Countdown to flatline: world carbon trading market falls for first time – World Bank reports rumblings of possible failure

I wonder how long before flatlining occurs, like last year with the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX):

 

Even the Guardian is covering this “failure” of carbon markets. They write:

The international market in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $1.5bn (£916m) of credits traded last year…

Now that the Kyoto protocol is essentially dead, the economic markets will surely pull life support for carbon trading with no political support in place for emissions reduction. With this report and news coverage, you can hear the traders already running for the exits.

Then there’s this from ReutersThe Europe Union’s carbon market could be flooded with excess pollution permits over the next decade, cutting prices in half and depriving governments of billions in budgeted revenues, EU sources say

Growth in Global Carbon Market Pauses Amid Uncertainty

Press Release No:2011/514/SDN

World Bank Releases 2011 “State and Trends of the Carbon Market” Report

Barcelona, June 1, 2011 – The World Bank’s annual review of the global carbon market shows that 2010 was a watershed year as the market ended five years of robust growth with a slight decline compared to 2009. The State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2011, released today at Carbon Expo in Barcelona, shows that the total value of the global carbon market was estimated to be US$142 billion last year.

The report’s authors noted that several reasons help to explain the decline, including the continuing lack of clarity about the market after 2012 and the loss of political momentum on setting up new cap-and-trade schemes in several developed economies. Some buyers from industrialized countries, which in previous years had reached or surpassed targets, consequently made fewer purchases in 2010. As well, lingering effects of the recession in several industrialized countries led to lower greenhouse gas emissions, easing emissions reduction compliance obligations.

Furthermore, the primary Certified Emission Reductions (CERs) market, which accounts for the bulk of project-based transactions, fell by double digits for a variety of reasons, including lower demand for credits and competition from more predictable assets (Assigned Amount Units and secondary CERs). The CDM market is now at its lowest level since the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005, having dropped by 46% to an estimated US$1.5 billion in new project-based transactions. Similarly, other carbon markets also declined or stayed at their plateau. Nevertheless, cumulatively, primary offset transactions have reached almost US$30 billion since 2005 and are expected to have catalyzed much larger resources, mostly from the private sector.

“The global carbon market is at a crossroads. If we take the wrong turn we risk losing billions of lower cost private investment and new technology solutions in developing countries,” said Andrew Steer, World Bank Special Envoy for Climate Change. “This report sends a message of the need to ensure a stronger, more robust carbon market with clear signals.”

State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2011 shows that, relative to each other, EU Allowances (traded under the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, ETS) remain the largest segment by far, with 84% of the total value of the carbon market. Taking secondary CDM transactions into account, the value of the market driven by the ETS reached 97% of the global market value.

The authors of the report predict that, in the next two years, the difference between gross demand for and the cumulative supply of carbon credits generated under the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms will be slightly less than US$140 million. Virtually all demand will be from European governments. Beyond 2012, although the potential demand for emission reductions could reach 3 billion tons or more, the only substantial and unconditional demand to date comes from Europe, estimated at 1.7 billion tons. The supply available between 2013 and 2020, through existing projects, is seen as sufficient to fill that demand, leaving little incentive for project developers to invest further and create a future supply of emission reductions.

The fall in market value was contrasted with what was generally seen as the successful outcomes of negotiations at the UN climate change conference in Cancun in December which resulted in relatively more positive market sentiment.

Although some opportunities for strengthening regulatory frameworks were missed in industrialized countries, national and local low-carbon initiatives gathered strength and offered hope.

“Carbon market growth halted at a particularly inopportune time: 2010 proved to be the hottest year on record, while global emission levels continued to rise relentlessly,” said Alexandre Kossoy, World Bank Senior Financial Specialist. “At the same time, other national and local low-carbon initiatives have picked up noticeably in both developed and developing economies. Collectively, they offer the possibility overcome regulatory uncertainty and signal that, one way or another, solutions that address the climate challenge will emerge.”

In the face of lagging demand, the World Bank has undertaken a number of initiatives to give confidence to a post-2012 carbon market. The Partnership for Market Readiness, launched in Cancun in December 2010, aims to support the trend of national mitigation efforts using market approaches. A number of the World Bank’s carbon funds and facilities, such as the Carbon Partnership Facility, the second tranche of the Umbrella Carbon Facility, and a new facility for low-income countries currently under development, also respond to future needs by supporting scaled up mitigation and purchasing carbon credits beyond 2012. Furthermore, the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility is supporting REDD+ initiatives which, to date, have not been included under the CDM. The Bank sees carbon markets as an important and versatile tool to provide incentives for a shift to lower carbon development paths.

State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2011 was released at CARBON EXPO 2011, the largest carbon fair in the world with more than 3,000 representatives from governments, private sector and civil society organizations involved in greenhouse gas emission reduction transactions around the world.

For more information on the World Bank’s carbon finance activities and the electronic version of this report, please visit the website: http://www.carbonfinance.org

About these ads
This entry was posted in Carbon credits and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to Countdown to flatline: world carbon trading market falls for first time – World Bank reports rumblings of possible failure

  1. KnR says:

    what a shame NOT , still although the billions some expected to make out of Carbon trading has not happened ,some have done well out of it, and some well meaning but misguiding people have lost out and are left with what is in effect worth nothing .

  2. Nano Pope says:

    It’s all about the bankers. Reminds me of the excellent piece by Jo Nova exposing the carbon fraud: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/02/carbon-credits-another-corrupt-currency/

  3. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    “The international market in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $1.5bn (£916m) of credits traded last year…”

    Let me fix that statement:

    “The international socialist ponzi scheme in carbon credits has suffered an almost total collapse, with only $1.5bn (£916m) of grifting last year…”

  4. Curiousgeorge says:

    Probably not long for this world if Lind’s prognostications in Salon come to pass.

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd

    Everything you’ve heard about fossil fuels may be wrong
    The future of energy is not what you think it is

    Are we living at the beginning of the Age of Fossil Fuels, not its final decades? The very thought goes against everything that politicians and the educated public have been taught to believe in the past generation. According to the conventional wisdom, the U.S. and other industrial nations must undertake a rapid and expensive transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy for three reasons: The imminent depletion of fossil fuels, national security and the danger of global warming.

    What if the conventional wisdom about the energy future of America and the world has been completely wrong?

    As everyone who follows news about energy knows by now, in the last decade the technique of hydraulic fracturing or “fracking,” long used in the oil industry, has evolved to permit energy companies to access reserves of previously-unrecoverable “shale gas” or unconventional natural gas. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, these advances mean there is at least six times as much recoverable natural gas today as there was a decade ago.
    —————————————————————————————————–
    And the view from the “other side”: http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/06/

  5. R Taylor says:

    I had to stop reading the release by the World Bank, for fear of turning into a bureaubot.

  6. Theo Goodwin says:

    According to the article above:
    “The authors of the report predict that, in the next two years, the difference between gross demand for and the cumulative supply of carbon credits generated under the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms will be slightly less than US$140 million. Virtually all demand will be from European governments.”

    Come on, people, don’t be so joyless. It is a hoot to hear that only European governments are buying this worthless crop, but please let us know the individual actors. I really want to express my joy at knowing just who is foolish enough to continue throwing good taxpayer money after bad. Josh can do cartoons of the individuals sitting in corners wearing dunce caps, or something along those lines.

  7. Gary Krause says:

    There seems to be a conflict. The greeners strive for no carbon emissions, no nuclear power, no damming of rivers, no coal plants, no fossil fuel transportation, etc: Thus shutting down all would result in no carbon future whatsoever!

    But the reality is the money. Burn lots of carbon based fuel to fuel the carbon trading market. Did I miss something?

  8. Henry chance says:

    Technical tax question. Can the sex poodle take a writeoff from the collapse in value of carbon indulgences?

  9. Elizabeth (not the Queen) says:

    “Carbon market growth halted at a particularly inopportune time: 2010 proved to be the hottest year on record, while global emission levels continued to rise relentlessly,” said Alexandre Kossoy, World Bank Senior Financial Specialist.

    Indeed, the opportunistic should have seen the potential to make a lot of money.

  10. James Sexton says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    June 2, 2011 at 8:28 am

    “……… Josh can do cartoons of the individuals sitting in corners wearing dunce caps, or something along those lines.”
    ==========================================

    Yes, that conjures some hilarious imagery in my mind’s eye.

  11. Tom says:

    “…we risk losing billions of lower cost private investment and new technology solutions in developing countries…”

    Eh? What we risk is billions foolishly invested in pieces of paper on a market for an artificially constrained resource. Innovation is doing just fine anyway, thanks.

  12. Gosport Mike. says:

    Please someone tell me that the BBC pension fund is in real danger of losing the
    8 billion Pounds Sterling that they have invested in Carbon trading.

  13. SteveSadlov says:

    If storing / reducing carbon is worth $0 then I therefore conclude liberating / oxidizing it must have a net value that is non zero.

  14. DirkH says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    June 2, 2011 at 8:28 am
    “……… Josh can do cartoons of the individuals sitting in corners wearing dunce caps, or something along those lines.”

    Here you go.

    http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/index_en.htm

  15. Ian W says:

    From the Guardian article:

    “”This bodes very badly for the countries we are trying to help,” said Andrew Steer, envoy for climate change at the World Bank. “The [carbon] market is failing us. It has done very good things in the past but it is not delivering what we feel is necessary.”

    If the poor performance continued, it would mean increasing greenhouse gas emissions, he predicted. “We are heading for a 3C or 4C world [temperature rise].””

    I do hope someone is saving this quote so it can be restated in the same way as Dr Viner’s snow quotes have been.

    Where does he get his 3 – 4C temperature rise ideas from?
    Is it protecting his own job that he’s really worried about?

  16. peterhodges says:

    Without government mandated carbon limits there is no carbon market.

    That is the primary business model of today: buy government regulations to prop up your market, buy government exemptions for your business from regulations, buy government tax breaks, and buy government subsidies. Oh, I forgot, buy government contracts!

    We will not get our country back until we outlaw corporate lobbying and corporate financing of campaigns. We call other nations corrupt while they spend billions buying our government.

  17. nandheeswaran jothi says:

    Gary Krause says:
    June 2, 2011 at 8:36 am

    the knowledgeable greeners also want the future world with no humans.
    the dumb/ignorant ones don’t know that.
    The d/i greeners don’t even know that with no technical help ( wheels, electricity, fossil fuels, agriculture etc ):
    world population will not be 7Billion,
    will not be even 7Million.
    There will be more wildebeest and wolves than humans .

    Wonderful educational system.

  18. Layne Blanchard says:

    Some days you see a story that just warms the heart….

  19. Pogo says:

    @Theo Goodwin: Come on, people, don’t be so joyless. It is a hoot to hear that only European governments are buying this worthless crop, but please let us know the individual actors. I really want to express my joy at knowing just who is foolish enough to continue throwing good taxpayer money after bad.

    Hey Theo! Don’t rub it in!! I’m one of the poor European taxpayers who are having our hard-earned cash p*ssed up the wall by our splendidly inept and corrupt “betters”. Take pity on us man…

  20. Paul Nevins says:

    Thank you curiousgeorge for the links. The regulars at salon are frothing at the mouth over the first link. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so extremely sad.

  21. Brian H says:

    To the degree that the actual market is allowed to determine pricing, it will tend to zero, or to negative numbers.
    Urinating into the hurricane won’t help you:

    including lower demand for credits and competition from more predictable assets (Assigned Amount Units and secondary CERs). The CDM market is now at its lowest level since the Kyoto Protocol entered into force in 2005, having dropped by 46%

    .

    Buh-bye!

  22. Dave Worley says:

    Either there are not many greenies left out there or they are not putting their money where their mouths are.
    Wishful thinking the former, most likely the latter.
    Bet Algore’s customers will be figuring out who madeoff with their money.

  23. Brian H says:

    Curiousgeorge says:
    June 2, 2011 at 8:46 am

    Salon links got messed up: Try these:

    http://www.salon.com/news/env/energy/?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/31/linbd_fossil_fuels

    Heh. Have a look at the comments. Salon’s progressive readership is going ballistic! They don’t seem to be addressing the issue of the Invisible (Iron) Hand of the market, which will enforce affordable energy, by granting survival to those who use it, and the opposite to those who don’t.

  24. Latitude says:

    You guys do realize that the people that set this up…
    ..did not think for one minute that we would actually reduce our emissions, did you?

  25. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    Theo Goodwin says:
    June 2, 2011 at 8:28 am

    Come on, people, don’t be so joyless. It is a hoot to hear that only European governments are buying this worthless crop”

    Theo . . . you may have just discovered the solution to the Euroland sovereign debt crisis.

    EuroCarbonCredits . . . the new Greek Drachma :)

  26. Larry Hamlin says:

    In an extraordinary article in Aviation Week and Space Technology Ulrich Schulte-Strathaus the secretary general of the Association of European Airlines complains that the EU ETS has become just another tax on European Airlines that will disadvantage these EU airlines versus non European airline companies. He says that the EU needs to start over on its CO2 trading schemes to address these problems. It is truly astounding that only now does the secretary general see the EU ETS as just another government taxing scheme.
    The EU has been unbelievably arrogant in pushing carbon trading schemes and proud of leading the world in such completely unjustified nonsense based on its biased and unwavering support of climate fear hype. With the rest of the world finally moving away from these idiotic tax schemes the EU is now stuck with its politically contrived carbon trading schemes where governments have become accustomed to and planned on future massive carbon taxes to fill their coffers. The EU can continue to proceed on this idiotic path but only with great economic disadvantages.
    This is a very positive outcome for the rest of the world and may even help get the EU to get their collective heads out of the sand regarding the fraud of the CAGW theory.

  27. H.R. says:

    The Goracle got out at the top, IIRC, leaving everyone else holding the bag.

    If he didn’t absolutely shatter The Golden Rule, he surely bent it beyond all recognition.

  28. “I can calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men.”

    Sir Isaac Newton on the collapse of the South Sea Bubble.

  29. RockyRoad says:

    So the very politicians who are relying on “budgeted revenues” from carbon trading are the same ones that pay for research that supports the need for carbon trading. I can smell a rat a mile away, and this one has a particular political stench to it.

  30. Eric says:

    Maybe not the right forum, but here is some facts I learned while learning to brew beer. Beer is best with CO2. To put CO2 into the beer, you can add sugar at bottling and let the yeast metabolize it and add CO2 or keg it under CO2 pressure and wait a few days. When I open a beer, some CO2 disolves out and eventually will be at a certain level, though some will always remain in the beer.

    To me, (the ocean is huge); therefore, It’s the OCEAN and we can not effect CO2 levels. Am I wrong on this?

  31. rbateman says:

    The smell of rotting carbon credits is unmistakable. Perhaps it was the muddied waters they flowed down in the hottest evah while Global Warming causes Global Cooling. That’s just how the business world works: you miss a step, you’re on the menu.

  32. Latitude says:

    RockyRoad says:
    June 2, 2011 at 11:51 am

    So the very politicians who are relying on “budgeted revenues” from carbon trading are the same ones that pay for research that supports the need for carbon trading. I can smell a rat a mile away, and this one has a particular political stench to it.
    ======================================================
    I believe we have a winner…………

  33. Hoser says:

    Will California go through with its own carbon trading scheme? Economic suicide. I’ll bet that won’t stop Sacramento and Uncle Jer. The ability to gain total control over an entire state of 38 million people is too tempting.

  34. Jeremy says:

    I wish I had the patience/guts to act dumb about investing in carbon credits 8 years ago and do what Gore did. Early retirement is always something to keep an ear out for.

    Unfortunately my psyche has a low tolerance for additional internal hypocrisy.

  35. kramer says:

    From TheGuardian link above:

    The international market in carbon credits was brought about under the Kyoto protocol, as a way of injecting much-needed investment into low-carbon technology in the developing world.

    In other words, Kyoto is simply a means to redistribute wealth from the North to the South.

  36. Garry says:

    Let me add some corrections:

    “The Europe Union’s carbon market could be flooded with excess pollution carbon dioxide permits over the next decade, cutting prices in half and depriving governments and blood sucking financial traders of billions in budgeted revenuestaxes on the air we breathe, EU sources say.”

  37. DirkH says:

    Latitude says:
    June 2, 2011 at 10:52 am
    “You guys do realize that the people that set this up…
    ..did not think for one minute that we would actually reduce our emissions, did you?”

    The idea was to control the amount of emissions by reducing the number of permits gradually. A KNOWN side-effect is that all the renewable energy production in Europe by definition does not reduce the emissions by one jot as the number of permits on the market is not reduced by them; they just make more permits available, thus pushing down the prize. So all the Germans who voluntarily switch to an energy provider that offers all-green energy with zero CO2 emissions (and pay even more outrageous prizes than the rest of us) do not actually reduce overall emissions by their money squandering feelgood gesture; but they make coal fired power plants more profitable through their action.

    Wonder what they would say if they understood supply & demand.

  38. Gary Swift says:

    from the original post:

    “cutting prices in half and depriving governments of billions in budgeted revenues”

    If the plan worked, emissions would be reduced and the value of the market should fall to zero. Why would they budget for failure?

    and this:

    “This report sends a message of the need to ensure a stronger, more robust carbon market with clear signals.”

    Didn’t Tsun Tzu say that it’s not smart to reinforce defeate?

    “The supply available between 2013 and 2020, through existing projects, is seen as sufficient to fill that demand, leaving little incentive for project developers to invest further and create a future supply of emission reductions”

    Ah, so the plan worked and it can stop now? hmmm, or was the plan supposed to be that the carbon market would be a never-ending fountain of cash, with impossible goals that keep the cost of credits high forever? Yup, that was the plan I think.

  39. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ Brian H says:
    June 2, 2011 at 10:28 am

    Heh. Have a look at the comments. Salon’s progressive readership is going ballistic! They don’t seem to be addressing the issue of the Invisible (Iron) Hand of the market, which will enforce affordable energy, by granting survival to those who use it, and the opposite to those who don’t.

    I read some of them earlier today. I think the word “apoplectic” accurately describes the vast majority of the posters. I’m certain that Mr. Lind will be on the receiving end of a avalanche of death threats and other unkind remarks. Articles like this do tend to bring out the easily exercised true believers.

  40. Smokey says:

    Hoser is right. California is committing economic suicide.

  41. rbateman says:

    Will they bailout the struggling Carbon Markets, or will they bleed the remaining cash out of it with millions of trading fees?

  42. Latitude says:

    DirkH says:
    June 2, 2011 at 1:00 pm
    The idea was to control the amount of emissions by reducing the number of permits gradually.
    ===========================================
    never…..

    The plan was to make money.

    They never had any intention of reducing emissions. That would make them less money.

  43. Theo Goodwin says:

    DirkH says:
    June 2, 2011 at 9:12 am
    “Here you go.
    http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/index_en.htm

    Oh…My…God! Every one from Central Casting! Go, Josh, Go!

    I feel for you, Dirk. Life in Germany must be hell.

  44. Dr A Burns says:

    So far as I know, there are no trade embargos between US and Australia. Will I be able to buy carbon at 5 cents a ton on the CCE and sell it in Australia for $10-$40 per ton, once Gillard makes up her mind ?

  45. DirkH says:

    Latitude says:
    June 2, 2011 at 1:45 pm
    “never…..

    The plan was to make money.

    They never had any intention of reducing emissions. That would make them less money.”

    By making the permits scarcer over time, you drive up the prize; the European governments wanted to do both, make money AND reduce emissions. AFAIK only last year did the German government begin to auction off some of the permits; the plan was to auction off a greater fraction each year, and reduce the fraction that goes to industry as free allocation.

    Do not underestimate the naivity of European politicians; they are not only power hungry b*stards but also True Believers. They really do think they can rig a market and get away with it. They really did believe the Euro could work. I think they still do.

  46. MrX says:

    Good luck hiding this decline.

  47. Ian H says:

    Sadly New Zealand is still fully subscribed to the Kyoto lunacy. While I am glad to see that the decline in the price of credits should make this less costly than was expected, I am very frustrated that even in an election year none of the major political parties have the guts to mention Kyoto at all.

    Meanwhile a post industrial junkyard of hundreds of truly massive wind turbines is about to be built on the range of Hills to the west of where I live. Now if anyone can make wind power economic it would probably be New Zealand. We have some pretty damned clever engineers and New Zealand is an extremely windy place located down in the roaring 40’s as we are. However I hope that money to dismantle these monsters when they reach the end of their lives has been put aside somewhere otherwise future generations are going to be faced with an awful mess.

    Mining companies are required to set aside funds to clean up after themselves. Wind generators should face the same requirement. And if that makes wind generation uneconomic then so be it.

  48. Kev-in-Uk says:

    No doubt various pension funds will have ‘invested’ in this BS – and of course, who will end up out of pocket???

  49. John from New Zealand says:

    The predictably inevitable outcome of a false market.

  50. tango says:

    best news ever next thing put them all in the lockup

  51. Jack says:

    Good one, MrX.

  52. SOYLENT GREEN says:

    Yes, Anthony. But there is another shoe to drop.
    The World Bank still wants to put trillion$ into the climate market.
    See where they want to get it from…

    http://cbullitt.wordpress.com/2011/06/01/right-hand-youd-better-keep-an-eye-on-left-hand/

  53. Al Gored says:

    Steven Goddard has this rather amazing story posted from the Guardian.

    http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/un-current-limits-to-mindless-global-warming-hysteria-not-enough/

    I’m guessing this is no coincidence. From the Guardian:

    “But Figueres said reaching 2C of warming would have a devastating impact, such as sea-level rises that could overwhelm low-lying islands and some coastal nations, and levels of warming in sub-Saharan Africa that could severely damage agriculture.”

    Run bambi run! No, swim. Now who on earth could support and welcome this kind of bald-faced lying and hysteria?

    “Figueres was speaking at Carbon Expo, the annual conference of the International Emissions Trading Association.”

    Buy our products or the planet will die!!!

  54. Steve in SC says:

    I have got to stock up on popcorn.
    What with this turn of events and tfosu AND unc-ch on the verge of an NCAA death penalty it promises to be an entertaining year.

  55. Jeff says:

    Perhaps this will be a wakeup call to capitalists everywhere. Through the ETS and CCX, the greens have co-opted or silenced big-money with the lure of profits from thin-air. This proposal shows just how ephemeral that idea really is.

  56. Stas Peterson says:

    Mr. lind did not even discuss the US Geological Survey report prepared for Democrat Bryan Dorgan in the Congress on the latest estimates on the Williston basin oil shales.

    In the mid 1990 USGS said we might be able to obtain a minior few hundred million barrels from the oil shales running from Minnesota through North and South Dakota into Montana, Wyoming and Utah. Now the USGS says with the now current horizontal drilling and fracking, the recoverable oil amounts to 8 times all the Oil ever existing in Saudi Arabia! Enough to supply America at its present usage rate for 2041 years.

    This doesn’t include any oil from anywhere else like the Eagle-Ford discovery in Texas which looks very big, but nowhere near that gargatuan. Or all the the off-shore oil in the Atlantic, Pacific, Arctic or Alaska put off limits by the green wackos/and true-believer crackpots of the Obama Administration.

    The poor Salon, neo-Druid, Green-wackos have to adjust to the reality that their desire for an Apocalypse is fading like all their other Doomsday ideas. Do you remember, DDT? Freons? Alar? Acid Rain? Y2k? Global Cooling? Global Warming? Or any of their other similar Doomsday ideas?

  57. Dave Worley says:

    The Salon article is beautiful.
    The commenters remind me of the shreiks of the Wicked Witch of the West after Dorothy doused her with water……look what we’ve done to their beautiful wickedness.

  58. Paul R says:

    The madness continues in Australia, Clarke and Dawe despite working for the ministry of truth capture the dilemma the Liberal opposition have in “dealing with the crap”.

    http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3234241.htm

  59. Ralph says:

    Whoever invented this scheme should be humiliated on primetime TV. Why do we let them get away with it, as anonymous beurocrats? They had two choices here:

    a. Set up a taxation system, where you were taxed for how much fossil fuel you used (a straight oil tax).

    b. Set up a super complex trading system trading illusionary credits that are made up from thin air by officials all over the world who are open to more pressures of corruption than FIFA (the corrupt football association).

    So they went for choice b.?? Why?
    Why, when every sane person could see it would fail, did they chose b.?

    .

  60. Mark A says:

    Can anyone point me to a project (successful), using carbon trading funds, to reduce CO2?
    After all, this was supposed to be the purpose of the trade.
    Thank you

  61. John Marshall says:

    I hope it fails, Gore has made his pile but governments want the revenue so they can live in the manner that they wish. Meanwhile we, the taxpayers, get poorer.

    Perhaps a time of Anarchy, I mean time without government, is due. Belgium seems to function without one OK.

  62. arthur clapham says:

    Ralph asks, why plan B. Because most polititians are incapable of running a free evening in a brewery, or anything else for that matter!

  63. SteveSadlov says:

    I guess we shall see a slowing of new tree farms in Scotland, new windmills in Northumbria, and new money in Kenya.

  64. Laurie Bowen says:

    9EA.BE ERA CARBON OFFSETS 0.19 Stock BER
    9EA.SG ERA CARBON OFFSETS 0.13 Stock STU
    9EA.DE ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd 0.19 Stock GER
    9EA.F ERA CARBON OFFSETS 0.13 Stock FRA
    ESR.V ERA Carbon Offsets Ltd. 0.19 Stock Pollution & Treatment Controls VAN

    http://finance.yahoo.com/lookup/all?s=carbon&t=A&m=ALL&r=3&b=20

    ^DJECXEUA Dow Jones CCX European Carbon I 16.94 Index DJI
    ^DLC1GR Low Carbon 100 Europe Gross Tot 91.52 Index DJI
    ^DLC1GRD Low Carbon 100 Europe Gross Tot 101.10 Index DJI
    ^DLC100 Low Carbon 100 Europe Index 77.20 Index DJI
    ^DLC100D Low Carbon 100 Europe Index (US 85.28 Index DJI
    ^DLC1NR Low Carbon 100 Europe Net Total 89.03 Index DJI
    ^DLC1NRD Low Carbon 100 Europe Net Total 98.34 Index DJI
    ^NOCO2BUS NASDAQ OMX Carbon Benchmark Ind 284.54 Index NAS
    ^NOCO2BEU NASDAQ OMX Carbon Benchmark Ind 299.72 Index NAS
    ^NOCO NASDAQ OMX Carbon Excess Return 286.24 Index NAS
    ^NOCO2EU NASDAQ OMX Carbon Excess Return 301.51 Index NAS
    ^LCTY S&P U.S. Carbon Efficient Index 131.16 Index SNP
    ^LCNY S&P U.S. Carbon Efficient Index 114.36 Index SNP
    ^LCUY S&P U.S. Carbon Efficient Index 125.88 Index SNP
    ^GCEY SGI Global Carbon (EUR) Index,R 75.17 Index SNP
    ^CBIY SGI Global Carbon Index,RTH 76.23 Index SNP
    ^CEIY SGI Orbeo Carbon Credit Index T 975.53 Index SNP
    ^OCCY SGI Orbeo Carbon Credit Index T 118.61 Index SNP
    ^OBCY SGI-Orbeo Carbon Credit (EUR &a 81.06 Index SNP
    UECOP.Z UBS CARBON OPTI PR 108.26 Index ZRH

    http://finance.yahoo.com/lookup/indices?s=carbon&t=I&m=ALL&r=3

    Looking very grim . . . if you can event get a chart up . . . .

  65. Laurie Bowen says:

    That is an even please . . . not event . . .

  66. Brian H says:

    Markets and any tokens of “value” depend on the confidence of the users and participants in their stability and durability. Once that starts to crumble, it can turn into a run, a rout, a collapse. The thinner the market and the fewer the participants, the faster this occurs.

    Don’t blink, or you may miss the final act entirely.

  67. Jeff says:

    Ralph, you’ve answered your own question: Any tax is going to be opposed by big money, but let them think they’re going to get a piece of the action and they will tie their own noose. Just look at the membership lists of these things. They are who’s whos of global energy and finance.

  68. SteveSadlov says:

    Here comes the dastardly AB32 in California:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/energy/detail?entry_id=90243

    Stagflation is here for the long haul.

  69. Jessie says:

    Institute of Public Affairs had a piece on the matter of carbon investment and superannuation.

    ‘…former union official and now superannuation supremo Garry Weaven in yesterday’s Sydney Morning Herald saying people shouldn’t donate to the IPA because…we’re a bit sceptical about climate change…ouch!’

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/invest-to-cut-carbon-emissions-20110531-1femu.html

    source: http://hey.ipa.org.au/2011/06/california-dreamin/
    website: http://www.ipa.org.au/

    SteveSadlov says: June 3, 2011 at 10:26 am
    Why Kenya?

  70. David says:

    DirkH – thanks for the mugshots.
    Hmmm…. I could take quite an interest in EU Maritime matters – their representative looks quite dishy….

  71. Chris Riley says:

    Markets are very accurate predictors of the future. They are generally better than computer models. I once read a study that showed that orange juice futures markets were better predictors of specific freeze events in Florida, even as close as hours before the occurrence of the event.

Comments are closed.