Tag Archives: carbon trading

Another carbon trading scheme dies

Carbon trading is again a failure. First we had the Chicago Climate Exchange die, now another scheme is dying per Google/Associated Press in their article titled ‘Carbon credits programs fail without climate bill.’

A national program that paid farmers millions of dollars for reducing greenhouse gasses has fizzled amid uncertainty about U.S. climate legislation

It seems they’re finding out the hard way what Al Gore and CCX already have discovered.

But carbon credits that fetched up to $7 a metric ton a few years ago are now nearly worthless, said Robert Carlson, president of the North Dakota Farmers Union. The group has 6 million tons worth of credits that have gone unsold, and while it will continue to try to sell those, no new credits will be issued after this year, Carlson said.

They earn credits to do certain things,  which is not necessarily as it should be in my opinion.

Farmers, ranchers and landowners earned credits by growing grasses and trees or using no-till farming practices, in which seeds are injected into the soil to reduce the amount of dirt turned over and carbon released.

The article seems to leave some things amiss, which is the fact that good farmers generally already practice good farming practices anyway. It’s the way they make their living. Screwing up their land to the point where it’s unplantable isn’t going to make them any return on their investment.

It is not such a terrific idea to pay someone for something they already do. Based upon first-hand experience via my brother-in-law, who is a farmer in Kansas he already does much of this, as do his neighbors. He’s practiced no-till farming for at least the past 10 years and Kansas as it keeps the soil from blowing away ala the dust-bowl in 1930’s Oklahoma.

States like Kansas and even the USDA already have Conservation Reserve Programs that pay farmers to rotate crops, plant conservation type crops that reduce erosion/runoff/sedimentation, and there are programs where farmers get paid to let sections of their land go wild so hunters have places to hunt. which not only reduces erosion/runoff/sedimentation, but also reduces dust and use of fuel/fertilizer while providing more natural habitat for wild animals to live on.

While I’m not adverse to farmers making money, I do resent paying them (via higher crop prices) to do what they already do, or already should be doing, regardless if they get carbon credit money or not. Why? Because no matter what type of business you’re in, good business practices should prevail, that’s why.

Source: Google/Associated Press

Advertisements

5 Comments

Filed under Carbon Trading, Climate Alarmism, Climate Change, Co2 Insanity, Financial

Carbon Trade Ends on Quiet Death of Chicago Climate Exchange-John O’Sullivan

 

Published Nov 7, 2010

 

Republican mid-term election joy deals financial uncertainty among green investors as the Chicago Climate Exchange announces the end of U.S. carbon trading.

 

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced on October 21, 2010 that it will cease carbon trading this year. However, Steve Milloy reporting on Pajamasmedia.com (November 6, 2010) finds this huge story strangely unreported by the mainstream media.

To some key analysts the collapse of the CCX appears to show that international carbon trading is “dying a quiet death.” Yet Milloy finds that such a major business failure has drawn no interest at all from the mainstream media. Milloy noted that a “Nexis search conducted a week after CCX’s announcement revealed no news articles published about its demise.”

Not until November 02, 2010 had the story even been picked up briefly and that was by Chicagobusiness.com (Crain’s). Reporter, Paul Merrion appeared to find some comfort that while CCX will cease all trading of new emission allowances at the end of the year, “it will continue trading carbon offsets generated by projects that consume greenhouse gases, such as planting trees.”

Collapse is Personal Setback for U.S. President

Barack Obama was a board member of the Joyce Foundation that funded the fledgling CCX. Professor Richard Sandor, of Northwestern University had started the business with $1.1 million in grants from the Chicago-based left-wing Joyce Foundation enthusiastically endorsed by Obama. When founded in November 2000, CCX’s carbon trading market was predicted to grow anywhere between $500 billion and $10 trillion. Fortunately before its collapse Sandor was able to net $98.5 million for his 16.5% stake when CCX was sold.

Read the rest of the article at the source:  Suite101

Comments Off on Carbon Trade Ends on Quiet Death of Chicago Climate Exchange-John O’Sullivan

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Financial, Global Warming, Government, John O'Sullivan, Obama

Will carbon credits create food shortages?

Sheep....it may not be what's for dinner anymore.

I just came across this piece from Bloomberg Businessweek titled “New Zealand Farmers Harvest Carbon Credits” that seems to have some nefarious implications about what carbon credits could do to the world’s food supplies.

…a carbon emission trading system that kicked off in July is upending the economics of sheep farming, a once crucial sector of the economy. Sheep farmers are walking away from the business of selling wool and lamb chops and are converting their grazing lands into tree farms that could prove valuable when the country’s agricultural sector is forced to pay for greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2015.

While that may seem “valuable” when it comes to paying for greenhouse gas emissions, it certainly doesn’t seem very valuable as far as the world’s food supply is concerned. According to them it’s not even going to make any difference in their emissions.

Prime Minister John Key’s government in Wellington has said a carbon trading regime probably won’t have a big impact on the country’s greenhouse gas emissions, yet will boost the country’s green credentials and clout in global climate talks.

Seems like some fat egos in New Zealand are more concerned about being stylish on the world scene than being realistic or worrying about what this may do to the food supply in the future. I mean why in the hell would you spend a wad of money for something that isn’t going to do anything? This reminds me of some the scams you see on TV for various “medicines” that aren’t government tested or approved yet come with claims of providing miracles.  One would think if there was something out there that would make your wanker grow that some huge drug company like Bayer or Pfizer would have already discovered it and had a patent on it and be raking in billions.

So why would the sheep farmers get all excited about this scheme? Well it seems there are problems in Sheepland such as:

  • “Although New Zealand was the world’s largest sheep meat exporter last year, the number of sheep have fallen from a 1982 peak of 70 million to about 40 million”
  • “The government’s carbon program is also a welcome opportunity for some sheep farmers, struggling against slumping wool prices, drought, and competition for land from the dairy and lumber industries”
  • “Farmers who convert their land from sheep grazing to planting trees could add $172 per acre in value each year to their land holdings”

Think about it. You have less sheep to deal with, which means less feed to buy and less help to pay for and you plant trees that sit there and do nothing and require little if any care, plus you get paid for it. Sounds like a dream come true – get paid for doing basically nothing. But that old adage, ” if it sounds too good to be true it usually is.”

While this may sound good to your friendly neighborhood sheep farmer, it does have other implications on the economy such as “losing jobs once held by shearers, mechanics, and veterinarians.” You can extrapolate that to the shearers, mechanics and veterinarians aren’t going to be spending any money so we will soon have problems with other businesses such as restaurants and stores losing business or even going out of business.

It also isn’t the panacea it’s promised to be, as there are other issues surrounding this:

  • “farmers are being sold on carbon trading without understanding that they could lose trees to fire or disease”
  • “the government might cancel the program at any time”

So what we have here is another global warming failure in progress. By the New Zealand’s government’s own admission it’s not going to accomplish much in the way of emissions reductions and it has a lot of potential problems.

Let’s get to the food issue. I see global warming not as a reality but as something that is trendy with the green crowd, a potential maker of billions for people in on the carbon trading schemes, and a killer of jobs and economies due to the increased costs of doing business due to carbon taxes. If that’s not enough we now have the potential to create food shortages.

We now have a foot in the door by paying people not to raise sheep. What next? We pay people to not raise cattle and chickens? Crops such as corn and soybeans are currently being partially diverted from feeding people to making ethanol for cars.  How much more will the price of those crops rise if there’s additional shortages created by farmers electing to plant trees instead of grow corn? How much less food will be around because of this?

Think I’m kidding? Just look at the bump in wheat prices due to Russia putting a ban on exporting it due to the recent fires? Imagine if 1/3 of the world’s wheat farmers decided to plant trees and not bother growing wheat anymore? Will there be enough? Will the poor be able to afford it? Will the middle class see their food bills rising to the point that it’s a burden? Here’s a clip from the Washington Post.

Russia announced Thursday that it will ban all grain exports for the rest of the year, sending wheat prices soaring to a two-year high and raising the possibility of inflated food prices that could throw an already fitful global economy recovery off track.

Wheat prices in 2010

You can see from the above chart what the prices have been doing. Below is one effect of price increase and shortages of wheat.

In Egypt — one of the biggest importers of wheat and a nation that experienced deadly violence in bread lines two years ago — the government assured the public that it has a four-month supply of wheat and urged Russia to honor contracts it signed before the ban. In Europe, the United Kingdom’s Premier Foods and Switzerland’s two largest food retailers warned consumers that they may increase prices of products that contain wheat, from crackers to beer.

That Russian wheat is only about 11% of the total world market and yet you can see the actual and easily imagine the potential effects a shortage could have in countries that are dependent upon wheat imports.

So what’s worse? Dying from global warming or food shortages? Sometimes I wonder if there isn’t some other undercurrent going on here that all this is more about population reduction than it is about global warming. Adding the potential of food shortages due to carbon trading schemes just seems to reinforce that idea.

Maybe artificial meat or soylent green will become popular.

More CO2 Insanity.

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek

2 Comments

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Food, Global Warming, Government, Politics

Waaaah! Nobody wants to by my CO2!

Antelope Valley Station

Here we have a project with a power plant looking for someone to buy the CO2 they capture and evidently we have no takers thus far.

Basin Electric Power Cooperative is searching for customers to buy the carbon dioxide it plans to retain in an experiment to reduce emissions of the gas from its Antelope Valley power plant, a company official said.

One crucial element is whether Basin can find customers for the carbon dioxide that would be captured from one of Antelope Valley’s two 450-megawatt generating units, he said

Great Plains processes lignite coal to make synthetic natural gas and retains much of the carbon dioxide in the process.

Man I would have thought Al Gore would have been first in line to buy all this nasty CO2 up so he could stick it someplace. Perhaps he’s blowing all his money on masseuses, divorces and his new bachelor pad in upscale Montecito, California. Talk about more CO2 Insanity.

Source: Bloomberg Businessweek

Comments Off on Waaaah! Nobody wants to by my CO2!

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, pollution

Al “Sex Poodle” Gore Neutered

If Al “Sex Poodle” Gore had really been neutered, millions of legitimate masseuses would breathe easy.

Al’s basically had is cojones removed as far as global warming is concerned, at least for this year.

Per Green Hell Blog…..

Speaking about the likelihood of climate bill being passed by Congress in 2010, Al Gore told a conference call of supporters tonight that, “this battle has not been successful and is pretty much over for this year.” Gore bitterly denounced the Senate and federal government stating several times, “The U.S. Senate has failed us” and “The federal government has failed us.” Gore even seemed to blame President Obama by emphasizing that “the government as a whole has failed us… although the House did its job. [emphasis added]”

Poor Al, visions of carbon trading bucks were dancing in his head but alas, Santa didn’t show up this year for him and his buddies.

I guess with no cojones, his “dangling chad” won’t be of much use. I would offer the suggestion that any masseuses out there be careful or they may find a blubber like “sex poodle” after them. There’s always Viagra, which can create global warming in Al’s pants.

Source: Green Hell Blog

Comments Off on Al “Sex Poodle” Gore Neutered

Filed under Carbon Trading, Climategate, Co2 Insanity, Global Warming, Truth Stranger than Fiction

RIP CARBON TRADING

In a mysterious epidemic of common sense Congress has dumped their effort to cap carbon emitting from power plants.  The Wall Street Journal calls it “major blow to one of President Barack Obama’s top priorities.” I call it a victory for the USA because even if you believe in CO2 caused global warming, it’s still a dumb idea.

Why is it a dumb idea? For starters if they charge power plants for emitting CO2, guess who’s going to pay for it? The average American citizen, that’s who.  You aren’t really naïve enough to think the power companies will absorb the cost are you? If you are that dumb, think about this. Pacific Gas and Electric in California is putting in smart-meters all over the place.  Yes it’s costing them money, but they will be saving money reading them, too.  They won’t need meter readers on foot anymore, they can now get it via wi-fi and send you a bill.  Yet they still got the Public Utilities Commission to approve a rate hike to cover the smart-meters.  Nice eh?  They save money, we get to bear the cost of the meters.  Lovely arrangement, if you’re PG & E. Like having a jeweler get Rolex watches for free and then turning around and still selling them at full market rate. Nice bump in profits with someone else paying your overhead.

It’s also mandated that they start getting a larger percentage of their power from renewable energy sources like solar and wind.  Problems with those, too.  I’d question if there are enough of either to make the mandated reductions and even if there are, neither provides power 24 x 7, it’s only provided when the wind is blowing or it’s daylight.  They will still need to get power from non-renewable sources like coal and natural gas power plants when the renewable energy isn’t working or is working at greatly reduced levels.

That renewable energy isn’t free either.  Both solar and wind are heavily subsidized. If they weren’t your power bill each month would be more than your mortgage is.  So what you say? It’s subsidized by the government? Obama is sending stimulus money? It’s free?  It’s your tax dollars that pay the subsidy bozo.  Ever wonder why your kids education sucks or why that state college is charging higher tuition every year? Wonder why institutions such as Cal Berkeley have reduced the amount of California students and increased the amount of foreign students and now your kid is turned away? Part of it’s because they take tax dollars that could be spent on education and waste it on overpriced wind and solar power and gigantic self-perpetuating bureaucracy’s  like CARB who can piss away tax money faster than a drunk sailor on shore leave.

Secondly, we’re not the number one polluter on the planet anymore, China just got that honor, India probably isn’t far behind.  Now I ask what good is us spending all this money to reduce CO2 when the China and India pump it out in droves? That’s about as stupid as California’s carbon regulations being implemented.  All they will do is drive up the cost of business in California and drive out what businesses haven’t left already. If you manufactured goods in California why would you want to stay here and pay more when you can move next door to Nevada or Arizona and save a huge bundle of cash, not to mention not having to deal with the bureaucrats in Sacramento? Much of the air pollution in California blows across the Pacific Ocean from China.  I’ve read as much as 1/3 of it is created in China. So, I’m supposed to pay more for groceries, gas, and electricity when it’s not even going to get rid of as much as 1/3 of the pollution?  Now that’s CO2 Insanity!

I hope that “sex-crazed poodle” Al Gore and all his carbon trading butt buddies lose a lot of sleep over this and that they lose a lot of money.  It’s about time they get screwed instead of us for a change.

1 Comment

Filed under Carbon Trading, Co2 Insanity, Government, Obama, Politics, pollution, Renewable Energy, Science

A New Carbon Sink?

chicagoccxgraphLooks like HSBC has had it with Carbon Trading.   Evidently there is a new carbon sink just discovered, the one that makes your money disappear.  From the New York Times article…

The banking giant HSBC removed two companies involved in carbon trading from its Climate Change Index on Monday because they had lost too much value.

“Carbon trading was the major loser from Copenhagen,” HSBC analysts said in their March 21010 Quarterly Index Review. “Cap and trade needs hard targets and binding rules – and Copenhagen delivered neither,” HSBC said.

The two companies ejected were Climate Exchange and Trading Emissions. Both companies are based in the Isle of Man and listed on the London Stock Exchange.

The revised rating by HSBC is another example of how expectations for carbon trading, also known as “cap-and-trade,” have diminished over the past year – a topic covered by my colleague John Broder in an article in The New York Times last week.

Perhaps I should have used the photo of the RIP Headstone, instead.

1 Comment

Filed under Financial