Sluggish German economy forces EU carbon to record low
17 Jan 2013 17:26 Last updated: 17 Jan 2013 21:32
LONDON, Jan 17 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon prices hit a fresh record low on Thursday as poor economic data from Germany and relatively healthy supply of coal continued to force European power and coal prices lower.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2142679
In related news, California says they aren’t going to get involved in Australia’s carbon Market via any price linkages:
California downplays possibility of Australia CO2 market link
17 Jan 2013 00:33 Last updated: 17 Jan 2013 00:33
DAVIS, CALIFORNIA, Jan 16 (Reuters Point Carbon) – California officials said they have no plans to sign any agreement with Australia linking their carbon markets down the road, despite interest on the part of Australian officials to expand its coming emissions trading system.
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2141217
==============================================================
It looks like the EU Carbon price is following the trend of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) before it flatlined and folded.
Since the EU carbon price has been in free fall for awhile now, it is just a matter of time.
Related articles
- EU Carbon May Decline to Record as Glut Expands: Energy Markets – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
- EU Carbon Market Disclosure Draws Fire as Permit Prices Slump – Bloomberg (bloomberg.com)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Which one will hit the wall first, the Euro Carbon market or Obama’s deficit funding?
But how can this be?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443779404577643592149738280.html
“Carbon Trading Heating Up
With California on Track to Implement Cap-Trade Laws, the Market Gets Active
By KATY BURNE and CASSANDRA SWEET
After a series of false starts, the market for trading carbon-emission credits is showing new signs of life in California.”
in Australia our carbon price is controled by our left wing Gov,t at $23 a ton the water melon heads (greens) would like to see it at $50 a ton god bless them the CSIRO and ABC are still continuing with the FRAUD http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-16/humans-to-feel-heat-of-warmer-future/4466276
Richard, some of us are of the opinion that carbon trading was designed, organised and implemented by criminals. The criminally stupid cheered them on.
I wish I could be overjoyed about this but I’ve been reading more and more that one of Obama’s agendas for his second term is to tackle, yep, ‘climate change’.
The thought just struck me that, had the CAGW meme fully taken hold with the public, that carbon taxes would have been the first taxes in history to enjoy popular support. No small wonder then that the politicians remain loath to simply call off the charade. The prospect of a popular tax is simply not something they can bring themselves to walk away from.
Again, I will note: think about it; it doesn’t matter whether global warming is true or not.
If enough countries commit to the idea, the carbon trade market will be off and running.
This is the motivation behind the united nations effort for “principles of responsible investing.”
http://www.unpri.org/
Go to that web page. See that they have “signatories.” Those are the various countries who have committed to steer toward green investment in various fashions. Espeically public employee retirement funds.
Yes, the same racket as organized crime has exploited.
Why would a country commit to green investing?
First because they desperately need invetment fund growth to fulfill retirement obligations.
Second: the deal is this: sign on even if you don’t believe, and help us get the rest of the fools to sign on – because then , either way, there will be money in it all – and the sooner you get in the better.
If your country goes solar, then invests in solar, it is less money than if you invest in solar then go solar. Get in on the ground floor.
So, it has been in each countries’ best interest to fake belief in the global warming and sign the statutes that look like momentum is building – so the next country down the continent will sign on – knowing all the time that this is a con game.
This con has not yet hit critical mass. Once it does, the global warming cultists will be home-free. Temps will not rise. So, continued green investments will be required to carry the illusion that the interventions are working so that the return on pension investments is stable and growing.
These types of incentives are why you have seen the various small nations become advocates. Do you think anyone in the govt of these countries can read MBH98 and figure out whether the principal components analysis was done decently or not? Do you think they saw the waters rise to their homes? No. And No.
For Bernie Madoff, money was made by making wealthy people think he was “the man” and to invest with him before the rest of the wealthy invested with him. That is why he was rubbing elbows, etc. Get in on the ground floor beflore the envetual herd comes trampling.
Rhoda R said:
January 17, 2013 at 2:04 pm
If Gov Moonbeam isn’t lying…
——————————————
That is a very, very, very big IF…
very
Carbon trading is organised crime IMNHO.
Even the UK’s ultra die-in-the-wool green & warmist supporting broadsheet has reported the collapse in the Global carbon trading system.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/10/global-carbon-trading-system
but, don’t hold your breath because in the UK the Climate Change Act 2008 ensures that the UK it is full steam ahead (No pun intended) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 34% by 2020 and at least 80% by 2050. Both these targets are set against a 1990 baseline.
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspx
http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/emissions/carbon_budgets/carbon_budgets.aspx
so our knucklehead Government(s) (started by Labour and supported by the Coalition) has set the UK on the path of economic and industrial ruination.
Billy says:
January 17, 2013 at 4:00 pm
“clipe says:
January 17, 2013 at 1:33 pm
“The relative price of coal and gas is crucial to the health of European utilities. At the beginning of November 2012, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a research firm, power utilities in Germany were set, on average, to lose €11.70 when they burned gas to make a megawatt of electricity, but to earn €14.22 per MW when they burned coal.”
———————————————
A MW is not a unit of energy. Your comment is meaningless drivel. Study physics enough to have a basic understanding of power and energy. Then you will be able to form a thought on the subject.
Sorry about being so frank, but you need to wake up.”
Billy, why so angry? Are you a Carbon credit trader?
A little googling could have told you that the confusion of the units already happened at a journalists desk and is now spreading via copy & paste across the economics newspapers.
Example.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance
And clipe was just citing them.
A simple mistake by a journalist in a hurry. Read MWh for MW and it makes perfect sense.
I would laugh but it would be an dark and sarcastic humour, because we all know who actually pays the ‘ferryman’ – you and me.
davidmhoffer:
At January 17, 2013 at 7:51 pm you say
Oh! That thought “struck me” decades ago.
There are three basic reasons why politicians have pushed AGW.
Firstly, governments need to raise taxes and people don’t like to pay taxes. So, governments seek a tax which people want to pay, and in the UK there is one (i.e. the National Lottery). Failing finding a tax that people want to pay, then governments seek a tax people will not object to paying. And who could object to paying a tax to save the planet for our children and grandchildren?
Secondly, almost all national economies gain economic competitiveness if all countries are economically constrained in proportion to their economic activity. Constraint of GHG emissions – notably CO2 – provides such constraint. The net result is that
(a) total economic activity reduces
but
(b) all except the richest countries gain economic activity and, thus, wealth.
Hence, such constraint (e.g. Kyoto Protocol) acts like handicapping in a horserace: everyone slows down but most competitors gain relative to the most powerful. This transfer of economic activity has happened to some degree with resulting acceleration to economic development in e.g. China.
Thirdly, the poorest countries want aid and technology transfer to reduce their poverty. So-called ‘climate reparations’ demand that the richest countries ‘compensate’ the poorest countries for the emissions from (i.e. the success of) the richest countries.
Richard
THE fundamental problem with these artificial markets is that the folks who buy the ‘product’ are largely one of two camps.
1) Folks who must have them, so once bought, are done. An electric utility, for example.
2) Folks who need one now (having a going concern) but able to leave. Those folks have a large incentive to buy now (think ‘car maker’) so they can operate while relocating. Once production is moved to, for example, China or Brazil, they then sell their useless ‘credits’.
Basically, after the initial sales, there are few ongoing buyers, and excess sellers as folks pack up and leave. Inevitably, prices will crash. The only way to hold prices up is to have growing demand (that doesn’t happen in high cost areas…)
At most, ‘carbon credits’ can hold the status quo of immobile industries and drive out mobile ones. At worst, it pays them to leave via granting ‘credits’ that are best unloaded fast to fund the relocation.
As per “Governor Moonbeam Brown” and lying. No, sadly, he is not lying. He really believes the stuff he says.
Near where I live is a major interstate bypass freeway. About 3 lanes each way. As newly elected governor (the first time in the ’70s) he sold the right of way where the freeway was to be built. Homes were built instead. For about 2 decades I had to deal with “traffic from hell” until a replacement governor bought the right of way back, had the homes destroyed (as folks built on it) and built the freeway. Similarly, a major overpass between two freeways had ‘flying ramps’ about 60 foot in the air built, but the approaches not done yet. That, too, was stopped. For a decade or two that sat. Chunks of freeway high in the air, unable to be reached…
He was sure we didn’t need more freeways and that folks would abandon their cars for mass transit if we just stopped building…
Now, as voters said NO! to a ‘peripheral canal’ to take Sacramento water past the bay-delta to Los Angeles, he is pushing to put it into a tunnel underground (at some ungodly $Billions). What about the salt water intrusion into the Bay delta and damage to fish runs from putting the Sacramento into a pipe to L.A.? Silence….
He is simply clueless and believes that his fantasies have merit. A high speed train to nowhere, a river in a hole in the ground, huge tax-the-rich expecting business to flock here, etc. etc.
IMHO he doesn’t even know there is an Australian carbon market and only some underling was involved in saying “nope”. That most likely reflexive as they think California needs to ‘lead’ with ever more outlandish boondoggles, not get involved with other folks…
So “Tax beatings will continue until business morale improves” and we will be ‘dreaming big’ while not doing anything practical…. Watch for a large hole in the ground to be bought with $Billions of Credit Card starting soon… to swallow a river. EPA assessment? What assessment? We don’t need no steeenking assessment! This is a democrat project, after all…
http://www.kcra.com/news/politics/Calif-federal-officials-reveal-water-tunnel-plan/-/11797268/15697464/-/g5iibh/-/index.html
But hey, what’s $24 Billion for a hole in the ground and destruction of our major river? We’re doing it to save the planet…
Though exactly how putting a natural river into a hole in the ground fixes “climate change” and what it will do to stop earthquakes is beyond me. Of course, he might have meant ‘healthy delta’ and ‘water supply’ as ‘both of them’. Which leaves open the question of how removing a natural river from the delta makes it more healthy…
We really would be much better off if he was just lying…
but he lives in his own ‘special’ world…
In related news:
The head of Germany’s environment agency (a government institution) demands that farmers buy “Climate certificates” to compensate for methane emissions from cows:
http://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article112850373/Bauern-sollen-Klimazertifikat-fuer-Kuhstaelle-kaufen.html
Carbon trading can be equated to the world’s oldest profession:
You sell it, but you still have it, so you sell it again, but you still have it, so you sell it again………..
Time passes and it becomes progressively less attractive, so you sell it for less. Eventually, it becomes so unattractive you can’t sell it at all.
The buyer has bought nothing useful, so there is no economic benefit. The seller has produced nothing beneficial, so there is no economic benefit.
Not surprisingly, only organised crime, government and Ecoloons are the major supporters of the lunacy of carbon trading.
The power price isn’t going down for me. I’m buying a couple of stoves with heat exchangers. Reuters smokes funny stuff.
Carbon credit drive down the price of coal as compared to oil and natural gas. This makes coal more attractive for export to countries that are not subject to carbon credits, where the coal will be burned as a substitute for oil and gas.
Carbon credits might affect CO2 is there was no cheating and every country was onboard. However, as we can see in Australia, the effect of the carbon credits is to make power generation more expensive for the Australians and cheaper for the Chinese. This will drive down the price of manufacturing in China and increase the cost of manufacturing in Australia, which will result in a transfer of industry and jobs from Australia to China.
With less money and less industry the Austrians will have less demand for electricity, which will reduce their CO2 production. At the same time the Chinese with more money and more industry will increase their CO2 production with the now lower cost Australian coal. The CO2 from China will then be carried by the wind back to Australia.
Win win for China, lose lose for Australia,
I sometimes wonder how these scam markets ever got going.
ferd berple:
re your post at January 18, 2013 at 4:05 am
Yes, that is one purpose of such schemes. Please see my post at January 18, 2013 at 12:50 am which addresses taxes, but its second point also encompasses carbon trading.
Richard
Lawrie Ayres says: January 17, 2013 at 4:39 pm
We pay $23 Australian per tonne for our carbon emissions and the gov are to increase it each year by $6.
_______________________________
Why not buy Chicago credits a 1 cent each? Or Euro credits at €4 each? Surely if they think Global Warming is a world problem, then it does not matter where you buy the credits from. That would undermine the Aus carbon trading scheme in a trice.
.
Peter Miller says: January 18, 2013 at 2:00 am
Carbon trading can be equated to the world’s oldest profession:
You sell it, but you still have it, so you sell it again, but you still have it, so you sell it again………..
Time passes and it becomes progressively less attractive, so you sell it for less. Eventually, it becomes so unattractive you can’t sell it at all.
_____________________________________
Pfffff. That conjured up a rather undesirable vision, which I cannot now put out of my mind. I swear I will never touch a used Carbon Credit again…….
.
“Green Socialism: Germany May Nationalise Power Grid”
http://www.thegwpf.org/green-socialism-germany-nationalise-power-grid/
So let me get this straight, in the EU carbon is selling for $6 a ton but in Australia they have pegged it at $23?
What is wrong with Australians, why do they put up with this?
Carbon tax trading is just another scam like that big energy trading firm that caused blackouts in CA and went bankrupt years ago. The name is on the tip of my tongue but can not remember it. They wiped out many investors retirement funds.