Market Confidence Low: Carbon Credits now worth 25 cents, were at $7 in 2008

E.M.Smith (15:38:38) :
BTW, as of about 1960 (something… 4? 6?) even our money is a ‘virtual product’. It is “fiat money” and has no intrinsic worth. That pretty paper in your pocket is worth what someone else believes it is worth, nothing more.
Not often given the opportunity to correct you, I must jump at the chance ;~P :
The Bretton Woods System, enacted in 1946 created a system of fixed exchange rates that allowed governments to sell their gold to the United States treasury at the price of $35/ounce. “The Bretton Woods system ended on August 15, 1971, when President Richard Nixon ended trading of gold at the fixed price of $35/ounce. At that point for the first time in history, formal links between the major world currencies and real commodities were severed”. The gold standard has not been used in any major economy since that time.

Philip_B (10:03:58) :
When you call it a tax you are telling it as it is, when you tax the consumer directly and not hide it behind smoke and mirrors
Cap and Trade and Carbon Credits are a form of rationing. Like food was rationed in WWII.
The reason emissions permits (carbon credits) are being given to electricity generators for example is twofold.
One is that, if the credits were sold by auction (the best way to establish a price) it would make the cause of the rise in people’s electricity bills etc, transparent and they would correctly blame cap and trade.
The other is the idea that at the start everyone gets an allocation equal to their current emissions and as their allocation (credits) declines over time, those that are more efficient at reducing CO2 emissions would make money by selling their surplus credits to those who aren’t more efficient. Thus providing a financial incentive to become more ‘carbon’ efficient.
To a degree this is sound economics. The problem is that the major CO2 emitters, such as coal powered electricity generators, have a limited ability to reduce CO2 emissions. What will happen as the allocations are reduced over time, is the price of carbon credits rises rapidly and reduces end user demand through higher retail prices for products requiring ‘carbon’ inputs, ie everything.
So the required reduction in emissions is achieved through increased efficiencies and decreased demand due to higher prices.
Cap and Trade has the same result as a tax, higher prices (and increased efficiencies), without the benefits of a tax, transparency and efficiency of collection. The worst aspect of Cap and trade is the croneyism and corruption it will result in.
——————————————————
Yeah, that sounds like a plan. Let’s do that. Or not.
Economically, while it may seem sound, just doesn’t work in the real world. or starters, allocation: no one has the right to ‘allocate’ to me what *I* need to live.
Secondly, driving efficiency: almost all energy consuming devices are pretty efficient today. There is no room for any significant increase in efficiency, especially since any increase has an exponential cost associated with it.
Thirdly, such allocation ‘schemes’ (with a negative growth, designed to push the users in a specific direction) punish those who actually live their lives responsibly, and those who are unable to meet an ever increasing ‘tax’, while those who can afford it, can continue to afford it. Any ‘credit’ given to those who cannot afford it simply degrades the system to a transfer of wealth.
Fourthly: demand for energy will never decrease for a given standard of living. In fact, paradoxically, as energy efficiency *does* increase (e.g. buying a more fuel efficient car, an ‘energy star’ refrigerator or obnoxious compact fluorescent bulbs) this gives people an opportunity to expand their consumption in other areas, increasing their standard of living – a prime motivator of mankind.
Fifthly: any efficiency gains can be made today, without any kind of ‘scheme’. If the ‘majority’ of people want the government to do something about global worming, the net result being that they have to (for example) replace their water heater, light bulbs, AC unit and turn the thermostat up to 78, why is this ‘majority’ not doing this now?
Having said that, I can think of over at least half a dozen ways to motivate people into becoming more efficient with their energy consumption, without any additional government involvement.

OceanTwo (10:56:50) : All what you say is economics’ logic. That’s nice but it is not how things work in the real world.
Many years ago several countries in south america established a tax on fuels. It makes us pay, right now, more than US$4.50 per US gallon of 97/98 octane gasoline, but consumption never decreased but increased.
In the SA case the reason backing this tax was to get money for financing all things currently needed (education, health, etc.) and we all are used to it.
However it seems that your Cap &Trade schemes and those of Europe have another purpose. We can see what were the effects of these measures in Europe since green policies began: Manufacture and jobs have migrated to Asia and southeast Asia. Perhaps some of the motivations behind those illuminated minds is to achieve a levelling of the economic conditions between the once developed world and the now emerging economies.
However I think that as former revolutions or changes were the consequence of climate changes -see Timo Niroma’s ( and Sun’s)
http://personal.inet.fi/tiede/tilmari/sunspot5.html#some200
so the changes we are and will be witnessing will turn the screw perhaps on the contrary sense nowadays’ conspirers have thought. That would be very interesting to witness!

wattsupwiththat (14:27:07) :
Actually I think there is money to be made here. Buy up $20 worth. In a few years the certificates will be a novelty and would probably have saleability on Ebay for $5 each, especially if they were nicely engraved.

Actually you most definitely should not purchase these unless you know what you are doing! These are FUTURES contracts, and they are not at all like stocks and bonds. In any case, there typically is no certificate. Normally you get the product delivered to you (i.e. 5,000 bushels of corn) or you offset the purchase later on by selling the same number of contracts. If you are going short, you are expected to supply and deliver the product, or else offset the sale by buying the same number of contracts. I have no idea how they handle “delivery” of 100 metric tons of CO2!
Besides, the fees will eat up any hope of profits. It is $250 to set up an account, and $5 per contract for each side of the trade. Trading a hundred contracts will be $1250 in fees for $2500 of the commodity. It’s a wonder that they have any volume at all. The price has to practically double to make any money, and it is almost impossible to make money by selling short when the price is so low. IMHO, the exchange is the only one making money here. Does anyone feel like investigating who owns the exchange?

Tom in Texas (13:30:16) :
“Does anyone feel like investigating who owns the exchange?”
According to their web site “Who we are”, the only names I recognize are:
Director: Maurice Strong (1 of 9)
External Advisory Board: Dr. Pachauri (1 of many)
Thanks Tom,
I hope they go bankrupt ASAP and land in jail for “fraud” and “betrayal of humanity”.
In the mean time the French President, also a con artist, is threatening to introduce carbon taxes on imports.
Obama has made similar threats in past.
Such taxes (paid by the consumer) could have a devastating effect on the economy and the International Trade.
There is also a serious threat that such solo actions from individual countries could derail a Global Climate Agreement (which I don’t mind at all).
This news comes at the moment the European Union is in a row about a 15 trillion Euro budget to prevent and mitigate the effects of carbon pollution, droughts and other extreme weather events in Third World Countries (Spread the Wealth until the economy crashes and Medieval Times return).
Yes people, it’s hard to wake up to the reality that our respected establishment is nothing more but a bunch of crooks in a suite.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a5fb6084-9e32-11de-b0aa-00144feabdc0.html

Philip_B (10:03:58) :
“The worst aspect of Cap and trade is the croneyism and corruption it will result in”.
Philip_B,
It’s cronyism and corruption that started it.