Get into carbon credits - it's the future

JulieW

Well-Known Member
Silver Stacker
Finally the carbon credit scam begins its financial services stage.
Welcome to the testing ground formerly known as the Colony of Australia

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-scrap-carbon-floor-price-20120828-24xuo.html

After weeks of secretive talks between the Gillard government and the Greens, Climate Change Minister Greg Combet has announced Labor will scrap the planned $15 floor price on carbon permits in a major overhaul of the carbon pricing scheme.

Following intense lobbying from business and threats by the independent MP Rob Oakeshott to block the floor price, the government will ditch the mechanism and instead restrict the purchase of cheap overseas permits from developing countries.

A limit on the amount of United Nations-backed permits that Australian companies can buy will effectively prop up the price at home.

Mr Combet also announced plans to link Australia's scheme to Europe's emissions trading scheme from 2015, which is likely to have the effect of matching the two prices.

The link with Europe means that Australian companies can start buying European permits - which are now trading at $9.80 - right away to meet their future liabilities.

This could make the carbon price cheaper overall for Australian businesses, though the European price is likely to rise by the end of the decade as the European Union moves to make restrictions of its own.

Australian companies will only be able to meet 12.5 per cent of their liability under the Australian carbon scheme with the UN-backed permits.

And from 2018 - or possibly sooner - Australian companies will be able to sell credits in Europe. This could be a boon for farmers, who can generate credits through changes to their land practices, such as tree planting, though Mr Combet said that aspect was still to be negotiated.

The carbon price, which came in on July 1, will initially be fixed at $23 and will rise slightly over the next two years, when it becomes a floating-price emissions trading scheme.

Europe has the largest emissions trading scheme in the world. A linkage means that carbon permits can be traded back and forth between Australia and Europe. The idea is that the free market then finds the cheapest possible way to reduce carbon. From an environmental viewpoint, it does not matter where the carbon cuts are made.

The floor price was intended to create certainty for potential investors in clean energy. But businesses complained it would be an administrative headache.

Without a restriction of the UN-backed international permits, the Australian price could crash to as low as $3 or $4. The Greens have been concerned that a very low carbon price would not be enough to drive investment in cleaner energy such as wind, solar and wave power.

Today's announcement is also likely to have an effect on negotiations between Energy Minister Martin Ferguson and electricity generators who could be paid billions of dollars to phase out their dirtiest power plants.

The likely price of carbon over the next decade is one factor in deciding the value of these power plants. They may argue that scrapping the floor price raises the value of their assets.

The Greens have already backed the changes.

Independent MP Rob Oakeshott said this afternoon he would also support the legislation.

He said the announcement would protect Australia's emissions trading scheme from some ''very difficult decisions into the future''.

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott said the changes showed the government was all at sea on the carbon tax.

''You can't fix it. You've just got to scrap it,'' Mr Abbott told reporters in Rockhampton.

''We haven't had the carbon tax for two months yet and they've admitted there is a fundamental flaw at the heart of the carbon tax.''

Mr Abbott said there would be a ''huge hole'' in the budget as a result of the decision.

''If you can't take the price for granted, you can't take the revenue for granted, and if you can't take the revenue for granted, you can't rely on the compensation,'' he said.

However Mr Combet said the government would not reduce household assistance payments and tax cuts set up to compensate for the price impacts of the carbon tax.

Asked if he was contemplating any further changes Mr Combet said: ''no''.

''We will not be cutting any household assistance,'' he said.

''We committed to it and you might recall that there are further tax cuts that have been legislated from 2015 as well.''
 
And from 2018 - or possibly sooner - Australian companies will be able to sell credits in Europe. This could be a boon for farmers, who can generate credits through changes to their land practices, such as tree planting, though Mr Combet said that aspect was still to be negotiated.

Sigh. So the re-greening begins.
 
JulieW said:
...the government will ditch the mechanism and instead restrict the purchase of cheap overseas permits from developing countries.
A limit on the amount of United Nations-backed permits that Australian companies can buy will effectively prop up the price at home.

That's smart, cause this climate change thing only occurs within Australia's borders. :lol:
Why would we want companies to be able to keep costs down by using imported credits, when the carbon tax is all Australian made?
Oh, that's right... the deficit???
 
I think it is fairly ironic that the Greens were whinging that a price below $20 from memory was basically pointless.

Remember when they were pushing for $40 a tonne?
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/c...ce-shock-now-its-40-tonne-20110516-1epxo.html

And:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ll-be-well-south/story-fn59niix-1226057628289

cheery picked quote said:
BOB Brown has challenged Labor to justify a carbon price below $40 as the Greens push for "complementary measures" to lift the effective rate of Australia's proposed carbon tax.

The Greens leader today urged the government to move quickly towards a European-level carbon price, equivalent about $40 a tonne, saying that was effectively the international price.

Climate Change Minister Greg Combet said the eventual carbon price would be "well south" of that level.

But, as the government's multi-party climate change committee moves to finalise details of the tax, Senator Brown called on Mr Combet to justify a lower starting price.

"If there's a rationale behind that, then let's hear it," the Greens Leader said.

Confidential Deloittes research has reportedly found a $40 a tonne carbon price would be needed to encourage a national transition from coal-fired electricity to gas.
 
The Greens are hopeless. They have a complaint about everything and a reasoned solution to nothing. In Sydney their solution for dealing with traffic is to force large commercial developments to only have 2-4 car parking spaces. Their "reasoning" is that if people can't find anywhere to park they will get rid of their cars. There is a 77 room + retail accommodation development being approved in our council area and they were only required to provide 4 off-street parking spaces.
 
How else do you indoctrinate policy that undermines free markets and creates victims in a politically viable way?

Easy, invite opportunistic voters into the scam to share the proceeds.

Negative Gearing operates on exactly the same philosiphy.

As soon as the politicians can bring in enough voters to make reversal of said policy 'political suicide', it's sure to stay the course and more so, they can unleash those voters taking advantage of the situation loose on those who protest, creating a lovely little buffer between their policy and accountability.

'We kept it around because so many Australian's rely on it's profit to survive and because 'democratically' the Australian majority voters want it in place'



It's enough to make any thinking person sick.

Death by austerity.

That's the policy and business model of this country's political landscape and we have the audacity to wonder why there's no integrity in the system?
 
Quote from our chief economist today:

"The pricing and stucture of the carbon tax was set up with no economic considerations at all and with one goal only - to make it as difficult as possible to reverse it by Abbot."
 
hyperinflation said:
Quote from our chief economist today:

"The pricing and stucture of the carbon tax was set up with no economic considerations at all and with one goal only - to make it as difficult as possible to reverse it by Abbot."

And that's because the international investment banking cartels that ordered the Labor Party to introduce the tax want to make sure that their profits are secure.
 
Jonesy said:
hyperinflation said:
Quote from our chief economist today:

"The pricing and stucture of the carbon tax was set up with no economic considerations at all and with one goal only - to make it as difficult as possible to reverse it by Abbot."

And that's because the international investment banking cartels that ordered the Labor Party to introduce the tax want to make sure that their profits are secure.

I should also mention that I work for one such international banking cartel... and I firmly beleive the structue of the carbon tax is full of s***... however, if money is there to be made on a government's stupidity, then we would be just as stupid if we didnt try and profit on it. :)
 
hyperinflation said:
Jonesy said:
hyperinflation said:
Quote from our chief economist today:

"The pricing and stucture of the carbon tax was set up with no economic considerations at all and with one goal only - to make it as difficult as possible to reverse it by Abbot."

And that's because the international investment banking cartels that ordered the Labor Party to introduce the tax want to make sure that their profits are secure.

I should also mention that I work for one such international banking cartel... and I firmly beleive the structue of the carbon tax is full of s***... however, if money is there to be made on a government's stupidity, then we would be just as stupid if we didnt try and profit on it. :)

I think you have the horse before the cart and that is the moral hazard. It is these banking cartels that have pushed this, it's not like they are opportunistic entrepreneurs here making a dollar off of a dumb green ideology. They have set this up to profit even further from people's misery.
 
^ thankyou :)

Not all profit is good profit. Depends on perspective, but abandoning all ethics for profit has caused a lot of problems for mankind in general. That tend should be pushed into reverse, not encouraged.

Edit: likewise, someone could argue they're going to make heaps of money being on the top rung of a ponzi scheme, but that doesn't make it ok to support a ponzi, knowing full well that your profits will be the direct losses of many others.
 
Well i can safely say i didnt push or vote for a carbon tax and would be happy as any of you to see it go...

But if someone puts a 10oz bar in front of you and says:

"Please take it (here is the receipt from the Perth mint guaranteeing it was legitimatley obtained)" - would you take it?
 
Dogmatix said:
^ thankyou :)

Not all profit is good profit. Depends on perspective, but abandoning all ethics for profit has caused a lot of problems for mankind in general. That tend should be pushed into reverse, not encouraged.


So that the socialists don't take your comment the wrong way (which they probably will) - as per rbaggio's and others signature blocks the abandoning of ethics occurs when regulations give you a special protected space in the market where it is nearly impossible for consumers to punish you for abandoning all ethics for profit. I can't think of any real world example which has not been created as a result of a having been handed a privileged position in the market by the Government.

rbaggio's signature said:
"If you are creating money out of nothing, you don't have to charge an awful lot of interest on it to show a profit" - G. Edward Griffin
 
^ thanks :)

One prime example is the US legal system as a whole, it is so convoluted, and the legal officials are so corrupted that big business can do whatever it wants, if it has a big enough legal team.

Edit: which means that lower level competition is unfairly disadvantaged, and usually snuffed out. Too big to fail is another example of this.
 
hyperinflation said:
Well i can safely say i didnt push or vote for a carbon tax and would be happy as any of you to see it go...

But if someone puts a 10oz bar in front of you and says:

"Please take it (here is the receipt from the Perth mint guaranteeing it was legitimatley obtained)" - would you take it?

But that's my point. It's not like someone is puting the 10oz bar in front of you. They are coercing the government to make someone else put a 10oz bar in front of them.

All of the rest of the BS behind this aside, There is one piece of legislation missing out of all of this that is vital. No one should be able to purchase a carbon credit that is either not the end user of the credit or the creator of the credit. If a big bank like Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan is able to use its endless access to cash to be able to buy credits and sell them at a profit then right there is the first sign that this is out and out corruption.
 
Lovey80 said:
All of the rest of the BS behind this aside, There is one piece of legislation missing out of all of this that is vital. No one should be able to purchase a carbon credit that is either not the end user of the credit or the creator of the credit. If a big bank like Goldman Sachs or J.P. Morgan is able to use its endless access to cash to be able to buy credits and sell them at a profit then right there is the first sign that this is out and out corruption.

Some people would call that "a free market".
 
Back
Top