portuguese, please use Google translate for English)
Ecotretas
A sane society would be producing as much cheap energy as possible. This would result much greater manufacturing and individual wealth at the expense of countries that constrain power production and thus force manufacturing,mining, smelting overseas.
@ur momisugly Henry (08:36:24) :
Obama goes for drilling, that deseves a post a WUWT!
————————————–
I wouldn’t get too excited about that announcement. I’d treat it as bait, and be very wary of the hook which is no doubt there. It sounds more like a political move to improve his ratings than anything substantial. And you can bet that there will be a lot of hand-waving and threats of lawsuits by the environmental lobby, etc.
Obama is throwing a few crumbs to people regarding offshore drilling. Open it all to drilling, both on land and offshore, and the price of oil will fall, benefitting everyone:
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today criticized the Obama Administration for refusing to listen to the American people and keeping the vast majority of America’s offshore energy resources off limits at a time when Americans want an “all of the above” strategy for promoting American energy production and creating American jobs:
“The Obama Administration continues to defy the will of the American people who strongly supported the bipartisan decision of Congress in 2008 to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling not just off the East Coast and in the Gulf of Mexico, but off the Pacific Coast and Alaskan shores as well. Opening up areas off the Virginia coast to offshore production is a positive step, but keeping the Pacific Coast and Alaska, as well as the most promising resources off the Gulf of Mexico, under lock and key makes no sense at a time when gasoline prices are rising and Americans are asking ‘Where are the jobs?’
“It’s long past time for this Administration to stop delaying American energy production off all our shores and start listening to the American people who want an “all of the above” strategy to produce more American energy and create more jobs. Republicans are listening to the American people and have proposed a better solution – the American Energy Act – which will lower gas prices, increase American energy production, promote new clean and renewable sources of energy, and encourage greater efficiency and conservation.
“At the same time the White House makes today’s announcement, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is plotting a new massive job-killer that the American people can’t afford: a cascade of new EPA regulations that will punish every American who dares to flip on a light switch, drive a car, or buy an American product. Americans simply don’t want this backdoor national energy tax that will drive up energy and manufacturing costs and destroy jobs in our states and local communities.” [source]
> Since the US is the global CO2 pariah, and has no carbon trading scheme,
There may be nothing from the Feds, but the Chicago Exchange has something like a carbon credits (cheap!), and here in New England et al we have the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) – the first mandatory, market-based effort in the United States to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Ten Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states have capped and will reduce CO2 emissions from the power sector 10% by 2018.
See http://rggi.org/home
Half a billion dollars (okay, $582,379,052.94 to state coffers in just a year and a half.