It appears that the carbon offset market is dying in the USA. You may recall the WUWT story from 9/9/09 on the Chicago Climate Exchange trading price dropping to 25 cents per metric ton. See
Market Confidence Low: Carbon Credits now worth 25 cents, were at $7 in 2008
Since then, the price has dropped to 20 cents per metric ton for all Carbon Financial Instruments (CFI) except for the 2010 issues, losing 20% of their value. Trading volume has also dropped to a trickle with only 200 transactions Friday. Here’s the closing data from Friday, 9/18:
Last Friday, 9/11/09 appears to be the day when the current drop started.
It appears there was a big selloff on 9/11, when investors got wind of a major suspension by the UN before it hit the press. On Sept 11th, there were 292,500 transactions (largest in over a month) and the price fell from the previous day closing price of 25 cents:
click for larger imageThe Sunday Times has the story:
The legitimacy of the $100 billion (£60 billion) carbon-trading market has been called into question after the world’s largest auditor of clean-energy projects was suspended by United Nations inspectors.
No wonder carbon offsets are falling to 20 cents a ton. Coal is still much more valuable at 40-50 dollars a ton.
A look at the CCX external advisory board roster is telling. Here’s a partial list below.
=======================
CCX’s Advisory Board was formed to provide the Exchange and its Members with external strategic input from some of the world’s top experts from the environmental, business, academic and policy-making communities.
Honorary Chairman: The Honorable Richard M. Daley, Mayor, City of Chicago
Ed Begley Jr. has been considered an environmental leader in the Hollywood community for many years. He has served as chairman of the Environmental Media Association and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. He still serves on those boards, as well as the Thoreau Institute, the Earth Communications Office, Tree People and Friends of the Earth. Mr. Begley’s work in the environmental community has earned him a number of awards from some of the most prestigious environmental groups in the nation, including the California League of Conservation Voters, the Natural Resources Defense Council, The Coalition for Clean Air, Heal the Bay and the Santa Monica Baykeeper. He currently lives near Los Angeles in a self-sufficient home powered by solar energy.
Ernst Brugger is Founding Partner and Chairman of Brugger Hanser & Partner Ltd. in Switzerland, a business consulting firm with international experience and range. He is also a professor at the University of Zurich, chairman and member of the board of various companies and a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Dr. Brugger serves as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Sustainable Performance Group, an investment and risk management company which invests in pioneering and leading companies which have taken up the cause of sustainable business.
Lucien Bronicki is the chairman of Ormat International, an Israeli company in the field of innovative technology solutions to geothermal power plants, power generation from industrial waste heat, and solar energy projects. Chairman of Ormat since he founded the company in 1965, Bronicki chairs the World Energy Council’s Israeli National Committee, is a member of the Executive Committee of the Weizmann Institute of Science, and member of the board of Ben Gurion University.
Elizabeth Dowdeswell is internationally recognized for her global and highly diverse experience in building consensus and managing change. She advises both public and private sectors on environmental issues worldwide. Ms. Dowdeswell is a former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Before joining UNEP, Ms. Dowdeswell was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada. In that capacity she played a leading role in global efforts to negotiate the treaty on climate change adopted at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. She was Canada’s permanent representative to the World Meteorological Organization, principal delegate to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and Canadian Chair of the Great Lakes Water Quality Board. She is currently President & CEO of NWMO and a Visiting Professor at the University of Toronto. She also serves on the governing and advisory boards of several institutions. Ms. Dowdeswell is the author of numerous publications in both the popular press and professional journals.
Jeffrey E. Garten is former dean of the Yale School of Management. Formerly undersecretary of commerce for international trade in the first Clinton Administration, he also held senior economic posts in the Ford and Carter administrations. From 1979 – 1992, he was a managing director first at Lehman Brothers, where he oversaw the firm’s Asian investment banking activities from Tokyo, and then at the Blackstone Group. Currently a monthly columnist for Business Week, his latest book is “The Mind of the CEO”(2001).”
Donald P. Jacobs is a former Dean of the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University and its Gaylord Freeman Distinguished Professor of Banking. Under his leadership, the Kellogg School has become a leader in the field of business and finance and is consistently ranked as one of the top five business schools in the United States. Dean Jacobs is a former Chairman of the Board of Amtrak (1975-1979) and currently serves on several corporate boards. His work on banking, corporate governance and international finance has been published in many scholarly journals and he holds several honorary degrees and professional awards.
Joseph P. Kennedy II is Chairman and President of Boston-based Citizens Energy Group. Before returning to Citizens Energy, Mr. Kennedy represented the 8th Congressional District of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives for 12 years. Mr. Kennedy founded the non-profit company in 1979 to provide low-cost heating oil to the poor and elderly. Under his leadership, Citizens grew to encompass seven separate companies, including the largest energy conservation firm in the U.S. Mr. Kennedy also advises and serves on the boards of several companies in the energy, telecommunications, and health care industries. Mr. Kennedy is the son of the late U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.
Israel Klabin is the president of the Brazilian Foundation for Sustainable Development, a major Brazilian non-governmental organization devoted to issues of environmental and sustainable development policy. Mr. Klabin is the former chairman of Klabin SA, one of the largest forestry companies in Latin America. He is a former mayor of Rio de Janeiro and was one of the main Brazilian organizers of the United Nations Conference on the Environment (Rio 92). He is also actively involved in several philanthropical activities.
Bill Kurtis has had a distinguished career in broadcasting for over 30 years, as a news anchor in Chicago and later of the national CBS Morning News. He started his own company, Kurtis Productions, when he returned to Chicago in the mid 1980’s and currently hosts shows on the Arts and Entertainment network. Mr. Kurtis is involved in The National Science Explorers Program, Electronic Field Trips and the Electronic Long Distance Learning Network, all aimed at teaching children about science. Mr. Kurtis and his shows have been the recipients of several awards. He serves on the board of directors of organizations devoted to natural history and the environment, including the National Park Foundation, the Nature Conservancy and the Kansas State Historical Society.
Thomas E. Lovejoy is a world-renowned tropical and conservation biologist. Dr. Lovejoy is generally credited with having brought the tropical forest problem to the fore as a public issue, and is one of the main protagonists in the science and conservation of biological diversity. In 1987, he was appointed Assistant Secretary for Environmental and External Affairs for the Smithsonian Institution and is Counselor to the Smithsonian’s Secretary for Biodiversity and Environmental Affairs. Dr. Lovejoy is also Chief Biodiversity Advisor to the President of the World Bank and the Bank’s Lead Specialist for the Environment in Latin America. From 1989 to 1992, he served on the President’s Council of Advisors in Science and Technology (PCAST), and acted as scientific adviser to the Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (1994-97). He was the World Wildlife Fund’s Executive Vice President from 1985 to 1987. Dr. Lovejoy is the author of numerous articles and books.
Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri is the Director-General of The Energy Research Institute (TERI) which does original work and provides support in energy, environment, forestry, biotechnology, and resource conservation to governments, institutions, and corporates worldwide. Dr Pachauri is currently Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCCC), one of the recipients of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize; a Director of the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (a Fortune 500 company); and a Member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan. He has been President (1988) and Chairman (1989*90) of the International Association for Energy Economics and is President of the Asian Energy Institute since 1992. He has been a member of numerous committees and boards, including those of the International Solar Energy Society, World Resources Institute, World Energy Council, and has acted as an Advisor to the Government of India, reporting directly to the Prime Minister. Dr Pachauri has also served as a member of the faculty of several prominent academic and research institutions and has published 22 books and several papers and articles. He was recently awarded the Padma Bhushan, one of India’s highest civilian awards.In July 2001 Dr Pachauri was appointed a member of the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India, which is chaired by the Prime Minister.
Holidays in South America.. meet a young person lsst night who was convinced temperatures in asuncion were much higher so I had to send him this
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=308862180002&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
from the warmistas themselves!
I love it, the Ads By Google for this story is:
Ready For Carbon Trading? Our software can help you to get ready to capitalize on carbon markets.
Ha, ha!
The market is saying Cap and Trade in the US and a Copenhagen agreement are as dead as the proverbial dodo. And let’s hope like the dodo, permanently so.
Also on a more hopeful note, the UN may well have over reached with carbon trading.
To date the UN has largely avoided exposure as the nest of corruption, incompetance and nepotism that it is.
The very large sums of money involved in carbon trading will bring levels of scrutiny and expose all kinds of malfeasance.
Did you know that the United Nations has no laws, and if you are a UN official with diplomatic immunity, nothing you do is illegal anywhere in the world.
Gene Nemetz (11:01:53) :
CCX down. Coal doing well. Oil up, gas over $3.00 a gallon.
Where? In Virginia, I bought at $2.21 / gallon.
Who is it exactly that’s trading these credits? EU countries with US operations? US companies in expectation of a cap and trade system being put in place here? US companies attempting to “green” themselves?
Hi Anthony, this is offtopic but it appears antarctic is still gaining ice. Almost 19 million square km. Is this a maximum record?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/s_plot_daily.html
REPLY: No it does not appear to be a new record this year, but it is above normal. – Anthony
I second the comment from “Douglas DC”. Even though Ed Begley, Jr. is misguided on the whole carbon dioxide thing, he’s the only one of the entertainment crowd that actually walks the walk, and you gotta respect that. He doesn’t just lecture the rest of us on how we don’t deserve to use as much energy as he does. He has solar panels on his house, catches rain water for his garden (actually a pretty good idea when you live in a desert like the Los Angeles area), etc. It’s people like that who push the technology to mature and actually become practical.
I also agree with his comment reported by Mike Lorrey. Untying our energy supply from volatile regions of the world is good policy. Even when I worked in the oil industry, I always thought that oil is too valuable as chemicals to be burning as fuel. The problem is that it’s such a good fuel. Nothing else can compare in terms of energy density and specific energy, ease and safety of storing and handling, and efficiency of procuring and preparing it for use.
I’m in favor of any effort to develop alternate forms of energy and making them safe and practical on an industrial scale. And that can’t happen without early adopters like Ed Begley.
I mentioned back door bills in a previous thread, but here’s a specific example that pertains: H.R.1759 . Partial Quote:
“A BILL
To distribute emission allowances under a domestic cap-and trade
program to facilities in certain domestic energy intensive
industrial sectors and subsectors to prevent an
increase in greenhouse gas emissions by manufacturing
facilities located in countries without commensurate
greenhouse gas regulation, and for other purposes. ”
Full text (pdf ) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h1759ih.txt.pdf .
Waxman-Markey is not the only kid on the block.
No leader?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/science/earth/20nations.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
kmye:
As nearly as I can determine credits are either private or public.
It is private credits that concern us in the US. The credit is a paper that says the issuing company will make a good faith effort to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by a stated amount. You pay them for that effort by purchasing the credit.
The company gets the money and the rest is up to their conscience. They may decide that the best way to reduce CO2 is to pay their CEO a billion dollar bonus.
But hey, they did their best!
As might be expected funds and venture capital have launched most of the credit selling companies.
In contrast, public credits are government mandates. They are widely used abroad and will be coming to the US when Cap-and-Trade legislation is implemented. That will require companies to acquire sufficient credits to offset their emissions.
At least in theory government regulates the number of public credits available and makes sure the process is meaningful.
Both types of credits can be and are traded like stocks.
I hope someone else speaks up. The above is only my vague idea about what is happening.
Here you go, carbon facism:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/carbon-fascism-fined-for-your-emissions.html
Ed Fix (15:29:26) :
You’re absolutely right about fossil fules. Nothing else beats it.
Can you mimic nature’s photosynthesis efficiency with alternatives?
It’s really amazing how much solar energy is stored on Earth.
Let the “Death Games” begin:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/sacrificed-on-altar-of-agw.html
Carbon Neutral….? Nehh
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/enthanol-boondoggle.html
Ed Fix,
I agree with you, and if I read their posts correctly (and I’ve got my target shirt on if I’m wrong) so do most of the posters here. Alternative energy sources including nuclear where technically and economically possible are great ways of moving from single source (for all practical purposes) oil. I can’t think of anyone here who condones waste for waste’s sake. Anthony, as an example drives an electric car around town. Here in Pueblo, Colorado distances to shopping and such are a power of ten or so greater than Sacramento, so the technology isn’t quite able to meet this market – yet.
I think the basic beefs (as I read the posts) are bad science, bad politics and bad economics leaving the taxpayer paying for energy that is still bleeding edge (like wind or solar) and those who point to it without knowing life cycle costs of the technology they trumpet. Aside from the clueless adults out there our children are being brainwashed in school with AGW drivel. Us old guys may have minds like a steel trap, rusted shut, but we know it. Ever try to reason with a child who’s teacher said??? It’s a lose, lose, lose situation.
But, yeah, I can admire someone who walks his talk…and yeah, they are the backbone of improving the technology.
Mike
A reminder:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN1954310520080520
It seems like the Sun may be happy and decided to turn itself back on now that the Carbon Credit market is going down to broke. The Solar Flux is starting to rise and there’s the look of a big honkin spot just around the corner. Either that or its a group of littler spots instead.
It’d be ironic if the carbon market makes it look that way, the price goes down to a penny and we suddenly see Cycle 24 in full force.
Carbon is reaching its actual value: A trace value. The most expected “bubble” has deflated, though many keep blowing in.
Ron, I grew up on a farm in the 50’s. I can guarantee you that heliogenic link is grossly wrong.
We, almost certainly, used MORE Energy to produce that 50 bushels of corn than these farmers used this year to produce over 160 bushels.
Mark (14:16:35) : gas over $3.00 a gallon.—Where? In Virginia, I bought at $2.21 / gallon.
California. Here in the San Francisco Bay Area it’s anywhere from $2.99 to $3.29 for regular.
The price of carbon credits have dropped also in the EU Trading scheme by as much as 25 per cent but it is still approximately $12. However, you could not buy the $0.25 per ton from CCX and sell it at EUTS because the CCX carbon credits is just plain paper and it is not rcognize and it is not registered with the UNFCCC registry. Ouside of the companies voluntarily joining the CCX, the carbon credits has no value. At least the Zimbabwe money has value to countries still recognizing Zimbabwe. The prospect of US officially ratifying the sucessor to the Kyoto Protocol ( used signed the Kyoto Protocol and it has ratified the UNFCCC the permanent agreement of which the Kyoto Protocol is only a timed implementation arrangement of the UNFCCC) is the main cause for the drop in CCX. The Kyoto Protocol has a provision for additionality– i.e. you could not get a credit for reduction done before it is recognize and registered with the UNFCCC.
Ron, I grew up on a farm in the 50’s. I can guarantee you that heliogenic link is grossly wrong.
We, almost certainly, used MORE Energy to produce that 50 bushels of corn than these farmers used this year to produce over 160 bushels.
In the 50’s?
Well, you probably used, maybe, 5-10 gallons of gasoline preparing, raising, and harvesting an acre of corn, and most of it was probably fed on the farm. (That’s just a guess, but I would doubt if I’d be off by more than a factor of 2 so, say 20 gallons per acre top end).
Now, today, I can prepare, plant, harvest, and store a crop with about 4-5 gallons of fuel an acre.
However, I’m using Synthetic chemicals that weren’t available in the 50’s. I’m using 180 lbs of N/acre that wasn’t available in the 50’s, or just starting adoption. About 100 lbs of P and K per acre, same story. So, maybe less energy per bushel, but more energy per acre.
With that old equipment we made many more passes across a field. We, also, deep plowed which many don’t today. Not having the chemicals we had to cultivate, cultivate, and cultivate.
Sure we used nitrogen. Probably, more than you use, today. Same with P, and K.
I wouldn’t be surprised if we didn’t use twice as much energy/acre, (3 times per bushel) if not three times the energy/acre.
Well, I hate to argue this, but, Plowing would have taken maybe, maybe 2-4 gallon/acre depending on what you were using. Disking? mabye 1-2 gallon per acre twice, then mulching, 1 gallon, planting, probably 1/2 gallon, Cultivating? Max about 4 times at max about 1 gallon/acre/trip. Nitrogen use in the 50’s might, might, have been 50 units/acre, few operations put on P or K yet. Only chemical options MIGHT have been 2 4 D or atrazine. But I think Atrazine came later.
O.K.
So, I found one reference that said we use half as much energy per bushel to grow corn now vs the 1950’s. That, I believe. Which, if yields have gone from tripled, means that we are, indeed, using more energy per acre, just more efficiently.