Chicago Climate Exchange still flatlining – employee cuts

From the “unsustainable business” department, who wants carbon at 10 cents a ton? Apparently, nobody. Data below as of August 8 2010:

Source: http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/market/data/summary.jsf

From Reuters, news of layoffs. At least their carbon footprint will be lower…

ICE cuts staff at Chicago Climate Exchange-sources

* ICE to cut around half of 50-person CCX workforce

* 1st round of layoffs began July 23, more to come in autumn

* Sources cite U.S. climate inaction as main reason for cuts

* ICE collecting feedback on what to do with climate bourse

By Michael Szabo

LONDON, Aug 11 (Reuters) – Market operator Intercontinental Exchange Inc. (ICE.N) is laying off staff at newly acquired U.S. environmental bourse the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), industry sources told Reuters, citing a lack of U.S. action on climate change.

They said the first round of layoffs began on July 23 and, although the total number of jobs to be cut was unknown, one said around 25 employees, or roughly half CCX’s headcount at the time of ICE’s acquisition, had already been or were being let go.

ICE would not confirm or comment on the layoffs.

“ICE just came in one day and started hacking away … We were told the company was restructuring,” said one source, who declined to be named.

full story: ICE cuts staff at Chicago Climate Exchange-sources

About these ads

101 thoughts on “Chicago Climate Exchange still flatlining – employee cuts

  1. Can’t think of a better group/organization/market exchange to be flat-lining today — except for the political opportunities of all current and former members of Democratic Socialists of America

  2. Maybe when they realize that CO2 is plant food and not a pollutant carbon will have a positive value.

    Maybe I should buy a few tons……… if they drop the price a little more. LOL

  3. If you look at the daily dollar volume, it looks like it could be handled by one person and a PC.
    Newsweek sold for less than the price of a single copy. CCX may be worth less for the total exchange than the price of a ton of CO2.

  4. “ICE collecting feedback on what to do with climate bourse.”

    I think their best business plan is to open it to the public, put in an attractive counter, give their “traders” some aprons and just keep those Latte’s comin!

  5. Their entire ‘business model’ relied solely on government regulations mandating carbon credit exchange. Without such legislation in place, of course they will go out of business.

  6. * ICE collecting feedback on what to do with climate bourse

    Stuff the turkey and cook it. Serve with lots of gravy.
    Eat hearty until you get a knock on the door, indicating party is over.

  7. Ten cents a ton is the lowest value for any commodity I have ever heard of. That’s $0.0005 dollars per pound. The difference between that and free is inconsequential.

    The Grand Carbon Marketing Scheme has collapsed. The balloon has burst. The scammers like Algore took their ill-gotten gains and got out long ago.

    The Malarkeys in Congress wanted to invest your money at $12 per ton. Remember? They still do. Corruption has no limit.

  8. The great climate hoax spawned the great Carbon Exchange hoax and both are flat lining.

    If only mother nature would cooperate with those computer generated climate models.

  9. I’ll buy CO2 at $0.10 per ton. A ton of solid CO2 (dry ice) would keep my freezer cold for a month at a time and I could leave it outside and not spend $$$ on electricity. $0.10 a month to run a freezer? Who wouldn’t?

    They do sell it in solid form, don’t they?

  10. I am still laughing at the suckers who bought this CO2 ton of nothing for $7….then again our governments bought them… so I guess the joke is on us, the taxpayer.

    The good news is that the CCX employees will be fully trained to work on Wall street, as experts in selling derivative crap. They can also be hired by the CIA, and exported to Iran, as experts in destroying economies. Or they can advise Al Gore on which massage therapists will provide ‘happy ending’ and how to tell the difference.

  11. Reminds me when a TV reporter was up in Scotland in the middle of winter, snow and ice everywhere and way below zero temperatures , there was high pressure reigning with a lovely blue sky so you could see the windmills for miles – and not a single one was turning – no wind – and had been like that for ages ! Pity the locals trying to keep warm or cook with renewable energy , which probably renews itself in Spring !!

  12. Curiousgeorge, that’s not as bad as in Sweden, have a look here:

    http://www.vindstat.nu/driftsamfalla.htm

    Right now when I’m writing this they produce 17% of installed effect. Look at the red line that’s the running mean for the last 30 days.

    Short translation:
    Antal verk = Number of windmills
    Ej rapporterade = Not reported
    Ur drift = out of service
    Installerad effekt = Installed effect
    Aktuell effect = Actual effect

  13. There is something fishy here. Would an astute company like ICE buy a business from a cast of characters like Goldman Sachs, Al Gore and Maurice Strong that is on the ropes? I don’t think so. It’s Chicago after all. No, there is another plan brewing behind the scenes and taxpayers are going to be paying for it all. It requires an investigative reporter to get to the bottom of it but I don’t see any one around in the media that isn’t already in the AGW tank.

  14. Shouldn’t they receive TARP monies to continue their humanitarian work?

    “This is unfortunate not only for the climate implications based on U.S. inaction but also for the number of really talented staff the CCX had to let go.” (Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner in Washington; Editing by James Jukwey)” (last part of complete article)

    Yes, laying off 25-50 “talented” employees is equivalent the heat destruction of the earth.

    In response to this news, my London Plane trees have been losing vast amounts of leaves. While some may think it is due to a local drought, my climate software modeling shows a high probability related to the fall of of Chicago Climate Exchange.

  15. It is surprising the carbon credits from Chicago Exchange still has some value. It should have gone down to zero the moment the US acceded ( it could not ratify as the Protocol was already in force although the US signed the Protocol) to the Kyoto Protocol. It was purely voluntary and the carbon credits traded did not conform to the verification procedures of the Kyoto Protocol. The Chicago carbon credits even if it complies with the Kyoto Protocol verifiction procedure could not be officially verified and registered because the US did not ratify it and was not a party to the Protocol although it is a party to the UNFCCC having ratified the treaty earlier.

  16. Maurice Strong is a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment UN’s ‘Oil for Food’ scandal. Strong is a criminal exiled in China.
    Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri is the Director-General of The Energy Research Institute
    Daniel Weiss is co-founder and Managing Partner of Angeleno Soross sock Puppet
    Richard L. Sandor, Ph.D., Dr. Sc.h.c. Founder

    What a blue ribbon sample of board members, advisors and directors.
    All they need is a marxist gubment mandate and the wheels turn CO2 into billions.

  17. From the Point Carbon newletter, Aug 6, 2010:

    ICE calls US carbon business “loss making”

    ICE may pare back its newly acquired US carbon business due to its low profits.
    Jeff Sprecher, CEO and chairman of the IntercontinentalExchange (ICE), said the company is in talks about what it should do with the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which it bought as part of its acquisition of Climate Exchange plc.

    The CCX is a voluntary carbon program that was developed for the US in the absence of federal greenhouse gas limits.

    “The US business is a loss-making business as it exists today,” Sprecher told analysts during its second-quarter earnings call Wednesday. “We will talk to the market on how it views the business and what we should do with it.”

    The CCX was founded by Richard Sandor, the former chief economist of the Chicago Board of Trade, in 2002.

    The exchange’s members make voluntary, but legally binding commitments to meet self-imposed annual GHG emissions reduction targets.

    Members that have reduced emissions below their targets can sell or bank allowances, while those that emit above the target can buy carbon financial instruments (CFI), the exchange’s compliance instrument.

    Many CCX members took part in the scheme expecting that their credits would have value in a US federal cap-and-trade program.

    But with climate legislation delayed in the US Senate, Sprecher said it is uncertain whether companies will continue to seek to voluntarily reduce their emissions.
    “It remains to be seen whether companies want to walk down their carbon footprint,” Sprecher told analysts.

    He added ICE was targeting the Climate Exchange’s European business when it bought the carbon exchange for £395 million ($627 million) in April this year.

    Scott Hill, ICE CFO, said the company sees growth opportunities in the European carbon market as the emissions trading scheme enters its third phase in 2013.
    He added the company sees growth in the European carbon market as more industry groups fall under emission caps and more allowance auctioning takes place starting in 2011.

    Developers see demand for CCX offsets despite uncertainty over the future of the US carbon system.

    While the scheme’s emission allowances are deemed by many to be worthless because the program is overallocated, its offsets have maintained some value and companies continue to buy them.

    Offset project developers say the CCX’s offset system is worth keeping and have called for it to continue beyond 2010.

  18. OMG, we can’t let the Chicago Climate Exchange go extinct. It would be a catastrophic loss to market biodiversity. I am sure that the EPA has the authority to declare markets to be endangered species bringing the full force of various governmental agencies to bear in protecting the vital resource. Perhaps they can slip it into their CO2 regulations.

  19. I don’t like to see anyone lose their job, so for the employees, my sympathy. As for this exchange losing, YES!!!

  20. 10 cents is not a bad price at all. If I order it will they bring it to my garden? I think their business failed because they never clearly resolved the transport.

  21. Chris B says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:40 am
    Maybe when they realize that CO2 is plant food and not a pollutant carbon will have a positive value.

    Maybe I should buy a few tons……… if they drop the price a little more. LOL
    ———-Reply:
    I got gobs of CO2 for free: I just tilled up a big plot this past spring, planted about 20 rows, put in a bunch of soaker hoses to keep ‘em wet, and voila! Garden! I’m currently harvesting lettuce, spinach, beets and summer squash, beans, peas and some early tomatoes! Corn is next, followed by peppers and carrots. And the CO2 was delivered without a hitch!

  22. Is there enough CO2 on the Globe then to ballance the US budget deficit? (calculations anyone at 10 cents/ton?)

  23. Carbon is DEAD!….Where will they bury it?, Did it die from natural causes or there is someone or something to blame for it?

  24. Language Error! Mine. I read it and thought – ICE? What has immigration got to do with Carbon Credits? (But then with the current administration, any connection is a good excuse). Fortunately I found out it was just a European company that apparently has not heard of American ICE. ;)

  25. This seems awful bad to me.

    “US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high”

    …but this i don’t understand…

    REPLY: No, because he’s making some inflated claims that aren’t supportable, which is why I’m not jumping on to it – Anthony

  26. The carbon traders and carpet baggers and their stooge politicians were so so sure that the scam would make billions, trillions even and its failed!
    Still the good new is that the BBC(UK state Marxist propaganda outlet) has their pension funds invested in the eco fraud and they stand to lose their shirts, so every cloud has a silver lining. The comrades can now live the poverty stricken lifestyle they wish on us.
    All that effort to tax a harmless trace gas and control world economic production and useage for nothing, all the taxpayers money frittered away and wasted for nothing more than a Brooklyn bridge confidence scam.
    Never give a politician too much power and an open cheque book and never let them get too close to the spivs and sharks that infest the capitalist world, what about the econutters you ask? The foot soldiers of the scam, the PBI were just useful idiots to be used and discarded in the attempt to carry off the biggest ever financial fraud.

  27. Mike D. says August 13, 2010 at 8:23 am:
    “Ten cents a ton is the lowest value for any commodity I have ever heard of. That’s $0.0005 dollars per pound.”

    This has been a criminally-inspired effort to monetize the air.

    Nothing more, nothing less.

  28. May have a connection with Gore’s temper tantrum a few days ago. (He was so angry he even forgot to blame Bush.) Correlation isn’t causation. But in this case I sure hope it was.

    Since CFIs have nowhere to go but up he probably holds millions of them and wants federal legislation to boost their value. And he may still get it in the lame duck session.

  29. It irks me to the extreme degree their attempt to make a product out of the air we exhale.

    What a product? Just collect the money without any effort.

  30. alGore says the goal is carbon free by 2015.
    even 10 cents is not free.
    In fact this is not what he meant. He meant he would make millions on this scheme.

  31. In the immortal words of Mortimer Duke (while Randolph has a heart attack) . . . “Turn those machines back on! Turn those machines back on!”

  32. Good Riddance – the idea was stupid from the start — taxing consumption so they can continue to pollute is a Sin for all.

  33. How much does it cost to Exchange A Climate? I’d like a little cooler summers (only really hot on days I plant to go swimming) and warmer winters.

  34. Hmmm, If I buy a couple of tons, when could I expect delivery? My garden could use a pick me up… :-)

  35. We live in a sick society when people can actually be convinced that the climate is stable, warmer is worse, that a percentage of something so small makes all the difference, that people that stand to profit from it have your best interests at heart, and you can bottle and sell something you can’t even measure.

    And there are people, walking around, that really believe this garbage.

  36. I’m looking forward to the day the bailiffs are sent in – the day the exchange is as bankrupt as the thinking behing it…

  37. From Point Carbon’s latest newsletter, Aug. 13, 2010:

    A drop in prices for US offsets is driving greater demand from voluntary buyers, experts say.

    Market players say they are seeing more demand from buyers that want offsets for corporate social responsibility purposes as prices for carbon offset credits slump.

    While voluntary offset purchases rise, demand for pre-compliance credits – offsets that are viewed to be fungible in a future US carbon market – is tapering off amid uncertainty over the future of a federal cap-andtrade regime.

    Carbon offset credits that were deemed to be pre-compliance had fetched higher prices than other voluntary carbon credits but the prolonged political uncertainty in Washington has led those prices to fall.

    “There has been an increased demand for voluntary purchasing as pricing has dropped,” said Randall Lack, chief marketing offi cer for US project developer
    and aggregator Element Markets. “We also see pre-compliance buyers, but they are
    mostly waiting on the sidelines to see what happens to the federal and state compliance systems.”

    It looks increasingly unlikely that federal cap-andtrade legislation will pass the US Congress this year after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid delayed indefinitely debate on a climate bill that would create a mandatory national cap-and-trade system. The senator, who sets the legislative agenda in the Senate, said the measure does not have enough support from senators to gain passage.

    Low offset prices are attracting buyers who would have normally shied away from the voluntary carbon market, said one head of an environmental brokerage firm who asked not to be named.

    “The prices of some of the higher quality offsets are getting suppressed. That is certainly attracting certain types of voluntary buyers that have not been in the
    market lately.”

    He added interest in the voluntary carbon market has also been driven generally by a greater awareness about the role of offsets.

    “There is a lot of heightened public awareness of going green,” he said.

    Market participants say prices for some US offsets have fallen, in some cases, more than 50 per cent. The economic recession, as well as uncertainty over federal, state and regional climate programs, has driven much of the price decline. Many buyers that bought offsets purely for pre-compliance purposes are no longer propping up prices, observers say.

    Lack at Element Markets said prices for climate reserve tonnes – carbon credits issued by the Climate Action Reserve – have fallen around 50 per cent from
    their highs. Carbon credits issued by the California-based offset standard have been seen as offsets that will most likely be fungible in a federal cap-and-trade system, as
    well as California’s state climate program, AB 32.

    http://www.pointcarbon.com/polopoly_fs/1.1466792!CMNA20100812.pdf

  38. Carbon futures. Not worth the carbon-based paper they are printed on. I’d get philosophical about it but I’ve been too busy enjoying myself drinking CO2-rich beverages.

    I’m not as thunk as drinkle peep am I.

  39. Are Greenpeace next to go near bust?

    Greenpeace needs ‘to bring in more than $700,000 a day just to keep the lights on
    When you read that an organization has “an annual budget of $270-million,” that sounds pretty powerful and impervious.

    But think about it: if an organization needs almost three-quarters of a million dollars A DAY to stay in business, don’t they actually sound awfully… vulnerable?”
    Source

  40. They’d make far more money selling Certificates for a ton of Carbon as a present for the guy or gal who has everything. Oooops!… I’ll bet some kid with a Hav’erd MBA is going to make a bundle on that idea. (should’a kept my mouth shut;-(

  41. They might find a wider market, if they put it in 16.9 ounce (.5L) bottles and gave it fancy names. Hinckley Spring Air.

  42. In years to come people will laugh until their ribs hurt at the very thought of a bunch of old men trying to sell hot air to the public and corporations. All the while the hypocrites each had a carbon footprint the size of a large coal fired power plant, King Kong and Godzilla combined.

  43. Re: CRS, Dr.P.H.
    August 13, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I noticed the graph has a large uptick in March 2009. What happened? Could some misinformation have been spread to raise the price so the insiders could get out?

  44. “REPLY: No, because he’s making some inflated claims that aren’t supportable, which is why I’m not jumping on to it – Anthony”

    Okay,I agree. I meant perhaps you could have your own approach on the case, since there was clearly something going on.

    Anyway, I am impressed by the posts Goddard, Willis and the rest are presenting here on WUFT, and I have asked myself where did you find all these fantastic people?

  45. Does that price includes delivery? Carbon is good for soil it improves fertility and structure. I could use a few thousand tonnes for my farm, and that price certainly is attractive.

  46. 10cents a ton?

    Wow… somebody needs to start buying it up and reselling it as COAL….

    Some power plant operators would love to get it at that price.

  47. Indeed Anthony. I stopped going to “Climate Fraud” at about the same time as I stopped going to “Real Climate”.

    Much better to spend valuable time at a site like WUWT where multi-faceted respectful discussions can be read.

    Thank you for a great site.

    Wayne Delbeke
    Faraway, Alberta, Canada – and yes … Faraway is a real place – a good place for a retired engineer to hang his cowboy hat.

    Have a great day all.

    ” kwik says:
    August 13, 2010 at 7:39 am

    Isn’t this MUCH more interesting;

    http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

    REPLY: No, because he’s making some inflated claims that aren’t supportable, which is why I’m not jumping on to it – Anthony”

  48. Another fractional reserve banking scam like the Federal Reserve System with its Federal Reserve Nothings (ie: Notes) being printed like toilet paper.

    If you start off assigning an arbitrary price on a commodity (ie: Carbon Credits) that has no intrinsic value, the result will be the commodity will end up worthless. What did you expect?

  49. How many tons would I need to buy to be exempt from any future taxes that may come along? If I spent a couple of hundred bucks on carbon credits could they be used to offset future emissions?

    $300.00 / 10¢ = 3,000 tons. How much would an average house use in a year?

    Thanks

  50. Jimmy Haigh says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:03 pm
    Carbon futures. Not worth the carbon-based paper they are printed on. I’d get philosophical about it but I’ve been too busy enjoying myself drinking CO2-rich beverages.

    I’m not as thunk as drinkle peep am I.

    Jimmy, I’m with you. But I don’t know what these Chicago people were thinkin’. I buy this CO2 by the bottle, so I can keep my kegs of barley-pop from goin’ flat! One a month keeps the doctor away?

    Ralph Dwyer

  51. kwik says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:58 pm
    “REPLY: No, because he’s making some inflated claims that aren’t supportable, which is why I’m not jumping on to it – Anthony”

    Okay,I agree. I meant perhaps you could have your own approach on the case, since there was clearly something going on.

    Anyway, I am impressed by the posts Goddard, Willis and the rest are presenting here on WUFT, and I have asked myself where did you find all these fantastic people?

    Reply: OK, it’s Friday the 13th. What’s a WUFT? But kudos on the komrades /supersarc!

  52. Gary D. says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    Re: CRS, Dr.P.H.
    August 13, 2010 at 8:56 am

    I noticed the graph has a large uptick in March 2009. What happened? Could some misinformation have been spread to raise the price so the insiders could get out?
    ——
    Probably a dead-cat bounce of some kind! I hadn’t heard of anything particularly persuasive happening at that time, but these fictional markets are subject to all sorts of rumors & market churning.

    Happenings at the US voluntary exchanges are closely linked to the EU carbon trading mechanisms, here’s an article on one event that some may have taken as “significant”:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/04/emissions-trading-carbon-price

    It is interesting to watch US industry position themselves for what they believe will be an inevitable carbon regulatory climate! At such low prices, the bottom-feeders will be out.

    These corporations are acting more in the interests of “green-marketing” than anything, as the article discusses (fluffing up their annual reports with all sorts of news about progress on the carbon front).

  53. kwik says:
    August 13, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    “Anyway, I am impressed by the posts Goddard, Willis and the rest are presenting here on WUFT, and I have asked myself where did you find all these fantastic people?”

    WUWT. The best bar in town.

  54. I am able to write coherently in that I can put one word after another and make a sentence that makes sense, at least sometimes. I am not William Shakespear. I would suggest that anyone who wishes to know Shakespear reads his sonnets not his plays, as brilliant as they are. However, Mr. Shakespear wrote a line in one of his plays which perfectly describes carbon traders

    “What fools we mortals be.”

  55. Gary D. : August 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm
    I noticed the graph has a large uptick in March 2009. What happened? Could some misinformation have been spread to raise the price so the insiders could get out?

    It could have been a reaction to the administration’s breathless announcement that the Cash for Clunkers program had gotten off to a slow start, and would be extended until June ’09.

  56. I like this site for its comprehensive reporting of climate issues, but I don’t agree that with Anthony’s view of AGW. Normally I admire Anthony’s evenhandedness – but here the reporting is incorrect and biased. The real carbon market is not on the Chicago bourse, but in the EU, as the EU has a cap and trade CO2 scheme – check it out – its quoted on Bloomberg even and run by ICE. Current price, according to Bloomberg on the iPhone is 14.49 Euros/tonne. And it ain’t flatlining.

  57. As I wrote in my Carbon Credit Article back in 2008:

    Quote:
    Meanwhile, back at the financial dealing desks for Carbon Credits, another commodity is about to crash. But perhaps I should not use the term ‘commodity’, for Carbon Credits (CCs) are an abstract construct that have even less contact with the real world than our over-inflated monetary systems. If there was ever an emperor with no clothes, it is a carbon trader declaring that a CC is worth £30 or £20 or £10, or any other figure that he or she may invent. CCs are a new pyramid selling scheme, that only survives as long as someone is promoting it and as long as there are more gullible customers pilling into this new market. But there are not. A small element of science is beginning to doubt the Global Warming trends, fraud has destabilised the Carbon Trading market, and a global recession will flood this already unsteady market with millions of unwanted CCs. The price of a CC is about to fall through the floor, and I expect that the whole concept of a Carbon Trading market will fall over the cliff with it.
    Endquote

    It was all too easy to see – even before the present financial crash.

    The article is here somewhere on WUWT.

    .

  58. >>>Reminds me when a TV reporter was up in Scotland ….you
    >>>could see the windmills for miles – and not a single one
    >>>was turning – no wind – and had been like that for ages !

    No, no. The best moment ever was when the BBC set up their first ever live broadcast powered only by wind power (they had a mobile reporting truck wired up to a huge great windelec).

    Only trouble – no wind.

    Studio:
    “Over to our reporter in Wales – Jim. Tell us about that huge wind turbine behind you, Jim.”

    Outside broadcast:
    “Well here we are at the BBC’s first renewable-powered live broadcast in the delightful Welsh countryside. As you can see, the wind turbine is not actually working at present, so we are using the diesel generator on the lorry…..”

    I kid you not, this actually happened. Never seen the clip again, in one of those out-take shows though.

    .

  59. Richard says August 14, 2010 at 4:35 am:

    “The real carbon market is not on the Chicago bourse, but in the EU…. is 14.49 Euros/tonne. And it ain’t flatlining.”

    I beg to differ. The inherently criminal nature of carbon dioxide trading – it is after all the product of corrupt politicians and greedy financial traders attempting to monetize the air we breathe – eventually shows up as conventional criminal activity on conventional police blotters. And the EU carbon dioxide trading market is swamped in criminal activity, which should come as no surprise to anyone.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/254-carbon-trading-fraudsters-in-europe-pocket-5bn.html

    Carbon trading fraudsters in Europe pocket €5bn
    Thursday, 10 December 2009 13:44 Rowena Mason

    The Daily Telegraph: Carbon trading fraudsters may have accounted for up to 90pc of all market activity in some European countries, with criminals pocketing an estimated €5bn (£4.5bn) mainly in Britain, France, Spain, Denmark and Holland, according to Europol, the European law enforcement agency.

    The revelation caused embarrassment for European Union negotiators at the Copenhagen climate change summit yesterday, where they have been pushing for an expansion of their system across the globe to penalise heavy emitters of carbon dioxide.

    Rob Wainwright, the director of serious crime squad, said large-scale organised criminal activity had “endangered the credibility” of the current carbon trading system.

  60. I one could actually buy the CARBON for 10 cents, it would be a good deal… but as a derivative of a contract for CO2, it’s pretty worthless.

    Almost as useful as Quatloos…

  61. Here’s a nice historic bit concerning how CCX was “supposed” to work:

    http://www1.voanews.com/learningenglish/home/a-23-2006-05-30-voa2-83130467.html

    E.M.Smith@7:30am, thanks for pointing out the similarities to the derivative schemes that just got us into so much hot water (bundled mortgages etc.).

    Major manufacturers are updating facilities and equipment constantly, replacing worn-out process boilers with newer, more fuel-efficient systems as an example. The CCX was a place for these folks to gather and trade credits as a hedge against Kyoto limits & proposed cap & trade schemes, which nearly all have seen as inevitable.

    The post-Climategate collapse of carbon trading & momentum for regulation (look at COP-15 at Copenhagen) seems to have convinced at least some industries that we won’t be having any carbon limits or caps soon. However, I sense much trepidation about what the US EPA is likely to do, as this has been threatened repeatedly by the Obama administration.

    Considering all the organized crime activity, refusal of China to participate, and serious doubts about the science of climate change, I think the bubble of carbon has burst.

  62. The heavy volume (the blue bar in the red box) came just as the stock hit its peak (the yellow line) and then it took a nose dive. Those who knew what they were doing shorted the stock at its peak. The suckers that were getting in at the peak created the heavy volume of money which ended up in the pockets of the shorters who got rich.

    This is a usual pattern in the stock market.

  63. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
    August 14, 2010 at 1:15 pm
    The heavy volume (the blue bar in the red box) came just as the stock hit its peak (the yellow line) and then it took a nose dive. Those who knew what they were doing shorted the stock at its peak. The suckers that were getting in at the peak created the heavy volume of money which ended up in the pockets of the shorters who got rich.

    This is a usual pattern in the stock market.
    ——–
    Heh! Good job, my dad (economics professor DePaul University) taught me about that years ago…..he called it “fleecing the sheep”!!

    What goes down can go right back up again, keep your eye on the carbon markets for any reaction to this:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/114023-epa-proposes-greenhouse-gas-permitting-rules

  64. The Euro exchange, ECX.EU, is still operational. Looks to me like about $70M/day transactions, with prices per ton about $15-18. Still fortunes changing hands there, I guess!

  65. I can see a loverly bit of arbitrage action here; buy on the CCX at $0.10/ton, sell on the ECX at $15/ton — maybe I can revive my retirement fund after all!

  66. Eric wonders-

    ‘This seems awful bad to me.

    “US Government admits satellite temperature readings “degraded.” All data taken offline in shock move. Global warming temperatures may be 10 to 15 degrees too high”

    …but this i don’t understand…

    REPLY: No, because he’s making some inflated claims that aren’t supportable, which is why I’m not jumping on to it – Anthony’

    The answer is Eric never jump all over conspiracy when incompetence will do just fine.

    However NOOA’s response here is telling-

    “We need to do a better job screening what is placed in the archive or posted. Coastwatch is completely automated so you can see how something like this could slip through.”
    Therein may lie the incompetence, laziness, or hubris in the complete infallibility of technology (ie satellites, transponders and automated computer data).

    That’s the point I think Anthony should be over more. ie It would appear from that response of those entrusted with gathering and analysing satellite temp data they have been extremely remiss in not doing their job properly, unless they can show evidence of computer code checks/screens to identify and reject such obvious technological failure and avoid wasteful ‘garbage in garbage out’ at immediate and longer term taxpayer expense. ie they must be acutely aware by now that their data and results are being used politically for some rather large public and private resource reallocation.

Comments are closed.