If you've no account register here first time
User Name :
User Email :
Password :

Login Now

Global Carbon Markets Plummet

The value of the world’s carbon markets declined by 21 percent over the last quarter, despite trading volumes above the historical average, according to analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

Global carbon markets fell to €14.2bn ($19.2bn) over Q1 2012, according to Bloomberg. This was 41 percent less than in the same period a year ago.

The drop is the result of a 50 percent decline in the volume-weighted average carbon price compared with Q1 2011, to €6.6/t over the last three months, Bloomberg says. Some 2.1bn metric tons of EU allowances and U.N. certificates were traded over the first three months of 2012, 17 percent more than a year ago, making this the largest first-quarter volume on record.

UBS carbon analyst Per Lekander told the Financial Times that the figures were worse than the markets expected, describing markets as “massively oversupplied.”

Bloomberg New Energy Finance expects volumes to grow by 39 percent over the year, on increasing auctioning volumes in the EU ETS. However the over-supply of carbon allowances in the EU ETS will continue to weigh on market values, which Bloomberg predicts will fall by 7.5 percent on an annual basis to €85bn.

The news comes as the U.K. postpones a planned auction of 4 million EU carbon credits from June to September, due to confusion over when a single EU-wide carbon registry will be launched, Reuters reports.

The European Commission has said that the Single Union Registry will not be online until at least June.

Earlier this month, Thomson Reuters Point Carbon predicted that offset supply will be the main long-term allowance price driver after California and Quebec link their emissions trading programs next year.

The Corporate Sustainability Professional's Guide to Better Data Management
Sponsored By: Urjanet

  
Environmental Leader Product and Project Awards 2017
Sponsored By: Environmental Leader

  
The EHS Guidebook: Selecting, Implementing, and Using EHS Software Solutions
Sponsored By: EtQ

  
Video: Expense & Data Management for Complex Payables
Sponsored By: Ecova, Inc.

  

12 thoughts on “Global Carbon Markets Plummet

  1. It amazes me that there is actually a market based on something that is not even proven science….anthropogenic global warming (or is it back to anthropogenic climate change, now, because the earth has inexplicably not been warming for the past 15 years, against all predictions by Mann, Jones, and Hanson). This is a global scam that will only impoverish millions, enrich an elite few (mainly folks like Al Gore, who support wealth distribution…just not theirs), and to top it off, it won’t make a difference to the climate.

  2. Oil keeps on driving a system that could easily add and support the carbon market. But remember what the market is about, curtailing the status quo. The point of the carbon market ultimately is reduction and elimination of carbon, aka oil and coal and methane…the status quo.

  3. I disagree, Iain. If you look at it closely, all it does is redistribute wealth. Companies that produce carbon…which we all do…have to give some self-appointed entity money. That entity takes a bit for themselves, then gives the rest to third world countries who are “suffering” because of all the plant-food…er..excuse me…carbon that is being emitted into the atmosphere. That’s it. How does that help anything or anyone? Oh, it will cause companies to shut their manufacturing down here in the US and move to a third world country where they have no laws protecting the environment at all. Fewer jobs here, even more pollution for the planet as they can dump all they want into rivers and streams and burn whatever they want without scrubbing the exhaust of the real nasty pollutants. Again, how does that help anything or anyone? It is a scam, plain and simple.

  4. It amazes me that there are actually people still denying anthropogenic global warming. I have to assume that the same people believe Elvis is still alive, aliens are among us and that the Bible can be used to measure the age of the planet. In short, morons, and extremely dangerous morons at that. If they are in the pay of corporations I can see some argument, ie my family’s survival is more important than another’s family survival, but seriously, that’s about it.

  5. “In short”, Ian, you have to resort to personal attacks because you have no other response? I thought that wasn’t allowed on this site. Hmmmm…are the EL website administrators AGW advocates like you? Did you see the letter from the NASA scientists to the NASA Administrator last month? Oh, probably not, as any deniers are not given coverage by the liberal press because they don’t toe the line and believe what they are told, right?
    Well, here is the text of that letter, including a list of their names and titles, all of them obviously “morons” like me:
    ***
    March 28, 2012

    The Honorable Charles Hardin Jr.
    NASA Administrator
    NASA Headquarters
    Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

    Dear Charlie,

    We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

    The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

    As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

    For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

    Thank you for considering this request.

    Sincerely,

    (Attached signatures)

    CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science
    CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

    Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

    1. /s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years
    2. /s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years
    3. /s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years
    4. /s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years
    5. /s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years
    6. /s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years
    7. /s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years
    8. /s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years
    9. /s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years
    10. /s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years
    11. /s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years
    12. /s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years
    13. /s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years
    14. /s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years
    15. /s/ Anita Gale
    16. /s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years
    17. /s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years
    18. /s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years
    19. /s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years
    20. /s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years
    21. /s/ Thomas J. Harmon
    22. /s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years
    23. /s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years
    24. /s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years
    25. /s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years
    26. /s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years
    27. /s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years
    28. /s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years
    29. /s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years
    30. /s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen
    31. /s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years
    32. /s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years
    33. /s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years
    34. /s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years
    35. /s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years
    36. /s/ Tom Ohesorge
    37. /s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years
    38. /s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years
    39. /s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate, 40 years
    40. /s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years
    41. /s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years
    42. /s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years
    43. /s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years
    44. /s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years
    45. /s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years
    46. /s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years
    47. /s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years
    48. /s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years
    49. /s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years
    50. /s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years
    ***
    So, Ian. Are they “morons”, too? Do you have better credentials than these people? If not, then what gives you the right to call anybody else a moron? If you do have better credentials, then please explain why they are wrong?

  6. Hi Jeff!

    Here I will repeat a point I made in a previous thread. 97% – 98% of all top climate researchers from all over the world; agree that AGW is real and that it poses serious near-term problems for societies the world over. Here is the reference to back up that statement: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full.

    And here is one quote from that reference paper: “We show that the expertise and prominence, two integral components of overall expert credibility, of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians”.

  7. Hey, Doug! Still at it I see. Still insisting that consensus is science…at one point, consensus (scientific theory) was that the Earth was flat until someone proved it was round…once it was proven to be round, it became a scientific fact. More and more people are coming forward (as in the most recent letter from NASA folks which I posted above) and facing ridicule from people like you to state that they don’t buy that crap either. It’s kind of like being a Conservative in Hollywood…it’s hard to get work, so many folks just keep quiet instead of facing political and financial pressure.
    I’ll ask you what I asked Ian after he called me a moron…Are they (the folks who wrote the letter) “morons”, too?

  8. Yep, consensus is science – by the very definition of how science works. But I see that you are still busy defending your unsuppported opinions with your lack of scientific understanding.

    And the overwhelming 98% consensus of top climate researchers, that appears to be growing over time rather than shrinking; comes quite close to the strongest support that science can ever give to an hypothesis.

    To answer your question, I stand by the characterization that I posted from my reference above: “the expertise and prominence … of climate researchers convinced by the evidence of [anthropogenic climate change] vastly overshadows that of the climate change skeptics and contrarians” (emphasis mine).

  9. And a small addition to that:
    From the skepticalscience link:

    “… they include 23 administrators, 8 astronauts, 7 engineers, 5 technicians, and 4 scientists/mathematicians of one sort or another (none of those sorts having the slightest relation to climate science). “

  10. Jeff, don’t give up on sharing the truth. Your original post was on the mark; the carbon market is a sham and a scam. Beyond that, many of us realize that the questionable ‘science’ (belief, really) of global warming is being used as a tool of governmental control. Ian is more honest than most of the pack when he says: “The point of the carbon market ultimately is reduction and elimination of carbon…” These radicals will not be content until the world has been remade in their ‘sustainable’ image, regardless of the human cost (which they will NEVER acknowledge).

  11. Barry, you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your hysterical claim that “global warming is being used as a tool of governmental control” – that Orwellian threat is simple hyperbole. Indeed, it is hard to see how the issue of global warming provides any benefit for any government; anywhere in the world. Measures to address the issue nearly always cost governments time and money they would rather spend on other things. No, Barry, the truth of the matter is that global warming is real. And your categorization of climate science as a ‘belief’ is merely an attempt to cast the debate into emotional terms and to denigrate the issue. If you think that you can argue the science on scientific grounds, then do so – though I predict that you will be unsuccessful in the attempt. But don’t turn to such PR methods to advance your false opinions.

    Also, if you want to argue about human costs, then turn to the far larger human costs that would be incurred were anthropogenic climate change allowed to continue unabated. The human costs of climate change far outweigh the costs of proactively addressing the issue.

Leave a Comment