It's really easy to see the hand of "speculation" where there is none. Gas prices last fall may have gone up due to speculation or they may have gone up because demand outpaced declining supply. Seeing as oil imports fell a lot and oil inventories did not rise, I'm inclined to believe the latter. Likewise, the decline of the price of European carbon credits has a much simpler explanation then speculation. GDP tanked last year while energy prices went up. This decreased demand for electricity. Also, eastern europe suddenly felt all the investment from abroad dry up, further reducing electricity demand in the regions most dependent on carbon intensive electricity production. Given that a cap and trade system is only meant to bring carbon emissions below a certain ceiling, it's not surprising that this decline in electricity demand would result in a steep fall in the value of carbon credits. Speculation is something we need to worry about in carbon credit markets as elsewhere, but it is poor economic policy to go chasing bogeymen where none exist.
PAS 2050 is the specification for calculating a carbon footprint. It sounds really good but on digging into it, I've determined it is voodoo magic. For example it has you calcualte the carbon footprint of the vehicle that transports an item from the warehouse to the store. Sounds good but what kind of vehicle, what's the distance between the warehouse and the store? That's just a couple of impossible questions on only one piece of the life of a particular item. The entire chain is full of different options that impact the carbon footprint. Furthermore, what is the carbon footprint itself? The spec doesn't address that. It basically says whatever the scientist decides. That means one scientist will calculate it one way and another will calculate it a different way. The entire foundation for cap and trade is Voodoo Magic and we're going to pay for it.
Comments
on the other hand...
It's really easy to see the hand of "speculation" where there is none. Gas prices last fall may have gone up due to speculation or they may have gone up because demand outpaced declining supply. Seeing as oil imports fell a lot and oil inventories did not rise, I'm inclined to believe the latter. Likewise, the decline of the price of European carbon credits has a much simpler explanation then speculation. GDP tanked last year while energy prices went up. This decreased demand for electricity. Also, eastern europe suddenly felt all the investment from abroad dry up, further reducing electricity demand in the regions most dependent on carbon intensive electricity production. Given that a cap and trade system is only meant to bring carbon emissions below a certain ceiling, it's not surprising that this decline in electricity demand would result in a steep fall in the value of carbon credits. Speculation is something we need to worry about in carbon credit markets as elsewhere, but it is poor economic policy to go chasing bogeymen where none exist.
Carbon Footprint
PAS 2050 is the specification for calculating a carbon footprint. It sounds really good but on digging into it, I've determined it is voodoo magic. For example it has you calcualte the carbon footprint of the vehicle that transports an item from the warehouse to the store. Sounds good but what kind of vehicle, what's the distance between the warehouse and the store? That's just a couple of impossible questions on only one piece of the life of a particular item. The entire chain is full of different options that impact the carbon footprint. Furthermore, what is the carbon footprint itself? The spec doesn't address that. It basically says whatever the scientist decides. That means one scientist will calculate it one way and another will calculate it a different way. The entire foundation for cap and trade is Voodoo Magic and we're going to pay for it.