Comments on: Latest RGGI Auction: Time To Reconsider “Success” In Carbon Markets?

By: Steeple

Steeple — Tue, 17 Sep 2013 03:00:00 +0000

This is all due to nat gas displacing coal fired power in the part of the US with the oldest and least efficient coal plants.

Thank you, Hydraulic Fracturing.

By: anderlan

anderlan — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:17:00 +0000

Wow that stock photo of Moscow looks like simcity–more and more fossil towers built up uncreatively in a straight row as the city grew.

By: anderlan

anderlan — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 04:13:00 +0000

The goal is close to zero pollution, so there needs to be a way of recalibrating the price as fast as the market moves.

By: Ronald Brakels

Ronald Brakels — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 03:03:00 +0000

Quite. A low carbon price means that cutting carbon emissions is cheap. That’s a good thing.

By: Matt

Matt — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 02:09:00 +0000

Yes it depends on the “desired” out come. I have kids and grand kids so was hoping to leave them a livable plant. But let me try with something simpler to compare to. Assume you (or son or grandson) (its an age thing) is taking honors calculus, and everyone get 100% not just on the final but for the whole year. We might think that the goal, standard, desire was set a bit low. I think the goal is a massively lower of GHS output. I think a price of $2/ton which is way below the impact of that ton. Could be an indication that the goal was set to low.
But yes, the market did reach the goal easier than the creators thought possible, so they adjusted the goal.

By: Bob_Wallace

Bob_Wallace — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:35:00 +0000

Keep your eyes on the number of coal plants that close in that area over the next few years. The EPA is hitting them with a big stick.

By: RobS

RobS — Mon, 16 Sep 2013 00:06:00 +0000

Surely this is just reflective of a relatively high supply compared to demand. If every emitter stopped emitting tomorrow and switched to emissions free technology then there would be no demand for carbon credits and the price would be zero. would that indicate a total failure of carbon pricing? of course not. The simple fact is that little encouragement is needed to reduce emissions, many of the options available are actually cheaper then continuing business as usual. INevtiably this low demand is resulting in a low price. You could drop the cap faster to lower supply and bring supply and demand back into balance, however if the desired outcome is being achieved this seems unnecessary.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 23:31:00 +0000

Now if we could just get the smoke belt to join into the RGGI. From Indiana east and from Tennessee north.

By: Matt

Matt — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 23:23:00 +0000

So the thing to look at is. (A) do you have most (all would be nice) of the contributors included in your cap. (B) Is the cap dropping fast enough. Remember that dropping sooner is a lot better than dropping latter. RGGI handle this by dropping the cap 45% in 2014. It might have better to drop 10% from the current amount each quarter. And have a automatic (10% drop) if prices drop below the reserve. At two dollars, maybe the reserve should raise 25% a year. This would give a clear signal of where to investors. But they did take a step to keep the market working.
And yes, not having a way to adjust the cap downward is what hurt the Europe market. They believe the bull that industry told them.
It can’t be done!!!
No wait it can be done, but will cause complete destruction of our economy!
No wait it can be done, but will be very costly.
Then once the market is in place, bam the reduction happen so fast that there is a over supply.

By: Omega Centauri

Omega Centauri — Sun, 15 Sep 2013 20:54:00 +0000

Interesting. It sounds like contrary to what we hear from the denialist camp, -the burden on existing industry isn’t very large, and they are making the adaptations at remarkably low price. That was the goal afterall. As much as I’d like polluters tp pay $100plus per ton, which is more consistent with the damage caused, as a society/economy, if we can get the reductions at low cost, then we are better off.