• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Cap-and-Trade's Coffin Gets Another Nail at Climate Exchange

Amused

Elite Member
About time this fraud was stopped.

Coffin Gets Another Nail at Climate Exchange

The air has been taken out of the carbon trading market.

The only national carbon trading market in the U.S. will close its doors next month, due to stalled legislation in Congress and Republican gains in the midterm elections -- a major setback in efforts to regulate so-called greenhouse gases, which environmentalists argue contribute to global warming.

Since 2003, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has operated a voluntary network where companies can pledge to meet annual targets for the emissions of carbon from their factories and businesses. Those below the targets can sell surplus allowances or bank them; those above can purchase credits to offset their emissions -- similar to President Obama's stalled "cap and trade" legislation

But according to an advisory posted to the exchange's website, participants simply didn't want to trade in carbon credits without a legal requirement that they do so. Jeff Sprecher, chief executive of the InternationalExchange and CCX's owner, confirmed to the Financial Times that participants in the CCX's cap-and-trade system wanted to pull out.

"The bulk of the users have said to us that they really don't want to continue to trade voluntarily in the absence of any credit for their work by the current administration," Sprecher said in an earnings call last week.

Sprecher told analysts that European markets for carbon credits were still going strong, but the business wasn't succeeding in the U.S.

"The businesses here are really loss-making businesses -- there is a very uncertain U.S. regulatory appetite for 'cap and trade,'" he added.

A CCX spokeswoman pointed out that the end of the market was expected, however; the program will conclude as scheduled at the end of the year, to be replaced with the CCX Offsets Registry Program. The new program will allow users to offset gasses, rather than trade credits for their emissions. Should an executive take a lengthy flight, the new Registry will allow the company to purchase an offset for the gas emitted by the flight, in other words.

American Electric Power, one of the founding members of the CCX program, was unsurprised to hear of the conclusion of CCX.

"The waters have been poisoned for cap-and-trade legislation, at least for a couple of years," Bruce Braine, vice president of strategic policy at AEP, told Greener World Media.

"EPA has made it abundantly clear to everybody that they're just heading down a regulatory path now, and voluntary Climate Leader-type programs are no longer really relevant in their minds -- so there really isn't a lot you can do," he said.

The House passed a climate bill last year that would set a national 2020 emissions reduction target on greenhouse gas emissions and outlined a national emissions trading scheme. But Senate Democrats slimmed down the bill in July, abandoning the cap-and-trade method of cutting emissions.

Big Republican gains in Tuesday's midterm elections further diminished the prospects of further climate legislation passing Congress in the near term.

Globally, the voluntary carbon market stalled in 2009 after six years of growth, as the downturn in the global economy and uncertainty over future climate legislation curbed demand. The market shrank 47 percent last year to $387 million and by 26 percent in volume to 93.7 million metric tons of emissions.
 
Not too sure why you think it is dead.

It is coming to CA in 2012.
I am sure Obama and the EPA will find a way to jam it down Americas throat just like CARB did in CA.
 
If this is what I am thinking, companies/states fudging the numbers and saying that they only did x amount of carbon output this month so some other company/state can "purchase" the extra y credits....Then this thing should never have been brought up in the first place.

If that is a wrong understanding of this system, I'd appreciate a cliff notes explanation of it.
 
If this is what I am thinking, companies/states fudging the numbers and saying that they only did x amount of carbon output this month so some other company/state can "purchase" the extra y credits....Then this thing should never have been brought up in the first place.

If that is a wrong understanding of this system, I'd appreciate a cliff notes explanation of it.


Well the "scientists" behind the legislation in CA got caught fudging their numbers to the tune of 300x. Sadly this was caught after the legislation was passed.
 
Wow, there just happens to be an article on Fox News just like this one, same title and text. You should make sure to credit where your articles come from.
 
Cap and trade is FAR from dead. Watch programs like REDD gradually grow in scope and size. All it will take is a little sleight of hand to set up regulatory equivalency between deforestation and other carbon emissions. Once they switch from a donor based program to a treaty signatory setup it will only take one opportune moment with the "right" Congress to lock the US in forever. Do you think the next thirty years will elapse without a single Congress willing to sign such a treaty?
 
Last edited:
We as voters need to remain very vigilant on this. There are lots of elitist politicians who of course "know better" what's good for everyone who would sign us up for such garbage in a second if they could. Any politician even floating such an idea should be immediately shipped out of office.
 
Cap and Trade or RGGI (Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) already exists and is very much still alive in 10 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. I have the substantial bill increases over the past two years to prove it. Too bad the scheme remains undetected, as most Americans don't know how to read their own utility bill. I'm hoping that CCX's demise will lead to RGGI's timely death.
 
CapN trade on the national level isn't going to happen for at least 2 years, but other attempts are being made to achieve the same outcome (lining the pockets of big green and big energy) This article talks about one that's already in the pipeline.

http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/252769/socializing-cost-green-power-lines-greg-pollowitz

"How would you like to pay higher utility bills to finance expensive electricity from solar and wind power, which you would never use? That’s the issue now before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and it deserves more public and political scrutiny before it becomes a reality.

FERC has a draft rule that could effectively socialize the costs of paying for multi-billion dollar transmission lines to connect remote wind and solar projects to the nation’s electric power grid. If FERC rules in favor of Big Wind and Big Solar, the new policy would add billions of dollars onto the utility bills of residents of at least a dozen states — including California, Michigan, Oregon and New York — that will receive little or no benefit from the new power lines."
 
lol cap & tax. So I'm allowed to destroy the environment as long as I have enough money? Awesome. Maybe this was proposed by the same people who think I should be able to buy my way out of jail when I get drunk and hit a few pedestrians with my car.
 
lol cap & tax. So I'm allowed to destroy the environment as long as I have enough money? Awesome. Maybe this was proposed by the same people who think I should be able to buy my way out of jail when I get drunk and hit a few pedestrians with my car.
Welcome to American politics.
 
lol cap & tax. So I'm allowed to destroy the environment as long as I have enough money? Awesome. Maybe this was proposed by the same people who think I should be able to buy my way out of jail when I get drunk and hit a few pedestrians with my car.
The idea is that the extra cost will push utilities to carbon-free generation like nuclear and renewables.

Keep burnin' that dirty coal, boys.
 
The idea is that the extra cost will push utilities to carbon-free generation like nuclear and renewables.

Keep burnin' that dirty coal, boys.
lol. Do you really think people in North America would want nuclear power after they've been fed hippy bullshit propoganda for the past 40 years?

Here's something I want you to remember. The word "nuclear" was taken out of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) because 99.9999% of people dropped out of middle school. It doesn't matter if it's cheaper or safer or unlimited or even if it were free. People absolutely do not want nuclear power.
 
lol. Do you really think people in North America would want nuclear power after they've been fed hippy bullshit propoganda for the past 40 years?

Here's something I want you to remember. The word "nuclear" was taken out of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) because 99.9999% of people dropped out of middle school. It doesn't matter if it's cheaper or safer or unlimited or even if it were free. People absolutely do not want nuclear power.

It's funny, isn't it?

wda1165l.jpg
 
lol. Do you really think people in North America would want nuclear power after they've been fed hippy bullshit propoganda for the past 40 years?

Here's something I want you to remember. The word "nuclear" was taken out of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) because 99.9999% of people dropped out of middle school. It doesn't matter if it's cheaper or safer or unlimited or even if it were free. People absolutely do not want nuclear power.
e2uomknir0a3cssungxjqq.gif


But yeah, to your point, poor people are dumb:
ugpxkb8ljkcc7l1qh72k5a.gif


It's happening whether the dumb poor people like it or not.

edit: Oops, updated with survey results from this year. Even higher.
 
Last edited:
lol @ nookeeelar power. Typical dumb voters. Everyone wants the benefits, but here comes NIMBY when it comes to handling the waste. Yucca anyone?
 
We as voters need to remain very vigilant on this. There are lots of elitist politicians who of course "know better" what's good for everyone who would sign us up for such garbage in a second if they could. Any politician even floating such an idea should be immediately shipped out of office.

I love elitists, because you know, they are elite.
 
But yeah, to your point, poor people are dumb:
ugpxkb8ljkcc7l1qh72k5a.gif


It's happening whether the dumb poor people like it or not.

edit: Oops, updated with survey results from this year. Even higher.

Ha I love how someone decided to compare these two things.
edit; income vs supporting nuclear power are those two things
 
It'd be a laugh riot if someone decided to compare IQ and party affiliation.

Would it?

Now tell me, what would that add up to when we include the numbers of welfare queens, ghetto folks and illegal immigrants? You know, the left's party base?
 
Back
Top