The news from Reuters Point Carbon today is not good:
Germany unlikely to form CO2 backloading position before Sept: Ireland
22 Apr 2013 11:22 Last updated: 22 Apr 2013 13:03
DUBLIN/LONDON, April 22 (Reuters) – Germany will unlikely vote for or against an EU emergency plan to prop up carbon prices before the nation’s federal election on Sept 22, Ireland’s Environment Minister and chair of EU talks on the matter Phil Hogan said Monday, raising the prospect attempts to fix the EU’s carbon market could drag on.
==========================================================
EU carbon sinks below 3 euros as record supply looms
22 Apr 2013 18:11
LONDON, April 22 (Reuters Point Carbon) – EU carbon allowances dropped more than 10 percent to below 3 euros on Monday as traders braced for record supply from government auctions this week.
===========================================================
Two men jailed for running $9 mln UK carbon credit scam
22 Apr 2013 12:45
LONDON, April 22 (Reuters Point Carbon) – A London court has jailed two men for operating a carbon credit boiler room scam that defrauded hundreds of British investors of $9 million to fund lavish lifestyles in Spain, City of London Police said on Friday, concluding a three-year trans-Atlantic investigation.
============================================================
Source: http://www.pointcarbon.com/
Darn. I haven’t taken a bath on something like this since I invested in those Unicorn dream futures.
Why are British investors buying EU carbon credits with dollars?
In the meanwhile Crazyfornia is trying to sell carbon credits through it’s CARB program. Already there are reports of fraud in the early implementation of the program, Since the Chicago Carbon Exchange has already died from trying to sell nearly worthless carbon credits and the EU Carbon Exchange is mired in fraud and corruption, rots of ruck CARB for trying to find any one willing to buy Crazyfornia’s carbon credits set at around $10 per ton. http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/02/19/working-the-kinks-out-of-californias-carbon-market/
This is the bitter end for cap and trade on a global scale… with only 15% of CO2 emitters required by international law to do anything, it wasn’t working anyway.
Mike McM
For the same reason they’re reported by the British press to be investing with pounds, it’s the currency of the journal’s target audience.
The whole cap and trade system was designed by Enron and BP and Shell in the expectation of making money on something that had no eceonomic value and merely imposed added costs on ordinary folk. It was, has been, is and will be nothing but a Ponzi scheme – and its inventors should be punished accordingly. Of course, since governments are co-conspirators, this poses the challenge of ousting the officials responsible for the scam and bringing them to justice.
If I buy a Ton of Carbon at $10 a ton do they deliver it?
What you are seeing here is classic Kings new clothes , as soon as the whole carbon scam is put to bed the better for all of us!
We might actually for the first time ever get a Euroskeptic party in the September elections into the Bundestag, the newly founded AfD. All seven previously existing parties are Eurocrat parties. And the new AfD just got 19% in a poll …
I actually wish I still had my Pet Rock. I suppose it’s not a scam if you’re in on the joke and go along anyway.
In California our politicians are dedicated to taking whatever does not work anywhere else and making it a California practice. The more cap and trade fails, the more they want California to be a part of it.
I though the CARB scheme was to force businesses to buy the carbon credits.
This morning’s Department of Water Resources California Water News has an article about California and Quebec carbon merger:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-capitol-business-beat-20130422,0,1672943.story
[begin quote]
By Marc Lifsher, Los Angeles Times
April 22, 2013
SACRAMENTO — California’s air quality officials soon may be adding a new phrase to their bureaucratic vocabulary: “le rechauffement climatique.”
That’s French for global warming.
The California Air Resources Board on Friday linked its program for cutting greenhouse gas emissions and curbing climate change with one in the French-speaking, Canadian province of Quebec. The merger starts Jan. 1.
[end quote]
What about jailing those who set up the carbon trading schemes? It’s is all a scam afterall.
Just goes to show you that for a while anyway, you really can sell “hot air”.
With Germany realising CO2 is not going the melt biosphere and investing heavily in coal powered generation, it’s hard to see them having any interest in propping up “carbon” markets even after the election.
Per original article – “raising the prospect attempts to fix the EU’s carbon market could drag on” – now: –
Is that to fix
Or to fix . . .
In English English, at least, ‘to fix’ has at least two distinct meanings.
To fix – to repair [as of a car or a clock, perhaps]
To fix – to ensure the outcome of a nominally for-chance event is as you [or your oppressors] would wish [as of a football match, a horse race, an election, etc.]
So –
“attempts to fix the EU’s carbon market ” – may we great unwashed inquire which definition of ‘fix’ is implied?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm???!??
Auto
What an irony that Thomson Reuters Point Carbon, specifically purchased by the green group to prop up their green investments, has to report the slow death of carbon credits… Sir Crispin might not leave the Cotswold anymore…
Germany will unlikely vote for or against an EU emergency plan to prop up carbon prices before the nation’s federal election on Sept 22
———————————-
So, what’s Germany going to do?
cn
I don’t know how to parse this:
Does this mean a vote of any kind will not take place before Sept 22, but will happen sometime after that? If so, does this mean anything other than the current government does not want to go on record either way before elections? The translation of that is whatever they plan to do, they don’t want people to know about it.
I’m not at all sure what this might mean in terms of a policy shift.
Some insight from German residents please?
le rechauffement climatique.”
That’s French for global warming
————————————–
I’m not up on French.
Which word is global and which word is warming?
The closest I can get is the reshuffling climate.
Whatever that means?
cn
Don says:
April 22, 2013 at 1:18 pm
Just goes to show you that for a while anyway, you really can sell “hot air”.
—————————————————
Don, we’re not buying the air. We don’t get to keep the air.
We pay the government bureaucrats extortion money because they allow us to exist in their world…..but because they decided you and I are scum and real dirty we have to pay more.
Plus we get to give all the flora on earth some extra food.
Now there’s a real scam.
How did we get on the wrong side of this deal?
cn
One of the claimed benefits of a carbon trading system is that environmentalists can step-in and buy the tickets, ensuring the CO2 (or equivalent) is never emitted.
The low EU Allowance price is a golden opportunity to purchase thousands or millions of tickets and stuff them under the floorboards for good. There couldn’t be a better chance for green activists to put their money where their mouth is.
Big Green has immense resources at its disposal. Think of the publicity for removing CO2 equivalent to thousands of car journeys, or emissions from those “factories of death”.
Big Green, where are you?
“EU carbon sinks below 3 euros”— CO2 sequestrationists relax—this is not a CO2 sink—-it is a money sink
Climate change.
How many carbon markets are there?
auto says: “In English English, at least, ‘to fix’ has at least two distinct meanings.
To fix – to repair [as of a car or a clock, perhaps]
To fix – to ensure the outcome of a nominally for-chance event is as you [or your oppressors] would wish [as of a football match, a horse race, an election, etc.]
So – “attempts to fix the EU’s carbon market ” – may we great unwashed inquire which definition of ‘fix’ is implied?
I’d hope that it’s neither of the above, but: 9. To spay or castrate.
Germany will unlikely vote for or against an EU emergency plan to prop up carbon prices before the nation’s federal election on Sept 22 …
——–
Im not German but after paying 180 billion Euros to delay fake global warming by 45 minutes (Solar / Wind).. Its best to keep any future green investment under wraps until after the election..
Its not like its a important issue.. right.
Chuck Nolan says:
April 22, 2013 at 2:36 pm
le rechauffement climatique.”
That’s French for global warming
————————————–
I’m not up on French.
Which word is global and which word is warming?
The closest I can get is the reshuffling climate.
Whatever that means?
Rechauffement = reheating
Climatique = climatic.
French like English has words with many different meanings and because there are fewer words in the French language there are more words with multiple meanings.
azleader says: “… with only 15% of CO2 emitters required by international law to do anything, it wasn’t working anyway.”
Azleader, that is not technically correct. International law ended the Kyoto commitment on the 31st December 2012. There was legally no way to continue it, as no suitable amendment was made available by the deadline date. So according to international law, there is no current commitment to anything.
However, there was a vote at Doha on text which cannot technically be valid under the Kyoto Protocol. This was an extra-Kyoto “agreement”. It is about as valid as a person agreeing to take speeding points for another. It is an agreement, but it was outside international law because the vote was against all the rules and regulations of the Kyoto treaty, which required the text of the amendment to be made available
This may sound a pedantic point – but the whole point about law is that, is that it informs people what they can and cannot do. Therefore when the date for an amendment passed in Oct 2012. it was quite reasonable for everyone to behave ACCORDING TO INTERNATIONAL LAW and e.g. stop investing on the basis that the treaty had ceased functioning.
But no, they decided at the last minute to pass a resolution stating the treaty was continuing. In other words they passed an illegal resolution.
This has huge ramifications because now not only can ignore the time limits etc., saying it will all continue, but equally they could just as easily turn around tomorrow and say “it’s all up … we are stopping it today”. This is an investor’s nightmare. You simply cannot invest money under Kyoto without a severe risk of it all being changed as a last minute thought when they meet again.
Indeed, they may even suddenly decide (realise) it was all illegal anyway and call the whole thing off.
All we do know is that we are in the “no mans land” of international law. The current commitments are neither legally enforceable, nor can they be entirely ignored.
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
April 22, 2013 at 2:31 pm
“Does this mean a vote of any kind will not take place before Sept 22, but will happen sometime after that? If so, does this mean anything other than the current government does not want to go on record either way before elections? The translation of that is whatever they plan to do, they don’t want people to know about it.
I’m not at all sure what this might mean in terms of a policy shift.
Some insight from German residents please?”
The established parties are all Green parties; all gung ho on taking as much money as possible from the population under the pretense of saving the planet, and will act accordingly AFTER the election; at the moment, any announcement BEFORE the election that more money is required would be disastrous for the announcing party, so the seven established parties dare not utter a word; a kind of Mikado.
The new AfD is under no such constraint; therefore Der Spiegel and other media do their very best to smear them as right wing extremists.
The EU’s ETS is a market-based mechanism. If it needs propping up, it is anything but a market-based mechanism. The idea of an EU emergency plan to prop up carbon prices is as repulsive as a similar suggestion to prop up company share prices on a stock exchange.
It was called the “carbon-trading shell game” …
http://harpers.org/archive/2010/02/conning-the-climate
” … the carbon market is based on the [unverifiable] lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no one. … “
“Fix the EU carbon market ” seems to be the operative phrase. Is a “fixed” market truly a market?
It a fixed market a true market?
Maybe not, but if you fix a market properly, it can’t reproduce itself.