COPENHAGEN (MarketWatch) -- The value of the global carbon trading market could rise from roughly $118 billion in 2008 to nearly $2 trillion by 2020, although it currently remains frozen in the headlights pending safe passage of U.S. emissions trading legislation. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/carbon-trading-awaits-us-adoption-before-takeoff-2009-12-07)
Wonder if my company's 401k plan will offer a mutual fund option.
Quote from: Drjones on December 07, 2009, 08:28:33 AM
COPENHAGEN (MarketWatch) -- The value of the global carbon trading market could rise from roughly $118 billion in 2008 to nearly $2 trillion by 2020, although it currently remains frozen in the headlights pending safe passage of U.S. emissions trading legislation. (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/carbon-trading-awaits-us-adoption-before-takeoff-2009-12-07)
Wonder if my company's 401k plan will offer a mutual fund option.
Food for thought. Why not save all that CO2 we exhale and then sell it in 2020 when the market hits 2 trillion. Should be able to afford some ocean beach front property in AZ with your profits.
Quote from: akmnstr on December 07, 2009, 09:02:37 AM
Food for thought. Why not save all that CO2 we exhale and then sell it in 2020 when the market hits 2 trillion. Should be able to afford some ocean beach front property in AZ with your profits.
I know that you are making a joke here, but the remember that you will not be selling your CO2, you will be selling holding your breath. Carbon offsets are the sale of carbon reduction (planting trees and the like) to offset extra production of carbon (power plants, industrial development...) above the current restrictions. It is a stepping stone that we can use to get to reduced emissions from things like coal power while we figure out a long-term solution to increasing levels of CO2.
Screw investing in carbon offsets, invest in companies doing real work in the area of carbon sequestering.
Quote from: yotogi on December 07, 2009, 11:22:50 AM
I know that you are making a joke here, but the remember that you will not be selling your CO2, you will be selling holding your breath.
That works. There's a lot of people I'd pay to hold their breath for a few years.
Quote from: yotogi on December 07, 2009, 11:22:50 AM
Screw investing in carbon offsets, invest in companies doing real work in the area of carbon sequestering.
mmmmm, depends how you want to sequester things.
I'm not keen on trying to pump it into the ground - a costly mechanical process, and its debatable if this is a valid long term solution.
I'm a molecular microbiologist, so I am rather keen on biological sequestration methods. [thumbsup]
The biggest issue I see is that there's not real way to tell how it is working. Producers have a reason to understate their production and the reducers have a reason to lie about how much they can reduce. The system in Europe has been shown to be rather poor if effective at all.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124587942001349765.html (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124587942001349765.html)
I'm for reducing carbon emissions but I want a system that actually works, not just one that makes money for the middlemen. It would be more effective for direct subsidies to companies that create carbon reducing systems than to implement cap & trade style policies.
Quote from: roy-nexus-6 on December 07, 2009, 11:44:48 AM
I'm a molecular microbiologist, so I am rather keen on biological sequestration methods. [thumbsup]
Cannot do anything but agree with you there.
Quote from: Mad Duc on December 07, 2009, 11:48:05 AM
I'm for reducing carbon emissions but I want a system that actually works, not just one that makes money for the middlemen. It would be more effective for direct subsidies to companies that create carbon reducing systems than to implement cap & trade style policies.
I agree on the point of creating a system that actually works. I hope that my original post didn't read as some kind of "hey I heard about this on the cable news so it must be true" kind of statements.
QuoteI know that you are making a joke here
Yes, I was and a rather silly one.
I also think the buying and selling carbon credits is silly. I'd rather see tax breaks for those that reduce carbon emissions and a tax on those that produce.
I consult in this area. Trading works, but only if your good, in this case carbon credits, is well defined. Therein currently lies the rub. There are lots of certifiers out there ranging from really good to not quite so good. Other markets like this are headed down the pipe or are already here like green energy credits and nutrient credits (think farm/lawn/city runnoff). Cap and trade has worked wonders for SO2 and other coal nasties. This will work, too, if designed well and will allow business to optimize their pollution stream. Let's face it, there will never be no pollution but would you rather have big gov't tell businesses what to do or would you rather allow businesses to make decisions consistent with reducing pollution in a way that is efficient.
Quote from: angler on December 07, 2009, 12:04:58 PM
Cap and trade has worked wonders for SO2 and other coal nasties. This will work, too, if designed well and will allow business to optimize their pollution stream. Let's face it, there will never be no pollution but would you rather have big gov't tell businesses what to do or would you rather allow businesses to make decisions consistent with reducing pollution in a way that is efficient.
These two points are critical.
To them I would perhaps add the suggestion that it is not necessarily a bad thing if the government throws it's hat in the ring from time to time.
For example, all inner city highway construction is tendered out to companies who generally anti up 1 billion - and earn ten times or more than this over the following 2 decades. I am at a loss as to why taxpayer money isnt used to build the highways... then (cheaper than normal) tolls are collected: the debt is repaid, and additional funds are used for other projects.
Quote from: roy-nexus-6 on December 07, 2009, 12:24:17 PM
These two points are critical.
To them I would perhaps add the suggestion that it is not necessarily a bad thing if the government throws it's hat in the ring from time to time.
For example, all inner city highway construction is tendered out to companies who generally anti up 1 billion - and earn ten times or more than this over the following 2 decades. I am at a loss as to why taxpayer money isnt used to build the highways... then (cheaper than normal) tolls are collected: the debt is repaid, and additional funds are used for other projects.
Yeah, it is always tough to balance when it is good or bad for the government to get involved at all. Toll roads are a messy item to consider as it feels that they are money grabs by the companies and really crappy management by the city/county/state. If we want to discuss carbon offsets/cap and trade, I think that this would be a good place to do so. To get in the arena of how much government should be involved in projects like highway construction, I think that it will derail and head into the realm of governments role in modern capitalism.
And the EPA finally weighs in:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252 (http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/bd4379a92ceceeac8525735900400c27/08d11a451131bca585257685005bf252)!OpenDocument
I like how this conversation, thus-far, has focused on how to make a system work as opposed to the debate as to if we need a system to control CO2 levels at all.
Quote from: MrIncredible on December 07, 2009, 11:34:59 AM
That works. There's a lot of people I'd pay to hold their breath for a few years.
You lookin' in the mirror?
Quote from: MrIncredible on December 07, 2009, 11:34:59 AM
That works. There's a lot of people I'd pay to hold their breath for a few years.
Yeah, and they are all headed to Copenhagen!
I guess I'm cynical and I don't expect corporations to act in the best interest of either the public or the environment. Protection of the environment and the public interest has been the roll of the government since the issues of a degrading environment were raised. Will a corporation be motivated to move towards a sustainable carbon free energy source when it can trade for credits? Carbon based fuels are still cheaper than the alternatives and I don't see where the motivation to change when the bottom line is the bottom line. Having said my piece I realize that credits are what the world has chosen and I hope that it works and it is enough.
Quote from: Rev. Millertime on December 07, 2009, 01:16:43 PM
Yeah, and they are all headed to Copenhagen!
On green jets ;D
mitt
QuoteI like how this conversation, thus-far, has focused on how to make a system work as opposed to the debate as to if we need a system to control CO2 levels at all.
Did you speak too soon?
when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors
Quote from: aaronb on December 08, 2009, 02:02:12 PM
when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors
when Al Gore invents them ;D
Quote from: aaronb on December 08, 2009, 02:02:12 PM
when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors
You funny.
[laugh]
Quote from: akmnstr on December 08, 2009, 11:42:51 AM
Did you speak too soon?
So far no, and it seems like people have taken the conversation in the making-fun-of-each-other direction which is never a bad thing!
Quote from: akmnstr on December 08, 2009, 07:22:52 AM
I guess I'm cynical and I don't expect corporations to act in the best interest of either the public or the environment. Protection of the environment and the public interest has been the roll of the government since the issues of a degrading environment were raised. Will a corporation be motivated to move towards a sustainable carbon free energy source when it can trade for credits? Carbon based fuels are still cheaper than the alternatives and I don't see where the motivation to change when the bottom line is the bottom line. Having said my piece I realize that credits are what the world has chosen and I hope that it works and it is enough.
I'll get serious again. Creating markets for pollution, any pollution, makes polluting impact a corporation's bottom line. That is why they work, and they do work very well when set up correctly. Making a corporation purchase the right to pollute is MUCH more efficient than simply setting a pollution limit with a fine for breaking that limit. That is the old gov't command and control method of pollution control that can work, but is pretty inefficient.
Market mechanisms do not expect corporations to suddenly become altruistic, they make them pay to play. If corporation A is using a sustainable fuel, they can sell the credits they generate to corporation B that doesn't use sustainable fuel, thereby reducing the total amount of carbon based fuel used. Why does this work? Not because corporation A altruistically uses renewable fuel, but because they use renewable fuel to increase their profits. Perhaps they market a green product - perhaps they use a sustainable fuel like cow shit or waste wood chips as a by-product of another manufacturing process. Alternately, corporation B can buy carbon credits from corporation C that is in the business of sequestering carbon.
Quote from: aaronb on December 08, 2009, 02:02:12 PM
when are we going to cap the worse green house gas offender, dihydrogen monoxide vapors
Am I the only one who actually got that?
Quote from: alfisti on December 09, 2009, 04:41:24 PM
Am I the only one who actually got that?
(http://www.thefoodsection.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/12/09/cookie.jpg)
Quote from: angler on December 09, 2009, 02:53:23 PM
I'll get serious again. Creating markets for pollution, any pollution, makes polluting impact a corporation's bottom line. That is why they work, and they do work very well when set up correctly. Making a corporation purchase the right to pollute is MUCH more efficient than simply setting a pollution limit with a fine for breaking that limit. That is the old gov't command and control method of pollution control that can work, but is pretty inefficient.
Market mechanisms do not expect corporations to suddenly become altruistic, they make them pay to play. If corporation A is using a sustainable fuel, they can sell the credits they generate to corporation B that doesn't use sustainable fuel, thereby reducing the total amount of carbon based fuel used. Why does this work? Not because corporation A altruistically uses renewable fuel, but because they use renewable fuel to increase their profits. Perhaps they market a green product - perhaps they use a sustainable fuel like cow shit or waste wood chips as a by-product of another manufacturing process. Alternately, corporation B can buy carbon credits from corporation C that is in the business of sequestering carbon.
Angler, Thanks for taking the time to explain how you see this working. I am not totally convinced but that's okay and as I said before I hope it works. We have a lot riding on it. Yesterdays headlines indicated that China is taking the issue seriously which I found to be a pleasant surprise, almost makes me optimistic.
Quote from: akmnstr on December 10, 2009, 06:18:28 AM
Angler, Thanks for taking the time to explain how you see this working. I am not totally convinced but that's okay and as I said before I hope it works. We have a lot riding on it. Yesterdays headlines indicated that China is taking the issue seriously which I found to be a pleasant surprise, almost makes me optimistic.
Actually Wikiepedia has a great little blurb on using markets to combat pollution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading). The acid rain reduction strategies (SO2 emmissions) have been a huge success, largely eliminating acid rain altogether by letting companies sort it out themselves using the market.
I consider myself to be an environmentalist, but also libertarian. Free markets have gotten a bad rap recently, but I think they are a great way to fix problems in ways that is less painful to business and consumers and without the bungling gov't mucking about in the process. Markets work wonders in fisheries mgmt, the area that comprises most of my business. Carbon markets are just starting to emerge and nutrient markets may emerge VERY quickly VERY soon to control non-point source water pollution. Hopefully they will work as well as fishery markets and SO2 markets. I think carbon markets will be incredibly tricky and at the end of the day may not work as well as a carbon tax.