Newsbytes from The Global Warming Policy Foundation
EU carbon prices have slumped 15% in one week, as a slew of bearish news took its toll on the markets. “It’s just been carnage these last few days,” said a trader at an investment bank in London. “There has been a huge amount of liquidation from funds, banks and utilities.” Mark Lewis, a Paris-based analyst at Deutsche Bank, said he does not expect emissions in the ETS to ever return to their 2008 levels of 2.12 billion tCO2e. —Christopher Cundy, Environmental Finance, 24 June 2011
Last week, Greece started auctioning their EUAs (European Union Allowances). They need the money, and probably other countries will follow, including Portugal. But they were not that lucky! Of the 1 million permits, only 6000 EUA were sold. The reason: nobody is buying… —Eco Treatas, 25 June 2011
Just as the federal government prepares to announce details of its carbon pricing regime in the next week or two, the European emissions trading scheme is lurching through another crisis. Or should that be crises? The European carbon price has plunged dramatically in the past month. –Giles Parkinson, Climate Spectator, 27 June 2011
China is holding up a multi-billion euro aircraft order, placed with Airbus by Hong Kong Airlines, in protest at European Union plans to extend carbon dioxide emissions trading to air traffic, a German newspaper reported. —Reuters, 24 June 2011
Opposition is ratcheting up over Europe’s unilateral imposition of its emissions trading scheme to cover international airlines from next year, as the spectre of retaliatory action moves closer to the surface. —Flight Global News, 24 June 2011
Last Thursday (June 23rd) in a mini-plenary session in Brussels, the European parliament was due to vote on a proposal to increase the EU’s 2020 emissions reduction target from 20% to 30%. The Guardian built up a story of a huge row between Prime Minister David Cameron and his MEPs. Downing Street enforcers were going to beat up on us. But it didn’t look like that from our end. There were a few amicable conversations with London in which each side understood the other’s position. –Roger Helmer, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 24 June 2011
Just when you think our Government’s obsession with wind power could reach no further heights of absurdity, we learn that it now plans for us all to shovel billions of pounds into the pockets of the Irish wind industry. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 26 June 2011
BRITAIN will have to abandon its carbon emission reduction targets if the public continues to resist higher bills, according to the chief executive of the British Gas owner, Centrica. Mr Laidlaw warned in his speech that Britain was “rapidly approaching a tipping point” and there was a risk society was being unrealistic about the scale and cost of the energy challenge. Without wider acceptance of higher bills, Mr Laidlaw suggested that carbon emission targets would have to be ditched. —Tim Webb, The Times, 24 June 2011
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Since when did you do that on this thread? All we’ve seen on this thread by you is a lame attempt to argue the “Green Agenda” is not folding.
Maybe that’s what mkelly was referring to?
there is no such thing as a moderate republican… Liberal light is still a mental disorder… and it is worse than being an admitted lib.. a RINO is one we weed out because they can not be trusted to think clearly. as you clearly demonstrated here with the attempt to prop up the green agenda..
there is a big difference of being a good steward of the planet and its resources than crying foul when there are no facts that clearly warrant the AGW chicken little screams.. at some point the people figure out it isn’t happening and they ignore you.. as is now happening in both Europe… and the US now….
i just wish we could get back to an open and honest scientific discussion and leave the grant whores at home… agenda driven garbage is NOT SCIENCE…
Charlie Crist considered himself to be a moderate republican.
The nail in the coffin for AGW wont be scienice, it will be when all the carbon markets die, than there is no reason to fund the AGW machine and it will crumble down around them
John M says @ur momisugly June 27, 2011 at 4:34 pm “Since when did you do that on this thread? ”
As a rule I try not to do that since it is a losing proposition, but then again I don’t disbelief the science either.
It is still a bogus title…
Hmmm. Appropriate comment. Good circular argument.
Moderate Republican says:
June 27, 2011 at 8:04 pm
It is still a bogus title…
There was a knock on the door yesterday: “How do you read your gas meter”, asked my next door neighbour “I can’t get the cabinet open”. A few seconds later I had located the key and opened the cabinet.
Just an everyday occurrence in Lenzie … two neighbours meeting. What is new, is that she just couldn’t understand why her gas bill was so high. A 20% hike in prices on top of numerous other smaller hikes as well as increasing electricity prices are definitely beginning to bite.
And the politicians know that these bag fulls of complaints they are receiving is just the first wave of complaints. They know they have already signed legislation which will hike up energy prices and dump that money to a few very rich profiteers who have been the ones telling the politicians that they needed to take global warming seriously.
Here in Australia, Gillard is still pushing the “carbon” tax on people, even though most Australians have indicated this is not the way forward. Gillard is to spend AU$12mil to “sell” the tax to people who Gillard and Labor consider plebs. But Gillard is selling bribes too. Pensioners and low income earners will be protected by a 120% finanicial “buffer” to assist with price increases. So, Gillard, let me get this straight, only “rich” people will pay the tax to save the planet from climate change? Do I have that right?
A politico friend of mine in Canberra reckons she’ll lose her job fairly soon. And it looks like she may lose that job sooner than anyone reckons as the latest polls suggest Tony Abbott, leader of the opposition party, is the prefered PM.
I am 100% liberal and 100% CO2-GW sceptic.
“Hydro-electric energy (today) and geothermal sources (soon) are perfectly plausible renewable energy sources, promising to be reliable and cheap. The public backlash against renewables today is directed against wind and solar, which produce energy far above market prices, leaving the public to pay the difference”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/28/eco_investment_worries/
Moderate Republican says:
June 27, 2011 at 3:53 pm
mkelly says @ur momisugly June 27, 2011 at 1:55 pm “I don’t think you’re are moderate or republican.”
Since when is arguing with physics a litmus test of if someone a moderate or a republican?
I have not seen you argue the physics of AGW here. I or any number of others would be willing to have an open debate with you on AGW if you like.
State your case. Take you lumps and BZ’s like the rest of us. Things walking in the middle of the road never end up well in the end.
Gee, now they can add to the cost of wind power and the higher electric bills the tab for $30 billion for back up generators for when the wind fails. They recognize that the wind does not blow, among other times, in the dead of winter in the middle of a high pressure system.
mkelly says: June 28, 2011 at 6:34 am
“I have not seen you argue the physics of AGW here. I or any number of others would be willing to have an open debate with you on AGW if you like.”
There is no debate when one side is supported by science and the other side by false graphs, assumptions, and refuted by the climate.
AGW’s whole stand is based on two false graphs, the unfounded, indefensible assumption that all natural climate factors and cycles have been canceled by a small increase in a trace gas, and computer climate models (which are NOT science).
The CO2 hockeystick graph is false, blending, dishonestly, data from two vastly different sources and placing indirect data as more accurate than direct data. CO2 has been higher than now during three periods of the last 200 years, most recently in the 1940s, during which temperatures began to crash. CO2 cannot maintain warming let alone cause it.
The temperature hockeystick is false as the unadulterated data shows that the Medieval Warm Period and the 1930s were both warmer than recently. Only by performing bad science and altering data can they pretend the recent warming was higher.
Their assumption that all natural factors and the Sun have been overwhelmed by CO2 is simply groundless, but convenient as that only leaves CO2 on the table.
The computer models have failed miserably, particularly as they lack so many major factors, cannot model some important aspects, do not include the real relationships (they use analog approximations), lack horribly in resolution (the Rockies look like low foothills), and drastically overblow CO2’s thermodynamics and water vapor’s role (it is actually part of a huge global heat engine, called the water cycle, which carries heat to altitude; CO2 and water vapor interfere with each other, rather than augment – all basic thermodynamics).
The AGW crowd all agree that the upper troposphere MUST warm more then the lower in order for the lower to be warming. Not only has it been shown clearly that this has not happened (the AGWers are baffled why it cannot be found – “It must be there somewhere!”). Millions of readings, nothing—in fact it has cooled a bit instead.
As we have not warmed since 1995 (had an El Nino peak in 1998), started cooling gently in 2002, and actively cooling in 2006, the AGW crowd has to make more and more wild claims to try to panic the public. Two ocean cycles flipped to cooling in 2006 right on schedule and the Sun appears to be doing a good imitation of a Dalton or even a Maunder Minimum, two of the coldest parts of the LIttle Ice Age when the Sun went quiet for 2 or 3 cycles and the cosmic wind moved in, created clouds, and caused serious cooling.
So, where is the debate? A debate can only be had when there are two opinions or stands which each have some merit. Other than being the excuse for pushing a rather evil, ill intentioned political agenda, AGW has no stand. Sorry.
North Europe has a Plan B for the EURO, don’t spoil it!
Most counties around the north sea never joined the Euro.
Why not found the old sucsecfull Hanse tradae block again. Togethe with Netherlands, UK , Norway GER & Scandinavia etc we rere far more stable and successful then the Renaissance guys.
Yes, we loose 30% on the EURO exit, but we know what we got:
Real Friends & future of Northern Europe.
Probably Profit withe a strong new currency.
Take your loss. Europe was never one.
No one united EUrope last thousand years and that is it’s strength. Greece is for holidays and you should pay there with holiday fake drachma. Greek people will have a bright future as one big holiday resort with holiday currency. How they manage, the market will judge. Please be what you are and want to be.
It is reasonable th ask for a moment where to say STOP. At this moment no one tells. That is alone reason enough to leave the Euro. North Europe has a Plan B, don’t spoil it! If you do not have a serious plan, you cannot negotiate. The north has a plan B and it is even better off. This is the end of the EU. North Knows!
They expect to add on a CO2 charge to folks flying IN to Europe from abroad and they do NOT think that folks will just fly to Rio or Cancun instead?
Lets walk through this.
I have a vacation budget. I’m picking where to fly. I hit the booking engine at the consolidator of my choice and find:
Rio: $900
Cancun: $500
London: $1200 + $100 “Carbon Tax” + $50 “Euro Fee”.
Let’s see… Decisions decisions…
(Or I could just visit Disney World… just booked a ticket SJC to MCO – Orlando- for $120 one way. From California. I’ll come back after they finally launch the shuttle, whenever they launch it… I’ll be spending some time in The Parks as well. Oh, and on the beach… in the sun… and warm… and away from our June WInter in California… )