Watching the death of the EU Carbon Market

point_carbon_thunk2

The close today at 2.80 rebounded from another record low earlier at 2.46. Over the past two days, the EUA lost 1.92

From the GWPF:

Europe’s New Anti-Green Majority Scores Huge Victory EU Parliament Refuses To Save Its Dying Carbon Market

The European Union’s climate change policy is on the brink of collapse today after MEPs torpedoed Europe’s flagship CO2 emissions trading scheme by voting against a measure to support the price of carbon permits. The price of carbon crashed up to 45 per cent to a record-low €2.63 a metric ton (and later to €2.46 – Anthony), after the European Parliament rejected a proposal to change the EU emissions-trading laws to delay the sale of 900m CO2 permits on the world’s biggest carbon markets. –Bruno Waterfields, The Daily Telegraph, 16 April 2013
Given the manifest reluctance of the world’s big emitters to accept any legally binding carbon targets and in face of our deepening economic crisis, Europe should undertake a comprehensive review of its economically damaging carbon targets and — in the absence of an international agreement — should consider the suspension of all unilateral climate policies that threaten Europe’s economic recovery. –Benny Peiser, National Post,  25 November 2011
“The decision means the end of a European approach to climate policy.” –Felix Matthes, Spiegel Online, 17 April 2013

A vote against backloading will in effect be interpreted as a vote in favour of delay and inaction and be leapt on as supporting evidence by the climate sceptics who oppose any action on climate change on ideological grounds. –-Bryony Worthington, The Guardian, 16 April 2013

The European Union’s flagship program to fight global warming suffered a major blow Tuesday when lawmakers rejected a proposal aimed at shoring up the region’s carbon-emissions trading system, putting its survival in doubt. Germany’s Minister of Economic and Technology Philipp Rösler welcomed the rejection of the backloading plans as an “excellent signal” for an continuing economic recovery. –Sean Carney, The Wall Street Journal, 16 April 2013

The EU has been the global laboratory testing the green agenda to see how it works. Yesterday’s story means that the guinea pig died; the most important piece of green intervention in world history has become an expensive and embarrassing flop.  It’s hard to exaggerate the importance of this for environmentalists everywhere; if the EU can’t make the green agenda work, it’s unlikely that anybody else will give it a try. –Walter Russell Mead, Via Meadia, 16 April 2013

EUROPE’S flagship environmental policy has just been holed below the water line. On April 16th the European Parliament voted by 334 to 315 to reject proposals which (its supporters claimed) were needed to save the emissions-trading system (ETS) from collapse. Carbon prices promptly fell 40%. Some environmentalists fear that the whole edifice of European climate policy could start to crumble. The real question now is whether the scuppering of the ETS will lead to the dismantling of the EU’s climate policies more generally. –The Economist, 16 April 2013

Tory MEPs are planning to defy David Cameron in a tense vote at noon on one of Europe’s flagship climate policies, the emissions trading scheme(ETS). Former Tory environment ministers Tim Yeo and John Gummer intervened on Tuesday, calling for the MEPs to vote in favour of the reforms. Yeo told Guardian partner EurActiv that Margaret Thatcher, who died last week, would have been in favour of the reform because she “favoured market mechanisms” as a way of addressing environmental problems. –Fiona Harvey, The Guardian, 16 April 2013

SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year. --The Australian, 23 November 2011

The unresolved question is policy on climate change. The Prime Minister has not spoken on climate issues since the election. Many Tory MPs share the scepticism of Lord Lawson about the science of global warming. Even more believe that the UK, which accounts for less than 2 per cent of global emissions is already doing enough – at a considerable short term cost to business and voters – while other countries are doing very little. For the moment the UK is sticking to its commitments within the EU, but resisting the idea of even higher target reductions. A open debate about climate change would be divisive (not least within the coalition ) and there is genuine uncertainty about public reactions. The denial of climate change did nothing to help the Republicans in the US. The conclusion for the moment therefore seems to be to let a sleeping dog lie. –Nick Butler, Financial Times, 15 April 2013

==============================================================

Again, as I frequently point out when one of these markets dies, a 20lb bag of charcoal briquettes is worth more than a ton of EU carbon:

Kingsford_Charcoal_briquettes

Readers may recall this from WUWT in 2009, still valid today:

carboncreditcertificate

About these ads

84 thoughts on “Watching the death of the EU Carbon Market

  1. Our Greens here in Germany have completely switched to class warfare rethoric. They have created an EU-wide crisis with their insane policies, now they are out to exploit it. (No it was NEVER about the environment or the climate, what ditcha expect)

  2. “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
    John Maynard Keynes

    Almost to a man, the four main parties in UK politics -Lib Lab Con SNP- all repeat the following mantra with little deviation:

    “Climate change is the greatest threat faced by humanity and the most important political issue of our time.”

    What normally follows is a long list of examples, from ice-cap retreat to coral reefs, species extinction to acid oceans, and capped by an apocalyptic warning that catastrophe is coming lest we mend our ways. So entrenched is this view that no amount of evidence to the contrary seems to dent this facade of certitude.

    The political machine has chosen it’s course, and no amount of contrary evidence will divert it from the ‘prize’ of de-carbonisation. To change one’s opinion is the normal act of rational people when new information is presented, yet in politics, the U-turn is seen as political suicide. The ‘program’ must be adhered to, the manifesto is sacrosanct, even if it means the collective denial of a torrent of new evidence. This seems to me a terrible malaise, this seeming triumph of ‘conviction’ over ‘pragmatism’ in today’s politics.

    My sympathies lie with anyone trying to conduct business in such a perverse climate. Building a business is all about providing benefits and satisfying customers, the reward is some degree of profit for one’s labours. The ideologically driven ‘political meddling’ in the UK energy market has completely lost sight of these pragmatic principles, which have certainly not been lost on either the majority of producers or the consumers themselves.

    Edward Goldsmith wrote about the utopian U-turn in a book called ‘The Great U-turn’ published in 1988, riding the zeitgeist of early Global Warming hysteria. Twenty years later, in 2008, this dream of global collaboration collapsed at the Copenhagen climate conference, otherwise known as COP 15. The pseudoscientific claims of Al Gore et al had already been largely refuted by empirical evidence; yet it was also becoming clear that scientists backing the claims of impending catastrophe had -how shall we put it- been somewhat ‘economical’ with the truth.

    And ever since the Climategate storm broke, the evidence is that pragmatism has returned to politics in almost every nation except the UK, which still persists in the delusion of creating a decarbonised utopia, in-line with what it still perceives to be the prevailing public mood, and in complete disregard of the direction that the rest of the world has now taken, or indeed the narrative that the latest scientific & economic evidence has been describing.

    The immutable mind of the conviction politician has become a dangerous liability: his rigitity in the face of a changing world does not bode well for any of us.

    “Pragmatism is a painfull process of continually correcting errors: ideology is a blissful path of being oblivious to them.”

    “So let’s hear it for pragmatism: for trusting evidence rather than theory; for looking at the specifics of the situation rather than some overarching narrative; for preferring what works to what fits our preconceptions; and for being willing to test our ideas and change direction as is necessary.”

  3. The fact that evidence to the contrary has no effect on green opinions indicates that their position is not based on fact, but on personal emotional need to be ethically superior. If this means they look like fools, so be it.

  4. To me, this is the take home, money quote (literally):

    “SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions, and has warned that the EU’s carbon pricing market is on the verge of a crash next year. –The Australian, 23 November 2011″

  5. I blame the climate. In spite of the overwhelming body of climatologists predicting global warming and backed up by the models, it refuses to change in line with emissions of carbon dioxide. We must stop this denial and discover who’s funding it. I think big oil is paying the globe not to warm. Follow the al gore

  6. It’s almost obscene that the world’s quasi democracies are so stupid as to throw 300 billion
    down a rathole when they could so easily have subsidized the only proven method of reducing carbon and provided enough nuclear power plants to virtually eliminate fossil fuel produced
    power for Europe. The Greens have been the major obstacle to reducing carbon by their
    bizarre and illogical opposition to nuclear energy.

  7. “…a vote in favour of delay and inaction (will) be leapt on as supporting evidence by the climate sceptics who oppose any action on climate change on ideological grounds.” –-Bryony Worthington

    No Bryony, skeptics opposition to climate change is based on scientific grounds, specifically the lack of reproducible empirical data that supports AGW.

  8. Shame it didn’t happen a month ago, burning bundles of certificates could have been cheaper than exorbitant price we have to pay for the heating fuel.

  9. Retroactively, I’ve modeled the failure of the carbon trading market. In my hypothesis, the scheme’s ultimate demise was to coincide with the 17 years of non-warming needed to indicate a recognizable trend in global temperature.

    But wait, once those 17 years have been homogenized, smoothed and run back through a previously non-existing algorithm, it’s probably just a mistake! Anybody want a good deal on some carbon credits???

  10. Hey, what’s a few hundred billion cost when you can turn around and tax financial market trades and carbon impact of air travel to Oz. That whole continent is a shell game.

  11. What’s this: rating comments. I’m all for it.

    On the carbon credits vote; we’re going to see a lot more of these green policy rollbacks. The dam is broken and beyond repair.

  12. “Prices will likely sink below €1 per ton as participants recognize that there is no political will at present to restore the market mechanism to functioning order,”

    From the green “thunk tank” sandbag.org

    These clowns think that intervention by government is how you “restore the market mechanism to functioning order” ? This is why the UK “Tories” who support intervention, are so far left of US Democrats that they would have been cited in the 50s for Un-American Activities. There is no “conservative” party in Europe, except perhaps in Eastern Europe which have been saving Western Europe from even more insane policies.

    One thing that is comforting is that the Greens can never take over. Any excursions into the policy area kills the economy and then they have to be thrown out. Could this be described as a postive feedback?

  13. Gary Pearse says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    “One thing that is comforting is that the Greens can never take over. Any excursions into the policy area kills the economy and then they have to be thrown out. Could this be described as a postive feedback?”

    It is a classic negative feedback. The positive/negative does not ascribe a judgment to the outcome but describes whether the feedback support its cause (positive) or counteracts it (negative).

  14. Untold billions squandered to have not the slightest measurable impact on anything of substance. Truly scandalous. When do the resignations, removable of honours and criminal charges start?

  15. Jimbo suggests Tulips,
    is that specifically due to “Tulipomania” that swept eastern europe in one of the biggest trading bubbles, many year ago, seen in grown commodities, where tulip bulbs were sold for thousands of guilders each and where the problems caused by everyone cashing in on bulb growing then lead to near starvation in some places due to neglect of the other crops and people started eating the bulbs to get by.
    The curve of history is a wonderful shape, and it appears to be repetative.

  16. @DirkH says:
    April 17, 2013 at 10:44 am

    Can you elaborate a bit? You’ve referred before to the German Greens being in significant part a vehicle for communists/leftists. Is this now becoming explicit? How long has this been developing if so? What is the reaction in Germany?

    It seems to me, that outside the Anglosphere, the only country that really counts (both from influence in the EU and previous commitment) in AGW is Germany, so perceptions there are important.

  17. Carbon credits/taxes have been the greatest Ponzi Scheme ever. It has achieved absolutely nothing except to allow some goofy greenies a feeling of self-righteous smugness. However, the economic cost is comparable with any of the greatest crimes against humanity.

    Without carbon credits/taxes, there does not seem to be any reason for the great Global Warming Gravy Train to continue. An end to all those snouts in the trough of bad science is long overdue.

    I had to chuckle when I saw one of the adverts here, it is for Kingsford Original Charcoal Briquets – someone has a sense of humour.

  18. jc says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:48 pm
    “Can you elaborate a bit? You’ve referred before to the German Greens being in significant part a vehicle for communists/leftists. Is this now becoming explicit?”

    Yes of course, since Lehmann / Financial crisis 2008 and the unfolding Euro crisis. There’s a constant propaganda onslaught since that time by our leftist groups and the public media, often also by the ruling “conservatives”, against evil speculators (you know, those billionaires who are responsible for … hmm… causing the Greek bankruptcy by… hmm… buying CDS’s, betting against Greece…. because we all know when you bet against a European state paying its bills you are responsible when said state defaults).

    So the Left (ex PDS, ex SED; communists), the SPD (socialists) and the Greens (watermelons) are fighting for the hard left vote (and transaction taxes); the CDU(“conservatives”) for the left vote(and transaction taxes). All parties try to one up each other regarding the desired punishment for evil tax cheat offshore bank account holders.

    ” How long has this been developing if so? What is the reaction in Germany?”

    Germans are so gung ho about it, a colleague was confused when I told him he was a statist (I used other words, as the word statist does not exist in this meaning in German) – he told me his friends call him a right winger while I was calling him a collectivist (he mindlessly repeated the propaganda I mentioned; he’s a hapless victim of public TV).

    So all Germans basically need a thorough deprogramming; I would suggest strapping them to a comfi chair and force them to watch one week of von Mises institute lectures. Unfortunately they don’t understand spoken English.

    Here and there all our pro-renewable energy and pro-Euro parties (all the parties I mentioned share these attributes and they comprise 95% of the vote) still make a muffled “save the climate” noise but it’s only to appease the last die hard eco voter.

    We also had an upstart protest party, the Pirates – the kids of the Greens whose members are mostly teachers. The Pirates shot up to 10% of the vote, then crashed again. They never defined their economic policy, and stole all of their energy policy from the Greens.

    So this is just an amazing country.

  19. All my German friends esp on FB are middle aged – 40s – and have totally swallowed the CAGW koolaid. They are all very leftist. It seems there’s no media coverage of climate studies from the sceptical pov at all there.

    I find the rating buttons visually tiring btw; and though I’ve ‘liked’ a few comments, don’t think they add anything to the debate (possibly the reverse). They seem to make the page slower too – I don’t usually get the dreaded spinning disc on wuwt!

  20. @ DirkH says:
    April 17, 2013 at 1:03 pm

    Interesting times! It seems at least in Germany that the whole AGW thing is mixed through just about everything. I guess the question is, can it be separated out and dealt with for what it is? Or does it require -and is it simply part of – a wholesale reevaluation of societal structures?

  21. Sam the First says:
    April 17, 2013 at 1:20 pm
    “All my German friends esp on FB are middle aged – 40s – and have totally swallowed the CAGW koolaid. They are all very leftist. It seems there’s no media coverage of climate studies from the sceptical pov at all there.”

    I never tire of explaining the Svensmark theory to them, they never heard of it and also never heard about the long minimum our sun goes into. I leave behind on my various journeys bedazzled warmists who usually get surprised by the following cold winters… as if I were a prophet… and they seek refuge in the soothing utterances of the Potsdam Institute, assuring them that all is well, the cold winter is a consequence of Global Warming. I am under no illusion about my impact…

  22. @ Sam the First says:
    April 17, 2013 at 1:20 pm

    Its probably not something that comes up every 5 minutes, but have you noticed – assuming you’ve been in touch with your German friends in this way for awhile – any change in the way they are thinking about it?

  23. This is the bit that surprised and delighted me (from The Economist):

    “What came as a surprise is the fact that all but four British conservative members of the European Parliament also voted against the plan. In doing so they defied their own government, which has introduced a carbon floor price in Britain that could soon be higher than the European carbon price. And the European Socialists, which had been expected mostly to back the proposals, instead split, with 44 in favour of the plan and 31 against.”

    Sounds like quite a few have woken up. Even better, rather than just making vague noises of discontent, they are actually doing something about it and stepping away.

    This is the best piece of news I have heard all year.

  24. jc says:
    April 17, 2013 at 1:25 pm
    “Interesting times! It seems at least in Germany that the whole AGW thing is mixed through just about everything. I guess the question is, can it be separated out and dealt with for what it is? Or does it require -and is it simply part of – a wholesale reevaluation of societal structures?”

    Yes, it’s the state religion. He who does not believe in God will believe in everything. The Political Religion. What happens when it turns out to be false? When Prophecy Fails (Festinger).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Prophecy_Fails

  25. @ DirkH says:
    April 17, 2013 at 1:31 pm

    Its sometimes hard to know the impact when dealing with fixed ideas. The very act of resistance is an acknowledgement. And when something finally clicks, such people can move surprisingly quickly to a very different view. At least hopefully!

  26. Somebody please tell me Al Gore lost money on this. Please ????

    Another question for WUWT commenters: how is this news playing in Australia and what does it portend for PM Gillard?

  27. Don’t celebrate until the carbon market is actually discontinued: The EU is known for pushing and repushing its agenda – just look at the nonsense that got Ireland into the EU.

  28. DirkH says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:39 pm

    Gary Pearse says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:34 pm
    “One thing that is comforting is that the Greens can never take over. Any excursions into the policy area kills the economy and then they have to be thrown out. Could this be described as a postive feedback?”

    It is a classic negative feedback. The positive/negative does not ascribe a judgment to the outcome but describes whether the feedback support its cause (positive) or counteracts it (negative).

    So you’re saying it’s a negative feedback, but in a positive direction? I’m jiggy with it.

  29. For jc: who, like I, is HOPEFUL the media will turn on the warmists and conservation will not die with AGW. [I'm going to stop putting AGW in caps; it does not warrent the treatment.] I seem to see you’re beginning to agree with me that now the dam has broken the flood will begin to swamp the warmists. I’m eagerly awaiting the first MSM [they don't deserve caps either] story which’ ever so carefully, alleges fraud on the part of the so called climate scientists.

  30. “To change one’s opinion is the normal act of rational people when new information is presented, yet in politics, the U-turn is seen as political suicide. The ‘program’ must be adhered to… .” [TDG, 4/17/13, 10:58]

    Hence, we have the latest edict from the Cult of Enviromentalism: the “Pause.”

  31. I clicked through to enjoy a little Schadenfrikkinfreude at the EU carbon price fall, and came across an article about it in Der Speigel On-Line International, illustrated with this abhorrent photo:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/bild-894842-462914.html

    It looked like someone wanted to make the steam look like brown smoke, so they grabbed a big CONTRAST brush in Photoshop and swiped it over the clouds, leaving a glowing sky and weird color balances.

    Sure enough, here’s the original unaltered DFA photo. The clumsiness of Der Spiegel is breathtaking.

    https://www.focus.de/fotos/braunkohle-tagebau-von-vattenfall_mid_1230552.html

  32. jRe: “Tulipomania” that swept eastern Europe in one of the biggest trading bubbles, many years ago, seen in grown commodities, where tulip bulbs were sold for thousands of guilders each and where the problems caused by everyone cashing in on bulb growing then lead to near starvation in some places due to neglect of the other crops and people started eating the bulbs… .” [jono1066, 4/17/13, 12:41]

    Nice analogy to the ethanol fuel mess.

    Seriously, is that why the Dutch in occupied Holland ate bulbs during WWII when they ran out of food? I always thought it was due to…. HITLER!!! Bwah, ha,ha, ha, ha, haaaaaaaaaaaaa!

    (if this got posted, it is further proof that Anthony Watt has a sense of humor)

  33. Does that mean that the $1000 per ton cost in Ontario Canada is a ‘bad deal’? – No its much worse than that. Corruption to the core. No matter where you are, all green technologies cost hundreds per ton or more.

    Its expensive to lower carbon output from a system that’s already cleaner than almost everyone else. The tragedy occurs for me, as for all people on this planet, in my wallet.

  34. ono1066 says:
    April 17, 2013 at 12:41 pm
    Jimbo suggests Tulips,
    is that specifically due to “Tulipomania” that swept eastern europe in one of the biggest trading bubbles, many year ago
    ====================================================
    Nope. Western Europe, specifically Netherlands back in the 1600s.

  35. Whoops, too slow. Was speaking of :
    vladimpala says:
    April 17, 2013 at 2:55 pm

    I clicked through to enjoy a little Schadenfrikkinfreude at the EU carbon price fall, and came across an article about it in Der Speigel On-Line International, illustrated with this abhorrent photo:

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/bild-894842-462914.html

    It looked like someone wanted to make the steam look like brown smoke, so they grabbed a big CONTRAST brush in Photoshop and swiped it over the clouds, leaving a glowing sky and weird color balances.

    Sure enough, here’s the original unaltered DFA photo. The clumsiness of Der Spiegel is breathtaking.

    https://www.focus.de/fotos/braunkohle-tagebau-von-vattenfall_mid_1230552.html

  36. The Economist comes once again to the rescue.

    Carbon trading
    Below junk status – Apr 16th 2013

    “………..The problem is that even if these measures were agreed upon, they would take years to implement—such is the speed of EU decision-making. And until then, ETS carbon allowances remain below the level of junk bonds.”

    It won’t be long before the Warmist Economist is called a fossil fuel backed [snip] likened to the tobacco lobby.

  37. Sorry, but I don’t like the thumbs-up/down ratings.

    So far I have seen only one overwhelming negative response (@bruckner8). That was to a comment I would simply pass over. I’d have scored it 0/0.

    Isn’t it one of the great virtues of WUWT that it helps people make up their own minds? I think the thumbs may inhibit that.

    Besides, if the trolls don’t come any more, we may lose a lot of fun.

    Just my opinion.

    Neil

  38. I doubt Al Gore lost much money. As a fat cat, he has excellent sources of information, and is able to bail out before the nose dive.

    The problem is, many poorer people do not have the same sources of information, and wind up hurt by these crashes. For example, it is my impression that those in charge of the BBC pension plan invested heavily in “carbon schemes.” Has anyone heard about bad things happening to people who worked for the BBC and planned on a nice pension?

    This becomes a problem for Al Gore, because he winds up looking very much like a confidence trickster. The people who trusted him wound up looking like suckers. And people do not take kindly to that.

    I would not like to be in Al Gore’s shoes. Even if he is a mere figurehead, and there are other sly people hidden behind the scenes raking in millions, it is the figurehead that makes the best scapegoat.

  39. Friends:

    I have often said it before, but nobody has said it in this thread, so will repeat it here.

    Carbon trading is the only market where both the buyer and the seller are payed to lie, so corruption is built in. Therefore, organised crime will take over the market if the market does not collapse first. And – as the resurrected EU carbon trading scheme shows – the only reason it does not collapse first is because politicians refuse to allow it to collapse.

    In the medium to long term the only possible beneficiaries of carbon trading are organised crime. If the mafia had been asked to suggest a system for their benefit then they would probably have suggested carbon trading.

    Richard

  40. Neil says:
    April 17, 2013 at 3:42 pm
    /////////////////////////////////

    Agreed.

    I consider the rating an unnecessary distraction. It adds nothing to the merits of a comment. If a comment is worthy of note, or raises interesting discussion, then someone will inevitable respond to the comment thereby furthering debate.

  41. Perry says:
    April 17, 2013 at 2:20 pm
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Why are British companies being penalised in this way when they could buy Carbon credits on the European market for a fraction of the floor price set by the UK government?

    This additional cost imposed on industry will inevitably be passed onto the consumer hitting them in their pockety, or cause businesses to become uncompetitive forcing them out of business or to relocate abroad to the detriment of the employment market and causing a loss in tax revenues and an increase in the welfare budget. Sheer madness.

    The entire carbon credit/trading scheme is just a con and should be scrapped forthwith.

  42. Merkel must be seething. The Germans known for their methodical thinking and research, allowed a few buffoons, ExcelPhil, TamperHansen and Mannless to sell them some dire catastophe snake oil.

    Now they and the rest of the EU are royally screwed with their alternative energy medicine.

  43. mike says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm
    Merkel must be seething. The Germans known for their methodical thinking and research, allowed a few buffoons, ExcelPhil, TamperHansen and Mannless to sell them some dire catastophe snake oil.

    Now they and the rest of the EU are royally screwed with their alternative energy medicine.

    Thanks, Mike! Major corporations (GE in the USA, Siemens in Germany etc.) were co-conspirators of this push for “green energy.” They thought that, since they controlled key patents & technologies (smart grids, biomass conversion etc.), they would clean up and own the markets when cap & trade schemes became the law of the land.

    Well, I guess that didn’t work out so well for them. Wind is a flop, biomass is so difficult to operate that most are giving up, and the “smart grid” comes off as an exercise in Big Brother industrial control with few tangible benefits.

    I’m old enough to have lived through many of these cycles….”gasahol” in the 1970′s, “hydrogen economy” and fuel cells in the early 2000′s (don’t hear much about that these days, do we?), electric cars, etc. It’s got to make economic sense first, unless the science is overwhelming, and it ain’t. Cheers, Charles the DrPH (p.s. I still miss REP!)

  44. It’s hard to say Charles, maybe history is repeating itself as you say, but I think GE and Siemens would never have got involved without genuinely buying into the climate trinity’s snake oil science.

    There was/is a lot of money to be made in real energy, like nuclear, traditional fossil fuel, elec gen etc. These big companies have spent a lot on R&D into alternative junk energy, that will most likely be now written off, money that could have been spent on bettering research into real energies we have today. Anyway hard lessons are being learned.

  45. Is it perhaps fitting that the Carbon emissions trading scheme should receive a fatal blow on the day of Margaret Thatcher’s funeral? She helped stir up the scare that spawned this monster, not foreseeing the catastrophic consequences of her strategy, and it’s a neat synchronicity that both should effectively be laid to rest on the same day. I’m sure Baroness Thatcher would be pleased. R.I.P.

  46. mike,
    Your conspiracy theory about GE and Siemens is preposterous. Both GE andS iemens have non green generating business of a vast scale. The moment Gree/nenergy/phantsy dies they will simply make money on their normal energy generating businesses.

  47. I don’t like the rating system.

    This “thumbs down” system is equivalent to someone sticking out their tongue and making a rude noise. You can’t learn from that.

    Previously if you disliked a comment you had to explain why — or let it slide. Though you may never convince the author of a comment that he is wrong — these comments are read by others who come to learn. The commentary is vital to their learning process (I know it is vital to my learning process!) and this rating system discourages that.

    In a real sense you are dumbing down the system here. You don’t get your PhD by answering a series of true or false question — instead you write a thesis. You can’t refute someone’s argument just by giving them a “thumbs down”.

    Eugene WR Gallun

  48. I dont like name-calling. And especially I think it has no place in science. I would be funny though, if the “denier” could be transferred so that it from now on will refer to people who deny the “Pause”. That would be hillarious.

  49. stas peterson says:
    April 17, 2013 at 8:30 pm
    mike,
    Your conspiracy theory about GE and Siemens is preposterous. Both GE andS iemens have non green generating business of a vast scale. The moment Gree/nenergy/phantsy dies they will simply make money on their normal energy generating businesses.

    Sorry, don’t blame Mike, blame me!

    I know these companies….they are clients & competitors of mine. Of course, they have vast non-green businesses, but many of these lie fallow. Not many GE nuclear plants being built lately!

    These companies performed very advanced trend analysis early on (as did I, before the Russians ratified Kyoto). They saw vast new markets unfolding, whether the science was correct or not. They straddle both sides of the issue, producing many products for fossil fuel extraction/combustion as well as wind, solar, biomass etc. However, they speak loudly when they speak to politicians, and you can be sure that they were whispering loudly into ears on both sides of the Atlantic.

    This Superbowl ad is one of my all-time favorites, please watch!

  50. Bryony Worthington employs the Green/Left’s characteristic irregular verb:

    “I follow the pure science
    You are driven by ideology
    He is a filthy evil denier.”

    The self-awareness of these people = 0.

  51. mike says:
    April 17, 2013 at 5:11 pm
    “Merkel must be seething. The Germans known for their methodical thinking and research, allowed a few buffoons, ExcelPhil, TamperHansen and Mannless to sell them some dire catastophe snake oil.”

    No; Kyoto was a German-designed treaty specifically designed to squash the competition. CO2AGW was used by German Realpolitik as a power vehicle.

    Look – the UK must now close down coal fired power plants or switch them over to imported wood chips, how ridiculous is that? No German even ever heard of that – we’re so awash in EU carbon credits we give them away when we need to buy allies. (we gave some to France and to Poland)

  52. Someone upthread asked how the carbon dioxide market crash is playing out in Australia (our stupid government has a policy that ties us to the EU market in 2014/5).

    The answer is twofold. Firstly, our internal price of $23 per tonne and rising has been exposed as absurd. What’s more, the proposed integration of the two markets will cost the Budget at least $4bn in the first year, a simple export of taxpayer dollars to Europe for no gain whatsoever. The following years, the costs would be even higher.

    The good news is that there has to be an election this year – currently scheduled for September 15 – and the governing party is polling at around 30%. With Greens and other hangers-on, total support for its policies is around 45% and falling.

    The Opposition has said it will dismantle the scheme. So it is unlikely indeed that the EU will be getting any support for its “market” from us.

    BTW – a vote against the thumbs buttons. They add no value, and make threads longer and slower to navigate. Could we please have numbered posts instead?

  53. I don’t know how many times it was claimed the EU’s carbon trading scheme was working well. Well, if that’s true, there is no need for any special measure to support the price of carbon permits. The European Parliament made the right decision. Markets cannot be manipulated by government. The scheme must be allowed to be subjected to market forces alone. Live and let die!

  54. Anthony:

    This thread seems to be where the ‘thumbs buttons’ are being discussed. So, although off-topic, I provide my opinion.

    I, too, want to be rid of them. In addition to all the reasons others have stated for removing them, I point out that they slow down and corrupt links to comments. This affect on the technical performance of WUWT is a nuisance.

    Richard

  55. In defense/explanation of GE/Siemens; they were correct in forseeing a major crisis coming, but the crisis wasn’t a physical or environmental one, it was a regulatory crisis about to be created by government. As we have seen with wind power, Governments across the world were vowing to massively distort energy markets with various “green schemes”, carbon trading being just one of them. The purpose of that R&D and “green” development was intended to prepare for the new regulatory climate which was possible at the time, and admittedly, the fact that it has fallen apart so quickly has been a surprise even to those of us who opposed it.

    Now they are going to write off the cost of that R&D against the taxes that were going to be due to the governments which were responsible, so what goes around is coming around again.

  56. Mervyn says:
    April 18, 2013 at 4:08 am
    “Markets cannot be manipulated by government. The scheme must be allowed to be subjected to market forces alone. Live and let die!”

    It is not a free market to start with. In a free market, the supply is price sensitive. In this political construct, the supply is price insensitive, therefore the demand alone dictates the price, and as demand is smaller than (fixed) supply, the marginal price is zero, and that’s where it’s going.

  57. Don’t dance on the grave of the carbon market just yet – Connie Hedagaard, the EU’s Environment minister, intends to return the proposal to the environment committee for ‘further consideration’..
    That’s EUspeak for: ‘We’ll keep sticking this proposal under your noses until you vote the right way, you B*ST*RDS…!’
    Much along the lines of the way the Irish were blackmailed into voting for the Lisbon ‘Treaty’…

  58. mike said:
    April 17, 2013 at 6:05 pm

    There was/is a lot of money to be made in real energy, like nuclear, traditional fossil fuel, elec gen etc. These big companies have spent a lot on R&D into alternative junk energy, that will most likely be now written off, money that could have been spent on bettering research into real energies we have today. Anyway hard lessons are being learned.

    Somehow I suspect the companies spent very little of their own money on green initiatives – they know where the grants and the tax credits are.

  59. wws says:
    April 18, 2013 at 5:53 am
    In defense/explanation of GE/Siemens; they were correct in forseeing a major crisis coming, but the crisis wasn’t a physical or environmental one, it was a regulatory crisis about to be created by government. As we have seen with wind power, Governments across the world were vowing to massively distort energy markets with various “green schemes”, carbon trading being just one of them. The purpose of that R&D and “green” development was intended to prepare for the new regulatory climate which was possible at the time, and admittedly, the fact that it has fallen apart so quickly has been a surprise even to those of us who opposed it.

    Now they are going to write off the cost of that R&D against the taxes that were going to be due to the governments which were responsible, so what goes around is coming around again.

    Well said! However, don’t discount the “forcing” (pun intended) that they knowingly exerted upon decision-makers. Their core competency is the production, delivery and management of energy…regardless of its form. I think they saw a vast new market for wind, biogas and other renewables and helped the market along with savvy lobbying and marketing.

    I don’t think much of these mega-corporations….they are not often good corporate citizens, and like banks, have become “too big to fail.” I also find them very stupid, slow-moving and selfish, like the dinosaurs they’ve become. However, like dinosaurs, they make the earth tremble when they walk, and the politicians quake with fear. These guys sucked all the air out of the room for government subsidies & financing.

  60. One of the problems of a democracy & a civilized society is that malfeasance by political types carries indemnity. They are allowed to make mistakes. They and their friends can keep the money. An uncritical media may still lionize them and assist in not only rehabilitation but sequential fleecing of a gullible and distant taxpaying public. We need to bring back tar and feathers: there is a difference between bad judgement and bad faith.

  61. richardscourtney says:
    April 18, 2013 at 4:09 am
    Anthony:
    This thread seems to be where the ‘thumbs buttons’ are being discussed. So, although off-topic, I provide my opinion.
    I, too, want to be rid of them. In addition to all the reasons others have stated for removing them, I point out that they slow down and corrupt links to comments. This affect on the technical performance of WUWT is a nuisance. Richard

    I agree.

  62. @ rilfeld says:
    April 18, 2013 at 8:13 am

    Mistakes will occur within anyones ambit. Incompetence in politicians leading to numerous mistakes with an amplified effect are a systemic and societal problem and responsibility.
    Where that process of selection of people fit for this has been corrupted, that exists a an issue in itself.

    The issue of direct personal culpability arises when any one individual is dishonest in appraisal or response to conditions that arise and then require, or don’t, implementation. They betray their duty, either as specified in a particular responsibility, or as an honest citizen within the whole, or both.

    This is the issue with AGW. Not just for politicians, but for some “scientists”, media, and those associated with interested parties in this.

    The immunity you speak of is, in the contemporary Western World, taken by the participants as being a reliable condition. It is not however. History shows that in a time of significant fracturing between those who influence, or seek to gain influence to implement controls detrimental to a society as a whole on the basis that it is of advantage to them, this immunity fails. There is an Accounting.

    This division is becoming more apparent – to all – on a monthly basis. It is general in nature, but AGW makes up a significant and highly visible part of that. It is not just happening in Europe and the US, it is happening in China, India and other places: it affects the whole world.

    This is the path the world is now inoxerably set on. How it plays out is highly uncertain. But one thing is unavoidable: there will be many who have assumed that their positioning makes them safe who will be wrong.

    The existence of AGW as public policy is not a mistake. It is deliberate in intent and dishonest at base.

  63. richard verney says:
    April 17, 2013 at 4:46 pm

    The UK system is a TAX not a credit based scheme. The wonderful thing about that, (for the gubmint,) is that they then stick VAT on top of that & guess who pays…

    Pensioners like me is who!

    Barstewards!

    DirkH is right. Germany designed Kyoto for their own benefit.
    After re-unification, all they had to do was follow the path they were already going to, ie shut down inefficient East German plant and replace with new, to conform to the treaty.

    DaveE.

  64. SWISS banking giant UBS says the European Union’s emissions trading scheme has cost the continent’s consumers $287 billion for “almost zero impact” on cutting carbon emissions,…

    The greedy politicians and the sanctimonious believers in AGW have forgotten the fundamentals of the human experience! Using a dollars worth of carbon briquettes and a handful of hardwood chips to grill a 1.75 inch thick T-bone Steak to medium rare perfection represents a greater value to consumers, regardless of what continent you are on! And those aromatic carbon emissions from your grill will have your family running for the dinner table, in salivary anticipation of gastronomic delights! Yum!
    Grilled Food: It’s what’s for supper!
    MtK

  65. Ben D. says:
    April 18, 2013 at 5:13 pm

    Carbon bubble will plunge the world into another financial crisis – report

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/19/carbon-bubble-financial-crash-crisis

    Trillions of dollars at risk as stock markets inflate value of fossil fuels that may have to remain buried forever, experts warn

    I see Lord Stern has not recovered from stupid

    China, India and Germany are all going to fossil fuels and Australia and Canada are happily supplying them. I would agree that Stern is in a carbon bubble – but it is one of his own manufacture.

  66. Rhoda R @ April 17, 2013 at 2:02 pm has it correct this vampire isn’t dead until the stake is driven through its heart. There is too much money and political power involved to just let it die.

    When at first you don’t Succeed, Try Try again
    From Yesterday:

    Clumsy voting clouds EU Parliament CO2 backloading ballot

    LONDON, April 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A second vote by EU Parliament on the future of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) could be even tighter than the first after lawmakers admitted they accidentally voted the wrong way in Tuesday’s ballot, which rejected an emergency plan to prop up carbon prices.

    Estonia backs ETS fix, Spain says undecided
    LONDON, April 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Estonia became the sixteenth EU nation to support an EU Commission plan to prop up carbon prices by cutting supply on Thursday, while Spain said it has not yet decided.

    The Baltic nation declared its support at a Brussels meeting of all 27 member state officials, a spokeswoman for the government’s Brussels office confirmed by email.

    Meanwhile, Spain’s lack of an official position appears to contradict comments by Federico Ramos, the country’s secretary of state for environment, who in December told Bloomberg News that the country was in favour of the so-called ‘backloading’ plan.

    A total 16 countries support the measure, while Poland, Greece and Cyprus have said they oppose it.

    The plan requires 255 votes in favour to gain approval in the European Council of Ministers….

    Spain yet to decide on backloading: official
    18 Apr 2013 18:37
    LONDON, April 18 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Spain is yet to decide whether it supports a plan to rescue the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) by cutting supply, an official said Thursday, five months after the nation’s climate minister told reporters it would back the measure.

    Today:

    UPDATE 1-EU govts to sell record volume of CO2 units next wk

    LONDON, April 19 (Reuters Point Carbon) – European governments will sell a record 24.6 million EU emissions permits next week, data compiled by Reuters Point Carbon showed, heaping further pressure on carbon prices that on Wednesday hit record lows.

    (Is this proof they do not have the foggiest understanding of economics and supply and demand?)

  67. You can get rid of the thumbs by using a script blocker such as NoScript (for Firefox, may work on other platforms) and blocking polldaddy.com and poll.fm. WUWT pages then load at their old speed.

  68. “Carbon tax” / “Carbon trading” is a smoke screen for merely charging for a use of the air as one not overburden with theories but the common-sense hands-on engineering had written already (for instance, 1.Submission on Carbon Tax to the Australian Government 2.Modern Epoch Air Trading: a Will for Triumph and a string of other Web-publications).

    It looks aka these-days-implementation of pre-Dark-Ages feudals’ dreaming of ripping off ill-educated (if at all) peasants much more.

Comments are closed.