The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Fed up With federal inaction, states act alone on cap-and-trade > Comments

Fed up With federal inaction, states act alone on cap-and-trade : Comments

By Nicholas Cunningham, published 2/10/2014

California has entered into a partnership with the Canadian province of Quebec to link up their carbon markets. It's a small step, but the two have already created the largest carbon market in North America.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
It's not a market for carbon, it's a market for tax receipts.

Notice how intellectual dishonesty is riddled throughout the whole global warming religion?

You are dreaming if you think you're going to fine-tune the climate in that way. All you're going to do is enrich people you had no intention of enriching and impoverishing people you had no intention of impoverishing.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 2 October 2014 9:02:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The world will not agree to 'carbon' pricing. This explains why:

See Submission No 2 to the Senate inquiry into repeal of the carbon tax legislation:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Environment_and_Communications/Clean_Energy_Legislation/Submissions
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 2 October 2014 9:53:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Absolutely agree with JKJ.
That's 2 times in just one week, and a possible new record J.
There's is so much intellectual dishonesty, rorts and rip offs, (already happening) in the 140 billion per potential global carbon market!
Germany wasn't making enough, so they traded in their old nuclear power stations for a few new coal fired ones, so they could make more of it?
That said, there has been a carbon market in Europe for years, and nowhere can any of the "MONEY HUNGRY" advocates find a single example of actual reduced emissions!
What purpose is served is we make carbon the most traded and valuable commodity in the world, if all that is achieved is a hugely expensive global money churn! (The object of the exercise!)
If we were to just focus on economic outcomes alone, we would accept changes to other forms of alternative energy, and only because they're are significantly cheaper than what we have or use now!
And that has to include cheaper than coal thorium, (we have massive reserves of the stuff)!
And why aren't we utilizing methane producing waste; which is currently/mostly sent out to sea, wasting billions of annual tons of increasingly expensive phosphates and nitrates!
Makes perfect sense, (with our farmers going broke) doesn't it!?
And if we are "actually worried" by methane emission, why not collect and use what now is racing skyward; to power and heat our homes and hot water, and for around quarter of what we now shell out. IT'S TOO EASY!
Carbon trading?
Why not settle for endless suits of the Emperor's new clothes, given its the same completely intangible difference!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 2 October 2014 10:07:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The carbon allowances in the RGGI - I believe these are about equivalent to the units sold by the EU - are selling for less than US$5. At one point they were down to US$2 until they reorganised this year..
http://www.rggi.org/docs/Auctions/25/PR090514_Auction25.pdf

The units in the California scheme are selling for much more - $US11.30 about. That is less than half the price at which they started some time last year but still not bad compared to the disasters of the other schemes, or at least so I use to think.. as I understand it the price is actually close to the set minimum so it is operating more as a tax than a trading scheme.

In any case, like all the trading schemes, Californian industry has been given lots of free permits and they would not have used them all yet - so there would be very little effect on industry.

The article should have at least mentioned these problems.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Thursday, 2 October 2014 10:44:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carbon trading schemes predicate that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a fact and humans must do something about it no matter how futile to avoid a specified catastrophe.

I claim that AGW is a paradigm on the way out.

• Defenders of AGW must explain the following: Why no global warming for at least a decade and a half (some claim 18 or 19 years). This in spite of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels.

• Can the defenders advance data on the sensitivity of mean global temperature to CO2 levels? My guess is that the atmospheric system is insensitive to CO2.

• Over the last 150 years dedicated people have conscientiously recorded local temperatures with a variety of instruments and local conditions. Weather stations have moved site but retained same name. Local environments have changed, such as building nearby, buildings, roads or even changing farm crops, etc. The met offices apparently base their historical claims not on raw data, but data homogenised (massaged) by generally unknown methodology.

• Antarctic ice coverage has increased. Is the defenders explanation of this fact believable? They claim it is due to wind and water currents induced by global warming which as remarked above, has paused.

• Lastly it is claimed that the excess heat has gone into the Oceans. How can this be true when accurate Ocean temperature between Latitudes 60S to 60N dates from the inception of the Argo Buoy System introduced about 15 years ago?
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 2 October 2014 1:20:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The intellectual battle is over and science wins again. As even the Wall Street Journal acknowledges, even in the USA, the most denialist country, the biggest determinant of opinion on AGW is age.

See: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/25/politics-counts-the-real-split-on-global-warming/

>>If those young people hold on to those beliefs as they age, it has big implications for the global-warming debate in the coming years. …

That doesn’t mean the Democrat/Republican divide on global warming is going to disappear. …But over time, attitudes amongst all kinds of voters in all kinds of places may move closer together – and closer to Mr. Obama’s position. >>

There are many other polls that in various countries that support this view. The decision makers of tomorrow believe the science. And contrary to popular myth, while most people mellow a bit with age they tend to hang on to their opinions.

Even more important is the rise and rise of renewables. Texas, not usually associated with greenies, got 8% of its electricity from wind last year. It's likely to be 10% this year as more wind farms come on line.

See:

http://www.awea.org/Resources/state.aspx?ItemNumber=5183

Last year across the world about a quarter of new capacity was in the form of renewables – mostly wind and solar. This year looks like being about 30%. Much of the new capacity is in China which, according to Bloomberg, seems to be nearing peak coal.

See:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-21/china-coal-peak-imminent-makes-coal-risky-investment-study.html

>>Chinese demand for coal may peak as soon as this year, hurting a world market already suffering from oversupply and low profits,….

..Investments in coal assets may be hit by falling costs for renewable energies and tighter regulation to combat global warming,...

"...There are a host of signals that Chinese demand for coal is close to peaking which will cause a seismic shift in the market,”...>>

This is all bad news for Australia, a major coal exporter

It's game over. As the old fogeys retire, die or go gaga the next generation has far fewer denialists and much better technology to take on the fossil fuel industry.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Thursday, 2 October 2014 8:38:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy