RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned

RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 6:03:34 PM)
quote: CCX emitting Members make a voluntary but legally binding commitment to meet annual GHG emission reduction targets. Those who reduce below the targets have surplus allowances to sell or bank; those who emit above the targets comply by purchasing CCX Carbon Financial Instrument® (CFI®) contracts. They are trading amongst themselves and you as an individual won't be affected. So what if Ford want to buy some of their allowance from Mr Green Co. At the end of the day the US will still be producing the same internationally regardless of how corporate entities switch it around between themselves. The only way this can help is if US companies could buy from developing nations which is unlikely to happen through this system due to differences in individual state laws and lack of enforcement. Don't confuse this with obligations to the developing nations that developed nations have agreed to make recently, it is entirely different.

pahunkboy -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 6:15:06 PM)
That is before cap and trade. When that becomes law- if it passes- then all of that is built into the price of stuff.

pahunkboy -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 6:16:57 PM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PlpBB4o8xq8

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 6:18:57 PM)
No the idea is money is given to developing nations to help them cope. There was no international carbon trading agreement reached that I know of. If there was then it is a con because no other nation could possible service the US and China's need for carbon credits. All the carbon credits in the world wouldn't make up for the difference between how much the US and China produce each year compared to other nations. This domestic cap and trade thing is your internal mechanism for change. In my opinion you should forget the trade and just stick with the cap part.

pahunkboy -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 6:25:59 PM)
The closest they got is a 2% toban tax. On trades of stock. But to give you an idea how big that is- such a tax if it were federal would shore up Social Security, medicare and medicaid for many year. So in a strange way- people have just been screwed- first on their 401ks- and now on Social Security to a international tax which goes directly to the IMF. Had the toban tax stayed in the USA - it is enough to put SS and solid ground.

pahunkboy -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 6:28:36 PM)
I should add that Goldman Saches front runs all trades- it is only a penny or two a share. It becomes in effect a tax assessed by Goldman Saches. Yes it is illegal- but nothing is done about it.

kdsub -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 7:24:05 PM)
quote: What a desperately unpleasant species we are; our destruction, whether by climate change or whatever, is almost certainly inevitable and will have been well deserved, should there be any sort of God or Karma in the cosmos to pass judgment. No almost about it...it is assured... It is only natural...just as every species before us and those living with us...soon...by the comic clock… we will be extent as well. But we can say so far we have been the best…at least here on earth…so don’t get too worked up about Global warning it will make no difference in the long run. Only how we go will we have control over not if we will go. I just hope we can go with pride in ourselves and charity in out hearts…It will make a difference to God Sorry meant for the OP not pahunkboy Butch

Fellow -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 7:49:27 PM)
I agree with Lady Ellen: the global warming issue is moved on forefront in some strange illogical way (if I understood the point correctly). Why it has happened is worth of study. At the same time the situation in the world is getting out of control (the financial system has failed, Africa is dying, wars in the Middle East, unemployment everywhere increasing with no end in sight). We are entering into new era what is not going to be pretty.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 8:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Banking regulation hasn't changed significantly recently, they just ran out of luck and it'll happen again. It's that 1 in 500 year rainfall return. Actually, banking regulation changed enormously in 1999 with the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act. Before then, commercial banks could not be investment banks and were limited as to what investments they could put their depositors' money into. Also prior to the passage of that bill, the securitization of interest bearing contracts (loans, mortgages, etc.) was forbidden. These rules had been in effect since the Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1932. This entire mess can be directly traced back to these changes, in my opinion. They were not loudly procaimed I believe that few people understood exactly what had happened - so they continued to view their "commercial bank" as just as safe as it had been for the past fifty years when, in fact, it now could take all the wild risks it wanted to. quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 That's nonsense carbon credits can't be traded on the equities market. I don't even like the term carbon credits because you can only sell carbon credits if you haven't got any to begin with. America can't sell carbon credits to anyone because it has too much all it can do is buy. I think you're confusing the agreements made in Copenhagen with the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill (the "cap and trade bill") passed by the House of Representatives in June. There will definitely be an equities market to trade "carbon credits" and the primary market maker of that market is our old friend Goldman Sachs. There is already an equivalent exchange in Europe, the European Climate Exchange (ECX). In fact, the company Al Gore founded (Generation Investment Management) with his partner (and co-president, I believe) Hank Paulson (former Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs) is pretty much little more than a carbon offsets trading firm. Assuming all this stuff passes and becomes law, there's going to be a huge carbon credit trading industry. It's actually kind of brilliant , in a dark genius kind of way, but in the long run I think it's going to be another bubble-like disaster.

pahunkboy -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 8:32:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 No the idea is money is given to developing nations to help them cope. reparations. Yet- the job base is moving there. and smog made in China vs USA - assuming we do not cut back on our lifestyle- the pollution will exist somewhere. There IS such a thing as pollution, and some truth that 4 billion people can not live as comfy as America or the west. Most people - IMO will insulate- and turn down the heat- with out govt mandating it. Because one pays monthly bill. The economic slow down will abate some of the pollution. Enron is the one who came up with the carbon trading scheme. You may recall Enron throwing California into a power blackout. "burn baby burn" was heard said per the Enron traders.

vincentML -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 8:54:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 No the idea is money is given to developing nations to help them cope. There was no international carbon trading agreement reached that I know of. If there was then it is a con because no other nation could possible service the US and China's need for carbon credits. All the carbon credits in the world wouldn't make up for the difference between how much the US and China produce each year compared to other nations. This domestic cap and trade thing is your internal mechanism for change. In my opinion you should forget the trade and just stick with the cap part. In addition to giving money to developing nations or primative nations there are internal national ramafications for the US. As I understand the concept (and I am just learning like the rest of us) each carbon emitting company in the US will have an emission cap and the total of all of them will be aimed at reducing the total carbon emissions back to some year previous to today. A company that can show its emissions were less than aloted will then have credits to sell. That of course requires monitoring of some kind (and possible corruption of the meter readers?) If this is correct it sets up several problems in my mind: a reduction in industrial production leading in turn to a loss of jobs and less goods in turn leading to increase prices (I am guessing here I hope you understand) In addition the limit on carbon emissions and the creation of credits for sale will create a vigorous demand from companies that have overshot their allowances which will make the trading exchanges rich. Once again money is shifted from the productive economy to the casino economy. Each nation at Copenhagen has pledge to reveal their plan for cutting back on carbon emissions. Cap and trade is our plan it seems. Whether it can be all carried off is another tale.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 9:03:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML As I understand the concept (and I am just learning like the rest of us) each carbon emitting company in the US will have an emission cap and the total of all of them will be aimed at reducing the total carbon emissions back to some year previous to today. A company that can show its emissions were less than aloted will then have credits to sell. That of course requires monitoring of some kind (and possible corruption of the meter readers?) If this is correct it sets up several problems in my mind: a reduction in industrial production leading in turn to a loss of jobs and less goods in turn leading to increase prices (I am guessing here I hope you understand) In addition the limit on carbon emissions and the creation of credits for sale will create a vigorous demand from companies that have overshot their allowances which will make the trading exchanges rich. Once again money is shifted from the productive economy to the casino economy. Each nation at Copenhagen has pledge to reveal their plan for cutting back on carbon emissions. Cap and trade is our plan it seems. Whether it can be all carried off is another tale. It gets better. As I recall, every year they will issue fewer waivers or offsets for carbon emissions - ostensibly in order to slowly force everyone to comply with the emissions levels targets over time. What this means, though, is that over time the supply of carbon offsets will be shrinking, making each offset more valuable - unless you somehow think the U. S. energy industry is going to exceed its goals every year. So every year, if you're doing emissions futures trading or speculation you have an almost guaranteed profit. It's a market trader's fantasy come true.

vincentML -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 9:07:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fellow I agree with Lady Ellen: the global warming issue is moved on forefront in some strange illogical way (if I understood the point correctly). Why it has happened is worth of study. At the same time the situation in the world is getting out of control (the financial system has failed, Africa is dying, wars in the Middle East, unemployment everywhere increasing with no end in sight). We are entering into new era what is not going to be pretty. I honestly do not mean to be disrespectful here but when has the situation in the world ever been in control? Control is an illusion of utopia or dictatorship. History is but a sequence of one major fuck up overlapping the next. Which makes it all the more interesting of course. One can never accuse our species of being boring. We are rather clever in our cruelties and stupidities (like the war in Afghanistan, LE) [:'(] There should be a major fuckup trading exchange where you can get odds on the next MFU bet like sports betting in Vegas.

vincentML -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 9:12:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML If this is correct it sets up several problems in my mind: a reduction in industrial production leading in turn to a loss of jobs and less goods in turn leading to increase prices (I am guessing here I hope you understand) In addition the limit on carbon emissions and the creation of credits for sale will create a vigorous demand from companies that have overshot their allowances which will make the trading exchanges rich. Once again money is shifted from the productive economy to the casino economy. quote: It gets better. As I recall, every year they will issue fewer waivers or offsets for carbon emissions - ostensibly in order to slowly force everyone to comply with the emissions levels targets over time. What this means, though, is that over time the supply of carbon offsets will be shrinking, making each offset more valuable - unless you somehow think the U. S. energy industry is going to exceed its goals every year. So every year, if you're doing emissions futures trading or speculation you have an almost guaranteed profit. It's a market trader's fantasy come true. So there will be a futures market and derivatives market of Puts and Calls on the contracts, which will add to the volitility of price and volume. terrific.

vincentML -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 9:19:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 They are trading amongst themselves and you as an individual won't be affected. So what if Ford want to buy some of their allowance from Mr Green Co. At the end of the day the US will still be producing the same internationally regardless of how corporate entities switch it around between themselves. If a coal company has to buy credits it will pass the cost on to a producer of electricity who in turn will increase your electric bill. Producers of manufactured goods and services that use energy (think transportation costs) will pass it along to consumers I suspect.

FirmhandKY -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/23/2009 9:26:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Banking regulation hasn't changed significantly recently, they just ran out of luck and it'll happen again. It's that 1 in 500 year rainfall return. Actually, banking regulation changed enormously in 1999 with the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act. Before then, commercial banks could not be investment banks and were limited as to what investments they could put their depositors' money into. Also prior to the passage of that bill, the securitization of interest bearing contracts (loans, mortgages, etc.) was forbidden. These rules had been in effect since the Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1932. This entire mess can be directly traced back to these changes, in my opinion. They were not loudly procaimed I believe that few people understood exactly what had happened - so they continued to view their "commercial bank" as just as safe as it had been for the past fifty years when, in fact, it now could take all the wild risks it wanted to. quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 That's nonsense carbon credits can't be traded on the equities market. I don't even like the term carbon credits because you can only sell carbon credits if you haven't got any to begin with. America can't sell carbon credits to anyone because it has too much all it can do is buy. I think you're confusing the agreements made in Copenhagen with the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill (the "cap and trade bill") passed by the House of Representatives in June. There will definitely be an equities market to trade "carbon credits" and the primary market maker of that market is our old friend Goldman Sachs. There is already an equivalent exchange in Europe, the European Climate Exchange (ECX). In fact, the company Al Gore founded (Generation Investment Management) with his partner (and co-president, I believe) Hank Paulson (former Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs) is pretty much little more than a carbon offsets trading firm. Assuming all this stuff passes and becomes law, there's going to be a huge carbon credit trading industry. It's actually kind of brilliant , in a dark genius kind of way, but in the long run I think it's going to be another bubble-like disaster. Frigging outstanding post. Firm

vincentML -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/24/2009 5:07:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 Banking regulation hasn't changed significantly recently, they just ran out of luck and it'll happen again. It's that 1 in 500 year rainfall return. Actually, banking regulation changed enormously in 1999 with the passage of the Financial Services Modernization Act. Before then, commercial banks could not be investment banks and were limited as to what investments they could put their depositors' money into. Also prior to the passage of that bill, the securitization of interest bearing contracts (loans, mortgages, etc.) was forbidden. These rules had been in effect since the Glass-Steagall Act was passed in 1932. This entire mess can be directly traced back to these changes, in my opinion. They were not loudly procaimed I believe that few people understood exactly what had happened - so they continued to view their "commercial bank" as just as safe as it had been for the past fifty years when, in fact, it now could take all the wild risks it wanted to. quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 That's nonsense carbon credits can't be traded on the equities market. I don't even like the term carbon credits because you can only sell carbon credits if you haven't got any to begin with. America can't sell carbon credits to anyone because it has too much all it can do is buy. I think you're confusing the agreements made in Copenhagen with the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill (the "cap and trade bill") passed by the House of Representatives in June. There will definitely be an equities market to trade "carbon credits" and the primary market maker of that market is our old friend Goldman Sachs. There is already an equivalent exchange in Europe, the European Climate Exchange (ECX). In fact, the company Al Gore founded (Generation Investment Management) with his partner (and co-president, I believe) Hank Paulson (former Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs) is pretty much little more than a carbon offsets trading firm. Assuming all this stuff passes and becomes law, there's going to be a huge carbon credit trading industry. It's actually kind of brilliant , in a dark genius kind of way, but in the long run I think it's going to be another bubble-like disaster. Frigging outstanding post. Firm I damn well agree.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/24/2009 8:25:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack I think you're confusing the agreements made in Copenhagen with the provisions of the Waxman-Markey bill (the "cap and trade bill") passed by the House of Representatives in June. There will definitely be an equities market to trade "carbon credits" and the primary market maker of that market is our old friend Goldman Sachs. There is already an equivalent exchange in Europe, the European Climate Exchange (ECX). In fact, the company Al Gore founded (Generation Investment Management) with his partner (and co-president, I believe) Hank Paulson (former Secretary of the Treasury and former CEO of Goldman Sachs) is pretty much little more than a carbon offsets trading firm. Assuming all this stuff passes and becomes law, there's going to be a huge carbon credit trading industry. It's actually kind of brilliant , in a dark genius kind of way, but in the long run I think it's going to be another bubble-like disaster. This is a case of people not looking at the big picture because how is the trading of carbon between European Union member states or individual companies within those member states going to reduce the net amount of carbon produced within the EU? The only mechanism for reducing carbon output is with strict targets. Anything else is just shirking responsibility and putting off until tomorrow what can be done today. The fact some capitalists have founded a market for this shows they are not taking the situation seriously because the business model for the market to succeed means it has to always exist whereas the final target is that all companies will normalise their carbon output so ultimately no carbon trading will occur. Thus the carbon exchange market can only be a short term idea or they are expecting it to exist for eternity which means they are giving people licence not to ever be environmentally responsible, for eternity. quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack Assuming all this stuff passes and becomes law, there's going to be a huge carbon credit trading industry. It's actually kind of brilliant , in a dark genius kind of way, but in the long run I think it's going to be another bubble-like disaster. It's actually a nightmare where people are passing the buck to others. Imagine if we did the same with other kinds of corporate responsibility (oh sorry that chemical leak killed your family but we sold all our responsibility to this company so blame them). The problem isn't going to be solved this way it's a kind of delaying tactic rather than tackling the problem directly solely by cutting emissions. Also how strictly is it going to be enforced between governments. Given that the bulk of US companies are going to be buying credits rather than selling, who is going to decide what that cost should be and who it really should be given too? What companies do affects the whole world so how will it be just if only the elite few get to trade amongst themselves? Who is also going to enforce these targets in a way that is agreeable? It muddies the water by allowing companies to say "we can do this because we bought these credits." So they'll never change their processes and when some oversight committee suggests new targets they'll oppose them (as they do now) i.e. if the mechanism is the cost of credits then companies will oppose cost increases of these credits. What is needed is a clear set of targets internationally agreed (at one fixed point in time) and not annual targets that could vary depending on the politics of the government.

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/24/2009 8:30:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML If a coal company has to buy credits it will pass the cost on to a producer of electricity who in turn will increase your electric bill. Producers of manufactured goods and services that use energy (think transportation costs) will pass it along to consumers I suspect. That is one way of looking at it but... Then an energy company could strategically decide to switch to alternative sources of energy and offer electricity at a price cheaper than traditional coal produced energy. Or perhaps they could take carbon capture and storage seriously and so invest more money into improving the technology. You are arguing from the point of view that people have to pay the end price when the reality is companies will find ways to undercut rivals and offer a cheaper price as they always have done. It gives them more room to do so.

InvisibleBlack -> RE: global climate change catastrophe - lessons learned (12/24/2009 8:53:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3 quote: ORIGINAL: InvisibleBlack It's actually kind of brilliant , in a dark genius kind of way... It's actually a nightmare where people are passing the buck to others. Imagine if we did the same with other kinds of corporate responsibility (oh sorry that chemical leak killed your family but we sold all our responsibility to this company so blame them). When I say "brilliant in a dark genius kind of way" I by no means am trying to say that it's good or healthy or right - I am according it the same grudging admiration I give a really good con man or criminal - I can acknowledge the cleverness of the scheme while deploring the results. Look at it this way - carbon emissions waivers ... they're nothing. There's nothing tangible there. No asset. No good or service. Even from a fiscal sense ... they're nothing. There's no revenue stream. There's no inherent value. It's not a commodity or anything that can be delivered or that even pays interest or a dividend. How do you value a carbon credit!? They've created a truly virtual good with absolutely no connection to any sort of actual equity or commodity and then they've created a market for that virtual good and an exchange to trade it on. It is extremely difficult to explain exactly what a derivative or a default swap is to someone without a fair amount of experience in the market. The market itself had no idea how to value all these mortgage-backed securities that were created over the last decade and those errors in valuation resulted in a total economic meltdown. Do you really think that anyone in the world stands a chance of correctly valuing carbon emissions offsets and will be able to trade them at some sort of "real" value? They're vapor. It's a phantom security. So if I'm a market maker on this exchange - what I've got is a market with an underlying commodity that no one has any idea how to value, that has no ties to any physical asset, no inherent revenue stream or any sort of actual monetary worth, and that no one on the planet will know how to regulate, but that's backed by the government (implicitly if not explicitly - just like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) and that's designed to increase in value over time. It's genius. It's brilliant. It's evil but it's brilliant. Billions, possibly trillions, were made in the derivatives markets before they melted down and they had at least a tenuous link to a real asset - someone's actual home. I expect the insiders who trade on these exchanges will make fortunes that are boggling beyond comprehension, and that the market will overheat and then melt down just like the energy commodity markets did, the housing market did and the derivatives market did. Only in those markets - at least you could recoup something even if it's only cents on the dollar or a foreclosed home. There was still an asset there. At the start of the market, what are these things worth? Whatever the government tells you they are. How can you even argue? If five years from now the carbon credit market implodes and you're left holding thousands of securities created from securitizing emissions waivers that nobody wants - what are they worth? Truly nothing. Who made all the money? The guys trading the waivers. I'm in awe.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.711914E-02