EU carbon link just more hot air
Greg Combet. Energy prices go up, permit prices go down. Way down. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
ANY business that buys cheap European emissions permits now may find them worthless by the end of the year. Linking emissions trading schemes isn't as easy as the Gillard government makes it out to be.
On Tuesday, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet announced that the government was scrapping the floor price for carbon permits in a post-2015 emissions trading scheme.
The rationale is that it will remove the need for extra complex regulation for Australia's ETS now that it will be linked to Europe's. If the price floor were kept in place it would create a regulatory nightmare for our government as it chased companies to pay the gap between the cost of European permits and the Australian floor price.
With the European Climate Commissioner for Climate Action, Connie Hedegaard, Combet also announced that Australian companies could buy EU permits "starting today". The same doesn't apply to European companies, which won't be able to buy Australian permits for some time.
Combet's clear objective is to get business to forward-purchase permits and make it harder for Tony Abbott to repeal the government's carbon pricing scheme if he is elected to government.
The economic impact of this deal is particularly confusing. The government's carbon price modelling was always flawed.
For example, the Treasury's Strong Growth, Low Pollution modelling assumes nearly two-thirds of Australia's emissions cuts will be achieved by international permits by 2020. Yet the cap will allow only 50 per cent of permits to be sourced offshore. A European linking deal that might halve Australia's carbon price from about $25 to about $12 overnight provides no respite from the great known-unknowns of an ETS's impact, especially for carbon-tax paying businesses.
Ignoring domestic political risks, business should still be very wary of the "benefits" of cheaper European emissions permits.
Europe is playing hardball in international negotiations, making forward-purchased permits potentially worthless.
The Kyoto Protocol specifically stipulates how international permits can be traded and how they can be counted against national emissions targets. But at the end of this year the first commitment period to cut emissions under Kyoto will expire.
Negotiations on if, and how, Kyoto will be extended into a second commitment period, and how international rules over carbon trading will operate beyond this year, are ongoing. Until mid-next week countries are meeting in Bangkok in an attempt to finalise a deal for the future of Kyoto.
December's UN Climate Change conference in Qatar is the definitive deadline to avoid a gap between a first and second commitment period under Kyoto.
Few think a comprehensive Kyoto agreement will be ratified.
Add comment
Before posting a comment, please read the Terms of Service (click here). Long links are shortened but still work.
PLEASE report all spam/inappropriate comments using the 'Report to administrator' link. If you find your post gone, it's because you violated the TOS.
Comments
I think brewski drewski should list the extreme leftist causes he doesn't believe in
It would be the short list
Yeah, like all the people who don't freeze or stave to death. That's basically what Drewski (aka 'The Cool Whip Cowboy') really means when he says 'harm', because the alarmists think people are the problem.
Hey Cool Whip! I have waited for years for you to produce even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
Still the hard core denier of nature, I see.
Gator, I was right about this year's Arctic Ice drop, I was right about July 2012 being in the top 10 warmest years of the historical record, heck, I was even right about petroleum products are in Cool Whip -- you, on the other hand, are never right about anything.
Are you into S&M, because you sure seem to like humiliation?
Yep! Until it is proven otherwise, Chicken Little!
You have failed every time I have asked you to produce even ONE peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our current climate or how we got here, and noone can prove otherwise. Take your sick beliefs elsewhere. You lose this argument as you do every time you come here.
Who is the S&M addict now!
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf
"When the data are adjusted to remove the
estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Ni˜no/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even
more evident as noise is reduced."
iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044025/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044025.pdf
"Patterns of change: whose fingerprint is
seen in global warming?"
These are but a drop in the ocean -- if you are thirsty for knowledge.
Kinda' makes mockery of Cool Whips' it's SIMPLE physics meme.
God, you are like Charlie brown, and I am Lucy. From AR4...
“2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing”
When it comes to understanding climate drivers, 13 out of 16 forcings are listed as ‘low’ to ‘very low’ in 2.9.1 Uncertainties in Radiative Forcing of AR4. We have a basic understanding of only about 20% of IDENTIFIED forcings.
Now, here at CCD, we have a consensus that is nearly 97% sure that you need immediate emergency brain surgery, but don't panic. Based upon my many years of schooling and addiction to documentaries, I have about 20% of the knowledge necessary to perform this surgery, as far as I know.
Ready for anesthesia!
Saw old Ray the other day -- he tells me that he is about to be promoted to head bag boy at the local Safeway.
Say "Goodnight" Grace!
when the exact opposite is happening
stop lying
when will jerks like you
actually submit
scientific method proof of your
fanatic claims
if you would present that
the debate would be over
the fact that you can't
means you are lying
you are trying to push
a political agenda ( left extremism )
in the name of science
What political agenda am I pushing? I push for a scientific agenda with real scientists, peer-reviewed studies and real observations.
Climate Disbadshit likes their science from Caruba (non-scientist), Monckton (non-scientist), Goddard (non-scientist AND a non-person), Morano (non-scientist), Spenser (creationist), OMG'Sullivan (non-scintist, and a non-lawyer), Watts (radio weatherman), Horner (non-scientist), etc., etc., and so on.
sCeptics = So Called Experts Perpetually Talking In Circles
Yes the arctic ice volume is shrinking.
But wait, the 1970s were when Team Drewski equivalents were claiming that we were heading into an iceage based on the vast increases of arctic ice. Your decrease percentage is measured from a huge peak in ice volume. That is alarmism, not science
What mechanism caused the ice to increase up to 1979 at the same time as atmospheric CO2 was also increasing?
You decide what is worse.
We have just had over 27 straight Julys, Marches, Octobers and every other month that has been warmer than their 20th century averages. This is spite of a cooler sun. Check.
When the next El Nino comes and the blocking particulate pollution from Asia is overwhelmed by the increasing levels of CO2, be ready for some shocking heat waves.
My prediction is that 2013 and 2014 will both be in the top 5 hottest years of the historical record. I also predict that there will be a t least one week of the summer by 2016 where there will be less than 1 million km2 of Arctic ice.
Care to make any predictions Robert?
Quote: Complete nonsense. Remove the fraudulent "Adjustments" to the data and see what happens.
This Peer Reviewed Paper further explains the Fraudulent adjustments. www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036307.shtml hockeyschtick.blogspot.ca/2010/06/judithgate-update.html
The Data without Adjustments. jennifermarohasy.com//wp-content/uploads/2009/06/hammer-graph-5-us-temps.jpg
jennifermarohasy.com/2009/06/how-the-us-temperature-record-is-adjusted/
This is exactly why Anthony Watts' latest UHI paper is going to have a big fail beside it in a few months time. (and then all my predictions for 2012 will come true).
PS I also predict that Obama will get another 4 years and Paul Ryan will take up long-distance running.
Why is it that when the Carnival Barker's you call "Climate Scientists" are pinned down in a debate they cannot produce a single shred of empirical evidence to support the "Assertions" they make? Quote: Nothing but fudged data and invalidated models...
So no comrade drewski the "adjusted" data was NOT required to correct errors and inconsistencies. It was required to make the data fit the failed models.
Provide the links supporting your claims. You know, the evidence.
We could care less what your predictions are as you have already established yourself as an ill mannered megalomaniac with the temperament and behavior of a 12 year old.
When you learn to act like an adult let us know, until then your "predictions" are like the rest of your yammering, meaningless.
I predict more and less snow. I predict droughts and floods. I predict heatwaves and colder weather.
There, now I can come back in a year and do the IPCC dance, telling everyone my predictions were correct. But I still cannot disprove nature's hand.
As for 'once in a century', I'm sorry Cool Whip, but they do not mean that literally. And the 1930's were hotter.
I predict you will continue to act as a parrot and never think on your own. I also predict that noone will ever rule out NV in our lifetimes.
Again, I can teach a parrot to do what you do.
Would that mean natural variability has the power to melt a little spot of arctic ice?
Yep, NV melted the mile thick sheet of ice that covered my property as well. No need for warm ocean currents, just lots of sunshine and whatever!
Or are you like the rest of the hippocritical AGW brigade, who tell everyone else to do without whilst jetting around the world from conference to exotic summit . Gas guzzling at the tax payers.
Remind me again how many stretch limos were at the Copenhagen charade?
Paraphrasing Richard Feynman: Regardless of how many experts believe it or how many organizations concur, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong.
The IPCC and many others perceive that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was the primary cause of global warming. Measurements demonstrate that they are wrong.
The average global temperature trend has been flat since 2001. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by CO2 increase but that 25.2% additional CO2 increase had no effect on average global temperature after 2001.
Without human caused global warming there can be no human caused climate change.
2001 0.3473
2002 0.4278
2003 0.4245
2004 0.3641
2005 0.4663
2006 0.3930
2007 0.4030
2008 0.2598
2009 0.4022
2010 0.5298
2011 0.3317
A straight line (trend line) fit to this data has no slope. That means that, for over a decade, average global temperature has not changed. If the average so far in 2012 is included, the slope is down.
Climate Scientists Remain Baffled by Nature
CHESTNUT HILL, MA (Aug. 31, 2012) Viewed as a potential target in the global effort to reduce climate change, atmospheric black carbon particles absorb significantly less sunlight than scientists predicted, raising new questions about the impact of black carbon on atmospheric warming, an international team of researchers, including climate chemists from Boston College, report today in the latest edition of the journal Science.
“The team’s field measurements in California showed the enhancement of absorption was very small – approximately six percent instead of by a factor of two,” said Boston College Professor of Chemistry Paul Davidovits, an authority on airborne particles, known as aerosols. “In one respect, it shows that nature is much more complicated than our initial laboratory experiments and modeling indicated. Now we will try to unravel and understand that complexity.”
Paging Drewski!
PS - I predict Drewski still will not get it, probably why he lost that big promotion to Ray.
And watching Gator and Drewski in full flight butting heads made me pull out he popcorn....
I think Gator is the winner on this one though.
Funnily enough, I've also been looking at long range forecasting using lunar air tides and moon phases ( astrometerology ) . Seems there is some impact by the moon , so surely the sun must have a decent old impact too. As to that pesky man made CO2...well....