Psst, wanna buy some junk bonds?
UPDATE: 15:00Hrs GMT
Commissioner Hedegaard’s statement on today’s vote by the European Parliament on the backloading proposal
The European Parliament today voted against the Commission’s backloading proposal. In response to the Parliament’s vote, European Commission for Climate Action Connie Hedegaard said:
”The Commission of course regrets that the European Parliament has not approved the back-loading proposal. However, it is worth noting than when it was suggested in the second vote that the Parliament finalised its rejection right away, this was not supported. The proposal will now go back to the Parliament’s Environment Committee for further consideration. Europe needs a robust carbon market to meet our climate targets and spur innovation. The Commission remains convinced that back-loading would help restore confidence in the EU ETS in the short term until we decide on more structural measures. We will now reflect on the next steps to ensure that Europe has strong EU ETS. In doing so the Council’s position on the proposal will be an important factor and I take note of the Irish Presidency’s reaction today to urgently pursue and conclude discussions among Member States. The market, the investors and our international partners are all awaiting.”
Background info
Today, the European Parliament voted against in its plenary session on a draft change to the EU’s emissions trading system (ETS):
The European Commission had proposed to postpone (back-load) the auctioning of 900 million EU ETS allowances from the years 2013-2015 until 2019-2020. This measure was designed to rebalance supply and demand and to reduce price volatility without any significant impacts on competitiveness.
For further information
European Commission DG CLIMA, Structural reform of the European Carbon Market
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/reform/index_en.htm
European Commission, Q&A Emissions Trading: Commission outlines two-step process to reform the European carbon market (14/11/2012) : MEMO/12/861
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
No suprise that the BBC news fails to pick up on this.
BBC and Guardian have picked this up now:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22167675
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/16/meps-reject-reform-emissions-trading
What a carbon offset is nearly worth…
Telegraph weighs in:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/9997868/EU-climate-change-policy-in-crisis-after-MEPs-vote-against-high-CO2-prices.html
Heh, From the Telegraph article:
“Greens have reacted with anger to [the] vote and accused MEPs of putting jobs before the needs of the environment. “
Interesting how the direction of debate is now the cost of carbon credits, not the fact of them and whether they are either effective in reducing CO2 emissions or whether we need to reduce the CO2 emissions.
When you let the market decide the cost, the desireability of the action is not in the decision-making due to the “commons” approach to cost: the individual has no individual benefit, only a benefit from the group. If the majority do not self-impose restrictions on themselves, nobody benefits as the action which is sought has no meaningful result due to the continued behaviour of the minority non-involved.
So the carbon credit cost can fall to near zero, but never zero because regulations still require the purchase of credits to do business. Even if carbon credits become “insignificant” there will still be a tax revenue and organizational cost to collecting it. Another inefficient method of filling the government’s general-revenue-as-used coffers.
What edict can’t undo, regulations can, in this case. In Western Canada the Alberta premier just announced she would support a $40/ton carbon tax/penalty. Sounds awful, and it might be, but perhaps there will be some similar regulatory loophole so that whatever gets paid gets given back, thus allowing the government to claim a huge tax penalty while not affecting the energy companies at all.
Still, like the EU carbon credit rock-bottom price that will still have to be obtained and accounted for, what a waste of time, money and effort!
The Economist continues its rapid conversion to sceptical outlet:
‘Below Junk Status’
http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2013/04/carbon-trading?fsrc=scn/tw_ec/below_junk_status
Andrew Bolt with the Aussie perspective:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/combets_carbon_system_scheme_rocked_budget_to_lose_billions/#122145
The prospect of Connie and the Commissioners deciding “on more structural measures” sent a cold shiver down my spine.
Trade today showed that carbon credit is running 1:1 with pre-fossilized coprolite.
tckev;
Crap from live dinosaurs would be very high-priced.