Posted on 04/17/2013 5:23:37 AM PDT by DeaconBenjamin
The European Commission proposed increasing the price per ton of emitted carbon dioxide that companies must pay under the bloc's Emissions Trading System (ETS). EU lawmakers narrowly rejected the bill 334 to 315.
The ETS was initially lauded by environmental advocates as the world's most ambitious effort to combat climate change. The number of certificates granting permission to emit carbon dioxide is capped, and companies can trade those certificates on the open market, giving economic incentive to invest in cleaner energy.
However Europe's economic slump has caused the price of the emission certificates to drop dramatically. The European Commission's plan would have delayed auctioning 900 million additional pollution certificates.
SPIEGEL ONLINE spoke with climate policy expert Felix Matthes about the consequences of the proposal's failure.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: What does this vote mean for the emissions trade?
Matthes: The price for certificates, which is already much too low today, will collapse. I foresee re-nationalization of climate policy.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Is Europe-wide emissions trade threatened with extinction?
Matthes: I would go even further: The decision means the end of a European approach to climate policy. All the politicians who constantly call for more harmonization of climate policy in the EU and internationally sent the policy back to the national level. That is an enormous step backwards -- also for global climate policy. Even China is now starting to pursue emissions trade. South Korea and Australia have already implemented it, and California has started a very ambitious system.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Why is emissions trading so important?
Matthes: You can connect the systems worldwide. That would achieve what the United Nations has been unable to accomplish for years -- a global climate policy. And this opportunity is being intentionally destroyed.
(Excerpt) Read more at spiegel.de ...
Everybody who was forced to pay a fortune for these retarded certificates for no reason ought to get his money back.
This “climate” policy was economy-damaging nonsense to begin with but because Europe was relatively wealthy, they were able to live with its bad effects to make themselves feel better. The brutal reality is that they no longer can afford to make themselves feel better with damaging policies like this because they are no longer wealthy so they will have to get rid of them.
I admit to being a denier. Yes, I deny that humans cause meaningful climate change. Whoever established what the optimum temperature should be? We don’t even know if the humanity and the biosphere would be better off if it were warmer or cooler. Without that essential information, any attempt to control the climate is foolish, or it is evil.
I deny! I deny that it is foolish! I believe that it is evil because it is first a lie. Second it is a lie that is being used to destroy personal liberty. Third it is a scheme to justify additional taxes. Fifth, it is a scheme that demands that food be burned as fuel, thus tying the price of food grains to the world price of energy, thus raising food prices. Rising food prices in third world countries has been documented to be one of the major triggering factors in overthrow of governments. People died during this social turmoil.
Excellent points, and I would add that it is an evil policy that hurts the poor the most, as they can least afford the increased prices in energy, and food.
Thank you for your opinion. You are correct and succinct.
Educated comments such as the one you have made are the very reason that I read FR.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.