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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

At least one utility is "feeling the heat". This from Reuters:

>E.ON's conventional coal and gas power plants have been hit hard, in part because of a massive surge in renewable energy generation in Europe which industry experts say was ignored by German utilities for too long.

The group's board member in charge of renewables told Reuters green energy was now growing as a source of profits for the utility, but that it needed help from investors for large wind power projects as its own investments were being cut to tackle its 29.7 billion euros ($39.2 billion) of debt.>>

See: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/26/e-on-renewables-idUKL5N0QW1D420140826

This story from NYTimes illustrates the "normalisation" of solar:

>>One recent day, under a brilliant California sun, saws buzzed as workers put the finishing touches on spacious new homes. …Lennar Corporation was putting solar panels on every house it built.

The prices of the panels have plunged 70 percent in the past five years. That huge decline means solar power is starting to make more economic sense, …

At about 100 Lennar subdivisions in California, buyers who move into a new home automatically get solar panels on the roof. Lennar, the nation’s second-largest homebuilder, recently decided to expand that policy to several more states, starting with Colorado. The company typically retains ownership of the panels and signs 20-year deals to sell homeowners the power from their own roofs, at a 20 percent discount from the local utility’s prices. >>

See: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/science/earth/sun-and-wind-alter-german-landscape-leaving-utilities-behind.html?_r=1

(The price of solar has dropped 99% since the 1980s)

Another development has been better grids that can carry electricity over longer distances. One day wind power from Texas may light homes in New York.

There've also been dramatic advances in energy storage technology. I would say we're about a decade away from being able to store electricity on an industrial scale. When that happens it really is the end for fossil fuels.

One example. Using ultracapacitors the cost of storage is about $20,000/KWH. Fifteen years ago it was about $2 mn / KWH. If it gets down to < $1,000 KWH we're in business!

Stevenlmeyer as I understand your argument the test of a scientific hypothesis is public opinion and the decisions of business men.

The late Michael Crichton in his novel the “State of Fear” illustrated the fallacy of your argument by reference to Eugenic Theory popular with one and all from about the last decades of the nineteenth century to the end of World War II.

Eugenics was the accepted paradigm by worldwide by medical and scientific societies, politicians, artists and writers, grant giving bodies without exception. Painfully came the revelation that the quasi religion of Eugenics was not only sheer nonsense, but was also the cause of much evil.

>>Stevenlmeyer as I understand your argument the test of a scientific hypothesis is ... the decisions of business men.>>

You understand wrong.

Among scientists the reality of AGW has been a given for many years based on a growing body of evidence. The evidence taken as a whole, without cherry picking, is now so overwhelming that it is reasonable to label as deniers those who refuse to accept it.

Yes there are some "dissenters" but there always are. There are scientists who deny evolution or that HIV causes AIDS.

>>Eugenics was the accepted paradigm by worldwide by medical and scientific societies, politicians,…>>

But the evidence wasn't there to support their theories.

In the case of AGW we have an overwhelming and GROWING body of evidence. In fact in the last decade our understanding of AGW has undergone a revolution.

Nothing in science is ever completely settled. It's possible that new evidence will provide an alternative explanation to the phenomena we observe. But there're now an awful lot of phenomena and I would say it's highly unlikely.

You want to know what the evidence is?

It's readily accessible to anyone who genuinely wants to learn as opposed to people who just want to pick up talking points from websites like "wattsupwiththat". So if you're really interested go for it.

I was only trying to make two points:

--Science has won the intellectual battle. More and more decision makers - especially younger ones – believe the science. There's no point in wasting energy arguing with deniers.

--The technology of renewables has advanced with incredible speed. I'm a technology optimist and even I never expected prices to fall this rapidly. If at the beginning of this century you had told me that in 2013 one quarter of all new electrical energy generating capacity coming online would be in the form of renewables or that Texas would be getting 10% of its electricity from wind or that China would be installing more wind than nuclear I would have called you a dreamer.

BTW I prefer to get my science from scientists rather than novelists.

'morning sevenlmeyer,

There is a tragic aspect to the desperation of warmers as they keep hurling the proverbial dead cat at the pavement in order to get some bounce.

So you like to get your science from scientists? Like the head of the IPCC, Rachender Pashauri, who is a former railway engineer and writer of soft porn books? Or the Script you follow from the IPCC's Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) that does not have a single scientist of any description on the panel?

Your science is so good that it killed off the Kyoto Protocol in December 2012, there are now only 11 signatories out of the original 119, the world is awash with cheap fossil fuels and not one of the major emitters even bothered to turn up for the latest round of talks. Absent were China, Russia, Australia, Japan, Canada, Germany and India.

Yet, just like Spanky Moon, there is a dreamlike quality to your expectations that this time in Paris, the Lazarus of Kyoto will rise again?

As you say, CAGW is indeed an intellectual argument, that is why people like you killed it off. The rational world will be grateful for your contributions, many thanks.

LOL

Hi Spindoc, what part of

>>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.>>

and

>>Science has won the intellectual battle. More and more decision makers - especially younger ones – believe the science. THERE'S NO POINT IN WASTING ENERGY ARGUING WITH DENIERS.>>

The deniers are mainly a bunch of old fogeys. As they retire, die or go gaga their places will be taken by people who – guess what? – believe the scientists.

But just a point of order:

You wrote:

>> this time in Paris, the Lazarus of Kyoto will rise again?>>

No sane person expects anything of the sort. The politicians and members of the climate celebrity circuit like that old fool Flannery may be fixated on climate treaties. The old fogey climate deniers may take pleasure in seeing negotiations collapse. But the rest of the world has moved on.

What's important is action on the ground. Cars and appliances are becoming more energy efficient. Thanks to advances in technology that seemed unimaginable at the beginning of this century renewables are now a growing part of the energy mix even in emerging economies such as China and India. It's this rather than treaties that are important.

It won't be a smooth process. As renewables grow the price of coal will fall making coal fired power cheaper again for a while. And I think some fossil fuels will always be part of the mix. But the curve is bending.

You may be interested in this from National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)

NIST Test House Exceeds Goal; Ends Year with Energy to Spare

http://www.nist.gov/el/nzertf/index.cfm

Local networks of houses like this with some local energy storage capacity may enable whole neighbourhoods to go off the grid.

As ever technology changes everything. Only a few old fogeys don't get that.

Have a great day :)

Two further points:

About terminology.

I've used the word "denier" to describe climate "sceptics" so-called.

For a long time I hesitated because the word "denier" is inevitably linked to "Holocaust denier" and climate deniers are not in the same class. Mostly these days they're a bunch of older people whose time is past or soon will be.

But what do you call people who deny scientific evidence? There are evolution deniers, vaccination deniers and AGW deniers. Sometimes a denier is just a denier. It need have nothing to do with the Holocaust.

Implications for Australia.

Australia is the world's largest iron ore exporter. In 2013 iron ore exports generated $69 bn, about as much as coal, education and natural gas combined. Overall it accounted for 22% of export revenues.

By August 2014 the spot price of iron ore to China had fallen to $93 / ton. Still well above trend but down 50% from its peak of $187 at the beginning of 2011.

Coal, Australia's second biggest export revenue generator peaked at $125/ton in early 2012 and had fallen $74 / ton by the second half of 2014.

As the RBA concedes Australia's terms of trade are deteriorating. At its peak 50 tons of iron ore paid for a car import. Now it’s a 100 tons.

There are many reasons for the decline but here are two than make me believe prices for these two commodities won't recover any time soon.

The first is the trend towards lighter cars. Not necessarily smaller cars or less luxuriant cars but less massive cars. Since the motor industry is a large consumer of iron even a small cuts have a big impact on price.

The second is the growth of renewables and gas in electricity generation which is causing demand for coal to increase at a much slower pace than was expected.

So Australia needs to find other ways of paying its way. I'll leave it at that.

I doubt our politicians even understand the problem.

Good article by Nicholas Cunningham.

Great reposte to a spindoctor by Steven.

'morning stevenlmeyer,

I take your point that it's all the fault of politicians, deniers and old folks. I'm not sure that your "young has naive" defence holds much water, especially since you think your problems will be solved when they finally trot of the planet?

It might save your double posts full of rhetoric if you could just focus on the real issues for a moment? Could I respectfully suggest that you direct your science to the IPCC and ask them to get their message over to the politicians at the UN, that way you won't need to bag out old folks and deniers.

Let's face it, if your science is so good, accurate, complete and compelling you should have no problems in convincing the people who invented it!