Crunch time for the world’s most important carbon market
Feb 16th 2013
ON FEBRUARY 19th Europe’s emissions trading system (ETS) faces a potentially fatal vote. It could not only determine whether the world’s biggest carbon trading market survives but delay the emergence of a worldwide market, damage Europe’s environmental policies across the board and affect the prospects for a future treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Quite a lot for a decision which as is the way of things European sounds numbingly technical.
The vote is due to take place in the environment committee of the European Parliament. If the committee approves the proposal before it (and the parliament in full session as well as a majority of national governments agree with the decision), this would give the European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, the power to rearrange the ETS’s schedule of auctions. Its plan is to delay the sale of about 900m tonnes of carbon allowances from around 2013 to 16 to 2019 to 20.
The vote matters, its sponsors argue, because the ETS could collapse if the commission’s proposal is rejected. The ETS is the only EU wide environmental instrument. It trades allowances to produce carbon equal to about half the EU’s total carbon emissions. When the system was set up, its designers thought these allowances would now cost roughly 20 Euros per tonne of carbon. The current price is around 5 Euros ($6.7), and in January it fell by 40% in a few minutes after a negative, but legally meaningless, parliamentary vote (see chart above).
The low prices reflect a chronic oversupply of carbon allowances, which the commission puts at 1.5 billion to 2 billion tonnes, roughly a year’s emissions. When the ETS was designed in the mid 2000s, growth was strong and demand for carbon allowances was expected to be high. Their number was therefore fixed (at 16 billion tonnes for 2013 to 20). But demand has crashed. Other temporary factors are also driving prices down: more frequent auctions mean that allowances which once sat unused for months now come onto the market immediately; a special reserve for new entrants has boosted supply; and hedging by power stations has dried up.
Yet none of this justifies interfering in the market, opponents of the commission’s plan say. The ETS remains liquid; the emissions cap stays in place. A low carbon price simply means the aims of the ETS are being met cheaply. What’s the problem?
The commission highlights two. First, if the proposal is thrown out, the ETS could collapse completely: ie, the carbon price could fall to zero. Second, and more likely, even a further, temporary slide in the price could do permanent damage.
When carbon prices are low, coal is cheap relative to cleaner forms of energy, such as gas. As a result power suppliers build more coal-fired plants and Europe emits more carbon. This is already happening. In the long run carbon prices are likely to rise again: industrial demand will pick up (one day); and the cap (the supply of carbon allowances) is due to be lowered by 1.7% each year. But by the time this has an effect not before 2026, says Guy Turner of Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a firm of market analysts the coal plants will be running and expensive to turn off. Their owners will be lumbered with ‘stranded costs’. Power generators, which are the main buyers of ETS allowances, say a higher carbon price would help them avoid this problem by spurring investment in new technologies.
A lot of people beyond Europe are anxiously awaiting next week’s vote. Australia’s carbon price, which it established in 2012, is currently fixed. If the ETS remains weak, Australia’s carbon price will not soar in 2015 when it will be allowed to float and the country’s carbon market will be linked to the larger European one. But if the ETS collapses, it will encourage further opposition to the already controversial Australian scheme, worries Tom Brookes of the European Climate Foundation, an environmentalist group.
A collapse could also affect California, which set up a carbon market in 2012, as well as China and South Korea, which are putting together theirs. And it would undermine the chances that all these markets might one day form a global carbon trading system.
Back in Europe, other environmental policies could suffer. A low carbon price would slow down Germany’s ambitious plan to boost renewable energy and a high one would speed it up. Perhaps reflecting this, the German government is split on the vote. A collapse of the EU’s flagship policy would also throw into disarray European plans for future environmental reforms and its hopes of leading other countries by example.
Even if the proposal goes the commission’s way, that would not change the ETS fundamentally. The oversupply of allowances would continue unless the auctions were cancelled, not just rescheduled. But that is a battle for another day.
CO2 is a beneficial gas and we should do everything to increase the levels of CO2 as it would encourage more vigorous plant growth and crops that are more drought resistant. I am thinking of starting an organization to counter that numbskull McKibben of 350.org called 1000.org (any help appreciated) encouraging more emission of CO2. CO2 is currently 0.039% of the atmosphere. The oceans, land and man add CO2 to the air. The oceans are a major sink for CO2 (colder water). Vegetation uses CO2 with water and sunlight to build plant cells through photosynthesis. Man is responsible for just 3.22% of the CO2 added to the atmosphere each year (about 0.06ppm of the 1.5 ppm it increases). To put that is perspective for you, that is 18.78 people out of the population of the US of 313,000,000. And the criminal enviros want us to shut down industry and energy production to save the planet. John Coleman was so correct when he called it the greatest scam in history.
By Pierre Gosselin, NoTricksZone
Big, embarrassing news for German climate scientists.
With 11 days remaining, Germany this year is set for its 5th colder-than-normal winter (DJF) in a row (a record), this according to high-profile German meteorologist Dominik Jung at www.wetter.net here (photo above). Jung is an often-quoted meteorology expert of the German media.
I’m really quite (pleasantly) surprised because I recall sharply criticizing, even berating, Jung in a post about a year or two ago for believing all the warmist rubbish. I guess five cold, snowy winters in a row have been enough to get Jung to take closer look. His tone and music have changed completely.
Jung begins his post with:
“Just a few years ago climate experts prophesied that Germany would no longer experience winters with ice and snow in the future. In the 1990s there had been an entire series of milder and stormier winters. [...] However, this trend has not been observed over the last years. To the contrary: winters have again gotten considerably colder and the huge storms like those in the 1990s have more or less disappeared. [...]. Climate experts prophesied in the year 2000 that winters with snow and ice in Germany would cease to exist.”
Jung then presents the data for Germany’s last 4 winters and that of the current winter, and compares them to the 1980-2010 mean winter temperature, which was 0.8C above the 1960-1990 mean.
- 2008/2009: 1.0 C cooler
- 2009/2010: 2.0 C cooler
- 2010/2011: 1.3 C cooler
- 2011/2012: 0.1 C cooler
- 2012/2013 (so far): 0.4C. cooler
We should recall that whatever applies for Germany, also applies for much of Central Europe. Moreover, Jung mentions that the results are the same if you compare the five winters to the 1970 -2000 period. Jung summarizes the results:
With the current winter, we now have 5 winters in a row that have been colder than the long-term average! Crafty scientists at first explained that climate warming was just taking a timeout. Strangely, this timeout has now been going on for 5 years without interruption. Accordingly things have gotten very quiet in the climate warming debate.”
Yes indeed it has. Germanys prestigious research institutes and leading climatologists, such as “internationally recognized” Prof. Dr. Mojib Latif, Head of both the Research Division Ocean Circulation and Climate Dynamics and the Research Unit Marine Meteorology of the IFM-GEOMAR of Kiel, Germany, and “renowned” Prof. Dr. Stefan Rahmstorf of the influential Potsdam Institute of Climate Impact Research (PIK), or Prof. Dr. Jochem Marotzke of the Max-Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg are now stumped, baffled and confused by this unexpected development, which completely contradicts their earlier super-computer models. Indeed, most of the German warmist modellers have since gone back and revamped their models, and are now suddenly claiming that the colder winters are actually a sign of global warming! But for much of the remaining German science community, these once prestigious scientists are beginning to increasingly look like laughing stocks of the new century.
Jung did his homework, and also checked to see how the earlier models have been doing for the summers (JJA). Jung writes:
“By the way, according to many climate projections, also summers in Germany were supposed to get increasingly drier and hotter. Over the last 10 summers, only one summer was too dry, and that was the summer of 2003. Otherwise all summers were either average or much too wet.”
The models got the summers wrong 9 consecutive years in a row! So expect the Latif and the other hapless scientists to roll out new models soon. Jung continues:
The earlier climate projections and prognoses of the 80s and 90s are more or less way off, at least for Germany and Europe. Because of the current situation with the facts, they simply no longer fit and must be urgently revamped, otherwise we will wind up with credibility problems here.”
Too late. As mentioned above, the scientists are already laughing stocks and many of us have been rolling on the floor with laughter for quite some time. Jung:
People aren’t stupid and they recognise what the facts are. So let’s look and see just how much longer this timeout is supposed to go.”
If he hasn’t done so already, Jung ought to pick up a copy of Die kalte Sonne. It’ll remove any remaining doubts he may have.
There you have it. The climate models have been wrong in the winter 5 years in a row, and wrong in the summer nine years in a row. That’s even far worse then random guessing. This is an incredible performance.
Send thanks for this report to Wetternet.de e-mail address: info@qmet.de.
Photo credit Dominik Jung: https://twitter.com/WetterExperte
----------
Icecap Note: Winters in the US the last 15 years have grown colder in all 9 climate zones. The warmer winter last year and the variable winter this year due to the very cold eastern Pacific will flatten the trend after this year but there will be no warming.
--------------
German Meteorology Professor Expects Cooling For The Decades Ahead..."Climate Protection Is Ineffective”
Meteorologist Prof. Dr. Horst Malberg has an article posted at the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here. He tells us we ought to be preparing for a cooler 21st century first half.
Meteorologist Prof. Horst Malberg. Photo credit: EIKE
Professor Malberg starts his article by showing and discussing various solar activity charts. Today I’m a little short on time, and so I’ve translated his outlook and conclusion part of the article, which sums it up nicely.
Outlook
The sun is currently at the start of a quiet phase of activity and will likely reach the critical mean value of 50 sunspots during the current cycle, or even fall below it, i.e. the boundary value between a warm and a cold period. Analogous to the climate conditions during the time of the Dalton Minimum of 200 years ago, we have to expect a climate cooling for the decades ahead.
Only the “fickle” sun will decide the general extent of the expected cooling and when the temperature again will gradually start to increase. The latter is expected to occur in the second half of the 21st century, when the sun returns to a more active phase.
Both the 200-year De Vries cycle and the 80 to 90-year Gleissberg solar activity cycle point to an imminent drop in solar activity that will have consequences for global climate and food supply.
Russian scientist I. Abdussamatov of the Russian Pulkovo Observatory near St. Petersburg (www.eike.eu) has reached the same conclusion. Also according to his results, the solar minimum - which corresponds to the peak in cooling - is expected to be reached during the solar sunspot cycle around the year 2055.
CO2 will neither be able to keep Europe nor the globe from cooling. At most it will help temper the temperature decrease a bit.
Global temperature has not risen in 15 years. It has stagnated, and in recent years has even shown a downward trend - despite the massive annual increases in CO2 emissions. (Why hasn’t the public been informed of this by the media?) For the politically motivated IPCC and its followers, it is now time to give up the dogma of CO2′s climate dominance and the marginalization and branding of those who differ with climate science. Just because one belongs to the mainstream does not mean he automatically has a better knowledge of the science.
Predicting a global warming of 4C and associated apocalyptic consequences by 2100 by the CO2-dominated climate models (World Bank, PIK) is pure hypothesizing. As long as the solar effects and associated interactions are underestimated and the effects of CO2 exaggerated, no realistic climate conclusions can be expected.
The earlier analyses of climate allow only one conclusion to be made:
Compared to the integral solar climate effect, with all its complex, non-linear interactive mechanisms (ocean, clouds, albedo, biosphere, cosmic ray...), the anthropogenic greenhouse/CO2 effect is only of subordinate significance. Also the media attempts to trace back singular weather events to an anthropogenic influence has no merit. History shows that hurricanes, tropical storms, tornadoes, droughts and floods have occurred on and off over the centuries as a result of synoptic constellations. However, because of the population growth to 7 billion, more and more people and their goods are being impacted by natural catastrophes.
Instead of attempting over-rated and ineffective climate protection, all efforts should concentrate on global environmental protection: clean air, clean water, uncontaminated soil and an intact ecosystem are among the fundamental rights of people. Measures for reducing CO2 can be justified by the limited fossil fuel resources and pollution that comes from combustion processes. So-called climate protection is, on the other hand, the least effective of all measures. There never has been a stable climate over the course of history, and there isn’t going to be one in the future.”
The Daily Bell is pleased to present this exclusive interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer.
By Anthony WIle
Dr. S. Fred Singer (Siegfried Fred Singer) is an American atmospheric physicist, professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, which he founded in 1990. Dr. Singer is a prolific author, having published more than 200 technical papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals as well as editorial essays and articles that have appeared in leading publications. Front-cover stories appearing in Time, Life and US News & World Report have featured his accomplishments. Dr. Singer is author, coauthor or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs and has given hundreds of lectures and seminars on global warming, including to the science faculties at Stanford University, University of California-Berkeley and many others. He is elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Geophysical Union, American Physical Society, and American Institute for Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Daily Bell: Good to meet you. Please give us some background. Where did you grow up and go to school?
Fred Singer: I grew up in Vienna, Austria, left school at the age of 13 and apprenticed at an optical machine shop. I left in 1939, crossing the border into Holland the same day Hitler marched into Czechoslovakia, on March 15, 1939. I continued to England and worked as a teenage optician in Northumberland. I joined my parents in Ohio in 1940, shortly after the London Blitz had started and after the evacuation of British troops from Dunkirk.
Daily Bell: You received a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1948 in physics. Why did you get interested in physics? What kind of physics?
Fred Singer: In 1941, I was admitted to Ohio State University and studied electrical engineering; I finished in 1943 and was admitted to Princeton University as a graduate student of physics. It gave me the theoretical background for engineering. My Ph.D. came after service in the US Navy in World War 2 and dealt with cosmic rays, essentially high-energy physics.
Daily Bell: You’ve questioned the link between UVB and melanoma rates, and between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss. Explain, please.
Fred Singer: The link between solar UVB and melanoma is problematic. It is possible that solar UVA is the main cause; UVA is not absorbed by ozone. However, there could be many different causes for melanoma, a serious form of skin cancer. I have never questioned the connection between CFCs and stratospheric ozone loss; my only concern was whether enough CFCs entered the stratosphere to deplete ozone.
Daily Bell: You are well known for denying the health risks of passive smoking. Is passive smoke deadly? Does it cause cancer? What does cause cancer?
Fred Singer: I definitely do not deny the health risks of passive smoking but it is not as deadly as direct smoking. I would not be surprised if passive smoking causes lung cancer and other diseases. However, the analysis done by the EPA is based on poor science and is not in accord with epidemiology. Cancer is produced by all kinds of causes; smoking is definitely one of the major causes.
Daily Bell: Explain your view on global warming and climate change. What’s the difference and why?
Fred Singer: Climate change includes both global warming and global cooling, as well as regional changes. It is not known to what extent human activities are responsible for climate change or global warming.
Daily Bell: Please summarize some of your books. What was Global Effects of Environmental Pollution about, for instance?
Fred Singer: My first book dealing with the climate change issue was published in 1970 with the title of Global Effects of Environmental Pollution. It was updated several years later, titled The Changing Global Environment; it is currently being digitized and reprinted by the Springer publishing company. My book The Ocean in Human Affairs deals with the science, history and other aspects of the ocean, including its influence on human exploration. Global Climate Change presents both sides of the global warming debate. My book Greenhouse Debate Continued discusses mainly the shortcomings of the IPCC report of 1990. My book Hot Talk, Cold Science (1997) and its second edition of 1999 describe the evidence against an appreciable human influence on global climate. My co-authored Climate Change Reconsidered assembles peer reviewed papers and other evidence against any appreciable human effect on climate. It can therefore be viewed as responding to the IPCC claim for AGW.
Daily Bell: Thanks. What did you do while you served in the armed forces, and in what capacity did you work in government?
Fred Singer: I enlisted in the US Navy at age 18, hoping to become a radar officer; however, the Navy decided to use me in anti-mine warfare. After the end of hostilities I was detailed to work under the mathematician John von Neumann, designing an early electronic computer.
I’ve held several government positions: First with the Office of Naval Research as a scientific liaison officer in Europe, then with the Department of Commerce as the first director of the weather satellite service, then at the Department of Interior as deputy assistant secretary of water quality and research, then as deputy assistant administrator of EPA and finally as the chief scientist of the Department of Transportation.
Daily Bell: You were a leading figure in early space research and established the National Weather Bureau’s Satellite Service Center. How did that come about?
Fred Singer: research grew out of my high-altitude research with rockets (1946-50). I developed the idea of satellites and was then able to put them into effect as director of the weather satellite program. As a result of my experience in satellites, satellite design, instrumentation and atmospheric physics I was asked to establish the National Weather Bureau’s weather satellite service, and set that up in 1962-64. From there I went to the University of Miami to set up a new school: It included oceanography, climate science - and dealt with Earth sciences generally.
Daily Bell: How did you become such a global warming skeptic? Your critics say you are irresponsible for advocating your positions. Are you?
Fred Singer: My skepticism about global warming is purely based on the observed evidence - which shows no appreciable warming while there had been large increases in greenhouse gases. I feel that scientific criticism is the most responsible sort of thing - both from the point of view of science and from the point of view of national policy.
Daily Bell: In 2006 you were named by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as one of a minority of scientists said to be creating a standoff on a consensus on climate change. Was this an unfair charge?
Fred Singer: The CBC forgot to mention that thousands of scientists hold the position that I hold and therefore not a “minority” of scientists, at least not a small minority.
Daily Bell: You argue there is no evidence that global warming is attributable to human-caused increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, and that humanity would benefit if temperatures do rise. Why do you feel this is a responsible position to take?
Fred Singer: As far as we can tell, the increase of CO2 has not been producing corresponding warming. For example, there has been no warming in the 21st century - despite the large increase of greenhouse gases.
Daily Bell: You are an opponent of the Kyoto Protocol and have said of the climate models that scientists use to project future trends that “models are very nice, but they are not reality and they are not evidence.” How is it possible that so many scientists can be so wrong while you are correct?
Fred Singer: I am one of many who oppose the Kyoto Protocol, both for scientific reasons and for economic reasons. It is basically a political document, a treaty based on climate models rather than observed evidence.
Daily Bell: You have been accused of pushing “climate-denier” and “junk science” lines on behalf of large corporate interest groups. Is this fair?
Fred Singer: I have never been supported by any corporation and have therefore developed my work on climate science without any such support.
Daily Bell: The National Center for Public Policy Research lists you as someone who journalists can interview on climate change policy. Why do they offer your name?
Fred Singer: There are many organizations that list me as a source for sound science on the global warming issue.
Daily Bell: Lately, you’ve appeared to change your mind. You’ve strongly criticized those who have claimed that (a) the greenhouse effect violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics and that rising carbon dioxide levels do not cause temperatures to rise. Please explain.
Fred Singer: I am opposed to those who criticize the global warming scare, basing it on what I consider to be incorrect physics. CO2 is certainly a greenhouse gas and should produce some increase in atmospheric temperatures but it is so small we cannot detect it. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is sufficient to affect climate but the atmosphere has developed in another direction.
Daily Bell: ...that natural variations in carbon dioxide dwarf human contributions. Comment?
Fred Singer: Over geological history there has been much fluctuation - much greater than any human influences. However, over the last 100 years the source has been largely human.
Daily Bell: You are said to have had a change of heart and have lost patience with many AGW deniers. Is this true? Why?
Fred Singer: I have no use for those who oppose the IPCC based on incorrect science.
Daily Bell: In 1995, as president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (a think tank based in Fairfax, Virginia) you launched a publicity campaign about “The Top Five Environmental Myths of 1995,” a list that included the US Environmental Protection Agency’s conclusion that secondhand tobacco smoke is a human carcinogen. What made you come to the conclusion that the dangers of secondhand smoke are a myth?
Fred Singer: Secondhand smoke may well be a carcinogen; however, the statistical analysis carried out by EPA is full of mistakes.
Daily Bell: You’ve also criticized radon as fake science. Can you explain?
Fred Singer: It is the considered opinion of experts that radon in low concentration is not a carcinogen.
Daily Bell: You don’t believe a hole in the ozone layer is a danger. Why not?
Fred Singer: The so-called hole in the ozone layer is a temporary thinning in the month of October in the Antarctic; I do not believe it is dangerous.
Daily Bell: You recently concluded that unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is “unequivocally good news.” Why? Because “rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests.” Do you stand by this conclusion?
Fred Singer: Agricultural experts pretty much agree that a higher level of CO2 promotes plant growth and makes plants more resistant to droughts and pests.
Daily Bell: Why are so many false myths about science circulated? What is the agenda of those who continue to maintain that the world is warming at catastrophic levels?
Fred Singer: There are many false myths about science that circulate - usually based on insufficient expertise. I have been one of those who attacks smoking as a member of an anti-smoking organization. Cigarette smoking is definitely unhealthy. There are those who warn of catastrophic events from future warming; their aim appears to be to scare the population. I suspect that many are motivated by monetary considerations.
Daily Bell: Are islands drowning?
Fred Singer: As far as I am aware, islands are not drowning.
Daily Bell: Why have you fought this fight? You’ve been smeared, derided and even slandered. Has it been worth it? Will the forces of climate change win out?
Fred Singer: I think it is worth fighting for sound science even if one is smeared and slandered. My belief is the global warming scare will be over in the matter of a decade or so.
Daily Bell: Will we continue to bury carbon in the ground? Shouldn’t this money be spent elsewhere for better causes?
Fred Singer: The idea of burying carbon dioxide in the ground is a bad one, and I hope we do not carry out such projects. There are much better ways of spending the money; the world is full of places that need support.
Daily Bell: Are you winning the good fight?
Fred Singer: I think we are winning a good fight.
Daily Bell: Does the sort of idiocy you’ve been fighting make you believe humankind is doomed?
Fred Singer: I don’t think humankind is doomed, even though this has been predicted many times.
Daily Bell: Thanks!
Fred Singer is one of those people who have fought against power elite promotions like global warming because they offended his common sense and scientific background. He didn’t gain from it, necessarily, but he obviously found it difficult to keep silent.
There are many people around the world who have pushed back against elite promotions and often we don’t hear about them. Often, we don’t hear because such people do not have their stories told by the mainstream media. The mainstream media predictably focuses on telling stories the powers-that-be WANT to have reported.
News used to be “man bites dog: - but not in the modern era. These days, predictably one will exposed to reporting regarding gun violence, social breakdown, political superstars and the like. The dividing line between news and not-news is whether it furthers global governance or not. News supports elite internationalism these days.
Yes, whatever events support authority and denigrate the free market are often deemed newsworthy. People who support the UN’s mindless charitable hypocrisy are feted. People who create profitable businesses helpful to society labor in obscurity and may be accused of various kinds of exploitation.
We’re happy to bring you interviews with people like Fred Singer. You may not have heard of him – and perhaps he comes across as a bit curmudgeonly here – but he is one of the good guys when it comes to speaking out against the various idiocies of the modern age. We need more Fred Singers, not fewer. Hopefully, the Internet era is increasingly conducive to their growth.
Editor’s Message: The Daily Bell is published by a non-profit foundation, The Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking (FAFMT). Interviews, such as this one today, are not possible without your financial support. Please consider making a donation today. Click here now to learn more about FAFMT.