Big money calls for carbon price

keep-calm-and-get-the-fuck-out-of-my-country-1

From the AFR:

The globe’s largest investment funds, worth a collective $20 trillion, have called on world governments to move urgently on climate change policy and provide a stable setting for green investment before a key United Nations summit next week.

The group of 300 investors, which includes Australia’s Investor Group on Climate Change as well as international giants BlackRock, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management, also called for stable and “economically meaningful” carbon pricing.

Wrong country fellas.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

      • I said my family does – not me personally.

        To be honest my family typifies the problem perfectly.

        Parents (divorced obviously – screw the kids hey) – simply accrue endless properties based on early history of my family handing down wealth.

        Were to miserly however to assist with any education – had to move states in order to get study assistance as they were far to wealthy for me to quality, yet, refused to assist.

        Have never had a cent from them – despite them having literally MILLIONS handed to them.

        In fact – grandparents left grandchildren and inheritance and they went to court to try and stop that.

        The laundry list of bullshit is unending – it is precisely because of them that I am so antagonistic towards the boomers.

        But yes – when they die me and my siblings will inherit. Unlike them. Who were handed the earth – literally.

      • Wait – not sure why I just answered that – its 1:51 on a friday after noon – guess you’re on the sauce hey Mig ?

        See you there soon – wheres my big jar.

      • OK Lav you’ve lived what I’ve lived.
        I hear you but I will get nothing, I’ll give it all to my sisters out of spite for the c#nts

    • Exactly, they want a carbon price so they can trade the derivatives, and access the blank cheque book that is government funded green initiatives.

      • Spot on flawse.

        Alas, the fervent believers / chicken littles willfully and falsely conflate any position (based on abundantly demonstrated, irrefutable proof) that the universally-endorsed official “solution” is nothing but a bankster scam, with a “denialist” position on … bow and scrape please … “the science” of global warming.

        Risible.

      • […] and access the blank cheque book that is government funded green initiatives.

        We could only dream about a “blank cheque book that is government funded green initiatives”.

        Such a thing might have meant, for example, we wouldn’t be getting involved in another American oil war.

      • Alas, the fervent believers / chicken littles willfully and falsely conflate any position (based on abundantly demonstrated, irrefutable proof) that the universally-endorsed official “solution” is nothing but a bankster scam, with a “denialist” position on … bow and scrape please … “the science” of global warming.

        No, that’s completely arse about face.

        It’s the denialists who try to conflate climate change science with straw men like usury and One-World-Governmental oppression. Like you just did then.

        The science “solution” to climate change is to reduce CO2 output. An emissions trading scheme is proposed as the most likely way to do that in a world brainwashed by thirty years of neoliberal free-market extremism and anti-Government propaganda.

      • “It’s the denialists who try to conflate climate change science..”

        I for one endeavour to make a point of not addressing the matter of “the science” for two very good reasons, the second of which is well-justified time and again here on MB:

        1. IMHO, to argue “the science” is utterly pointless; “all” the scientific “authorities” agree, the “verdict is in”; it’s happening, it’s “dangerous”, and “we are to blame”. Why bother arguing about it then? Let’s move on to discussing the means of addressing the problem.

        2. The faithful always desperately seek to ignore any evidence that the officially-endorsed “solution” to global warming is a complete scam, by grasping at any possible red herring with which to slime the messengers as “denialists”.

        Understandable, (though pathetic) of course; to even consider the possibility that the official solution is a pure scam by Big Multinational Corporates, begs the question of just how far the scam goes.

        The “science”, and the “solution”, are two separate issues. Deliberately conflating them in order to avoid facing the overwhelming evidence that the “solution” is a scam, tends to suggest just how much the faithful are indeed acting on faith in their chosen “authorities”.

      • You shouldn’t go oFf the meds, M○r○nix… all this cursing and insult throwing is lowering the tone.

      • You’re arse about face you vile little hypocrite smithy

        Where’s the cursing? Or are your eyes failing you as badly as your boomer brain is failing the rest of us?

      • Some of the things you Touretted today:

        “you tosspot boomer waste of space”
        “Go f your self aging African boomer tossbag”

        So now we know you have memory and intellectual challenges. Figures. 🙄

      • I for one endeavour to make a point of not addressing the matter of “the science” for two very good reasons, the second of which is well-justified time and again here on MB:

        Bullshit.

        You attack “the science” all the time. Heck, you did it just above with the snide little aside:

        […] that the universally-endorsed official “solution” is nothing but a bankster scam, with a “denialist” position on … bow and scrape please … “the science” of global warming.

        IMHO, to argue “the science” is utterly pointless; “all” the scientific “authorities” agree, the “verdict is in”; it’s happening, it’s “dangerous”, and “we are to blame”. Why bother arguing about it then? Let’s move on to discussing the means of addressing the problem.

        We would love to move on to discussion the means of addressing the problem. Unfortunately, there are lots and lots of people in positions of power who don’t accept the science, and frequently use arguments like yours as a figleaf.

        The faithful always desperately seek to ignore any evidence that the officially-endorsed “solution” to global warming is a complete scam, by grasping at any possible red herring with which to slime the messengers as “denialists”.

        Only when they try and conflate an argument (or conspiracy) about how climate change might be dealt with, with an argument about whether or not it even exists. Like you did, above.

        The “science”, and the “solution”, are two separate issues.

        Indeed. Something you should keep in mind when you want to criticise the “solution”.

      • Why did you tell me to ask my parent about it then? You know I can’t stand talking to boomers….

      • “You attack “the science” all the time”

        Try re-reading, and actually thinking about, what I actually wrote, in the immediately following itemised point 1. — “to argue “the science” is utterly pointless…” etc etc.

        I don’t “argue” the science for the two reasons explained. Hilariously, you have … once again … abundantly substantiated the rationale for the second of them.

        The issue I put forward is the overwhelming evidence that carbon pricing is a scam. Either address that evidence, or STFU.

      • Try re-reading, and actually thinking about, what I actually wrote, in the immediately following itemised point 1. — “to argue “the science” is utterly pointless…” etc etc.

        Good advice. You should take it.

        I don’t “argue” the science for the two reasons explained. Hilariously, you have … once again … abundantly substantiated the rationale for the second of them.

        I didn’t say you argued it. I said you attacked it.

        The issue I put forward is the overwhelming evidence that carbon pricing is a scam. Either address that evidence, or STFU.

        There’s nothing to address. I don’t disagree with you.

    • Just like burke berkshire hathaway these funds are probably getting too big and need a larger sand box to play in.

      Something like climate change would be backed by the government from a funding point of view, it would be the perfect market to leech off.

      • Dude, think about it.

        These irredeemably evil sociopathic f***s have loaded the Western world (households) up to the gunwales with debt. Real economic growth is essentially non-existent; ergo, there’s no way to keep their traditional business model — lending against real assets (eg, RE) — growing sufficiently, given the absence of enough new lending opportunities. The world is (very nearly) completely maxed out on debt. And since the interest on it is compounding, it can never be repaid.

        Time to move on to a 100% artificial market.

        1. Fees and charges on the base level of the government enforced compulsory trade in new digital numbers representing a tonne of (unmonitored, unmeasured, self-reported) CO2 “emission”.

        2. The biggie — unmonitored, unregulated, Off-Balance Sheet derivatives gambling on the underlying “market price” of those digital numbers representing a tonne of (unmonitored, unmeasured, self-reported) CO2 “emission”.

    • Adam Smith said it best:

      “The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order [merchants, bankers etc], ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.”

    • And yet people attack the Greens for rejecting the first attempt at a trading scheme that would do nothing for the climate and create a giant derivitives market.

      Sensible punters attack the Greens for their petrol tax hypocracy. Sigh.

      But yeah, If the FIRE sector likes it then it’s probably not in the public interest. Or they are at least getting a big sack of pork out of it.

      • Sensible punters attack the Greens for their petrol tax hypocracy. Sigh.

        There is no hypocrisy in the Greens position on petrol tax, which basically boils down to “we can’t trust anything Tony Abbot says”.

  1. The only way the crooks of the world operate, is to set up schemes to rip everybody (the dumb bastards) off. So it will be with carbon pricing, a giant game of monopoly. Honestly, is there a politician in the bloody world who: (1) has a brain? (2) can be trusted (3) doesn’t have his snout in the trough?

      • Can we pull back on the abuse for a few days.might?
        We get that you are angry but spraying venom on a forum won’t make throaty better.

      • Haha yes carbon pricers sure are

        Where’s the abuse oh sensitive one? Or did you mean to respond to another remark?

    • Carbon pricing. Is. A. Scam.

      I’ve presented literally dozens of links testifying to the myriad proofs of this fact.

      There are none so blind as those who will not see.

    • It’s a valid point though HnH. This blog spends a lot of time castigating rent seekers of all varieties, couldn’t it be argued that these funds managers are rent-seeking? Why is it okay to be skeptical of Clive Palmer or the Big 4 Bank CEOs lobbying the Government on market reforms but ‘loony’ to be skeptical of these chaps lobbying?

      I mean, when was the last time a Government actually managed to set up a well-regulated market that wasn’t hobbled and bastardized mere years after inception?

      Regulation of the emission itself seems more effective – it dealt with the Ozone hole quite effectively, which is now recovering. Direct tax might be less efficient than a pure market solution, but tell me where in this world that we live in does a pure market exist?

      • You’re all missing the point, you paranoid retards.

        Those giant entities want a stable carbon pricing mechanism in place because AGW is real and has to be tackled, and will be tackled, at some point, and sooner is better than later (see Nicholas Stern’s report on how a stitch in time saves nine in this regard).

        But hey, keep wearing your tinfoil hats if that makes you feel better. 🙄

      • Mate you don’t have to convince me, I know it’s real and needs to be dealt with. But I am naturally skeptical of complex financial products and the people that push them. The more complex the product, the more people making money out of them in shady and illegitimate ways.

        Why does it have to be a trading system based on arbitrarily Government-issued permits? Won’t it just go in the same direction as Government-issued fiat? Why not just a simple direct tax, or better yet straight-up emission regulation?

        These are entirely legitimate questions. Something has to be done about carbon pollution, but I fear we’re getting screwed over by the same slick marketeers that convinced us to deregulate our banking sector.

      • There will always be rent seekers and problems with all markets, that does not mean they don;t work. The design of any ricing scheme will need regulation like any other market.

        Many of these objections are closet communism that hates markets period, not informed and liberal thought, or GW skepticism disguised as carbon pricing hatred.

        Both are wrong.

      • I will be on @Benzinga #PreMarket #HFT Friday show LIVE at 8:35am http://t.co/2czmaPskmX Beware Modern Markets!

        Markets work when they aren’t being manipulated for and by boomers holding desperately onto asset values

      • But modern markets fail spectacularly and often. Look at the derivatives market during the GFC, the gold market (now mostly paper), etc. Will we be able to accomplish carbon-emitting fuel independence before the carbon permit market goes the same way?

        Given the amount of time you guys spend addressing market failures on this blog I am surprised at how much faith you put into governments coming together to create a well-regulated carbon market.

        Calling direct regulation communism is pretty ridiculous and ignores the effectiveness of using direct regulation to curb emission of other toxic and environmentally destructive compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons (ozone hole), mercury, lead, etc.

        We already tax tobacco to reduce consumption, why not tax carbon and reduce production?

      • “Many of these objections are closet communism that hates markets period, not informed and liberal thought, or GW skepticism disguised as carbon pricing hatred. “

        And there you go — proving my point yet again.

        No response to the mountains of proof that carbon pricing is and always has been a Big Fossil / Big Finance scam, other than ad hominem, straw men, and false conflation of different points of argument in order to rationalise dismissal of the evidence by smearing the messengers.

      • Why not just a simple direct tax, or better yet straight-up emission regulation?

        Because taxes and regulations are always bad, mmmkay.

        I’d also propose that these more direct methods are seen by people who are fundamentally “sceptical” as an admission that humans really are primarily responsible.

      • Why not just print (type up) the “money” and install solar on every roof?

        Seriously.

        Oh no, we can’t do that.

        We can print up circa $30 TRILLION to bail out and prop up the global bankstering system when their previous derivatives bubble (on mortgages) exploded.

        But we couldn’t possibly print up the money to save the planet from imminent, catastrophic, humanity-extincting global warming.

        Oh no … no no no no NO!!!!!

        Gotta have a “price on carbon”.

        Just ask those folks mentioned in the above article — “international giants BlackRock, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) and Deutsche Asset & Wealth Management”.

  2. MB CHALLENGE:

    Find me three (3) executives, economists, or other high profile employees of financial / investment / insurance institutions who do not want a “price on carbon”, “tax” on carbon, or other “market-based carbon mechanism”.

  3. I’m agnostic on how we address our emissions, but any sort of tax or price on carbon seems especially impractical now. I mean we brought in a tax, compensated people for it, then withdraw it without withdrawing the compensation, how we’re snookered. I mean how would politicians sweeten the deal a second time around?! Best just to try and make direction action work.

  4. Carbon Market ‘growth’ mainly fraudulent, World Bank report shows

    “The global carbon market, which trades ‘pollution rights’ to encourage industry to cut greenhouse gas emissions, grew in 2009. Far from signaling a success, this reflects a huge increase in fraud, the dumping of surplus emissions permits by industry, and a rise in financial speculation.

    Put simply, carbon trading is not primarily practiced to cut emissions, as its advocates claim. Instead, trading takes place to make speculative profits, or to ‘hedge’ the risks that large energy companies face in relation to changing fossil fuel prices and currency fluctuations.”

    https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/44896

     

    The EU carbon market scam

    “In 2005, industrial lobbies and big fossil fuel corporations, such as BP and Shell, finally got what they wanted: a market for CO2 emissions rights that would allow industries to continue polluting and even reap a profit.

    All sorts of ridiculous arguments are put forward to disguise the fact that carbon trading doesn’t — and won’t — lead to emissions reductions. In fact, that was never its purpose and that’s why large polluters love it.”

    https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/46909

  5. Our Common Cause: Carbon trading not solution to climate crisis

    “…it is time we confronted the misplaced faith in an ETS of any sort.

    When Julia Gillard was prime minister we were told time and again by Labor, and the climate report it commissioned Ross Garnaut to write, that only a market mechanism like an ETS would reduce emissions. There was no proof to back it up, but plenty of progressive-minded people bought into it…

    In Europe, where carbon trading schemes have existed for years now, grass roots environmental organisations are calling for them to be scrapped because they’ve proven to be worse than useless.

    … the suggestion that only a “market mechanism” could save us is pretty weird, considering it is the market — or capitalism — that got us into the global warming mess in the first place…

    …the fossil fuel mafia will fiercely protect their business model, even if it costs the Earth. So any change would require breaking the economic and political power of the corporations that rule Australia.

    It’s hard to see that happening any time soon. But unless we confront that truth we won’t get anywhere.”

    https://www.greenleft.org.au/node/56775

    • the suggestion that only a “market mechanism” could save us is pretty weird, considering it is the market — or capitalism — that got us into the global warming mess in the first place…

      Markets can function without the form of crony global capitalism we generally associate with them. Indeed, markets will most likely function better without this baggage. It’s also a pity that alternative forms of private ownership can’t be seen as distinct and appreciated for their advantages.

      • Dear lord Alex! Do you have handy brochure from Bureau of Met for that insight too?

        Anyone would think you’ve skin in the carbon market pimping airy-fairy coulda-been would-been’s — lets get markets we have now functioning problem first.

        Who knows Alex that might fix things altogether (investment/pollution pricing)….

      • Jesus Mig. You need to proof that one mate.

        I am simply saying most of the benefits associated with capitalism have actually come from markets. The problems we commonly see relate to how big capital interests actively seek to avoid the competitive pressures that come from markets. Indeed, much of the strategic management process is one of avoiding the competitive discipline that properly functioning markets instill. Competition may be good for efficiency in the simplistic sense but, is bad for profits. As such, we shouldn’t be surprised when big oil firms invest $$$ in derailing change efforts that might help markets promote substitute forms of energy (ie: competitive pressures from substitutes per Porters 5 forces analysis). Failing to appreciate how markets need to function and the role govts should play in ensuring they do so merely plays into the hands of big capital interests. So if you want a markets to work, I suggest you rethink your position on this issue.

  6. Just 3 days after Carbon Sunday, when the Gillard Govt released its draft “carbon pricing mechanism” legislation –

    “Australian banks are eyeing opportunities to cash in on the proposed carbon tax by developing new financial products and services that capitalise on a market seen to be worth billions of dollars annually, according to a report by the Australian Financial Review.

    Australian financial firms that have experience in European carbon markets, such as Macquarie Group Ltd, Westpac Banking Corp Ltd and ANZ Banking Group Ltd are particularly keen to establish their presence in the Australian market.

    The initial three-year fixed carbon tax period from 2012 will serve as time to prepare for the release of ETS permits by 2015, when opportunities will really open up for banks to capitalise on the carbon market.

    ANZ’s head of energy trading said the value of the derivatives carbon market would dwarf the $10 billion initially raised by the government, according to the AFR.”

    http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Banks-look-to-capitalise-on-carbon-tax-report-pd20110712-JPQRL?OpenDocument&src=hp9

    Who Really Owns The Big Four Banks?

    http://blog.creditcardcompare.com.au/big-four-ownership.php

    • So much knowledge and insight Op8! Appreciate the ‘mist clearing’, researched and analyzed writings. I wonder how to get the collective ‘spirit of change’ that meets here out to the street where it belongs?

      Why not tune up that Maton 6 stringer over in the corner and synthesize this down to some ballads? Worked pretty well for the Guthries, Seegar, Baez and Dylan.

      Here’s some wise words from Johnny Steinbeck’s GOW, to get you ‘motivated’. Key of ‘C’ with harmonica?
      ATB

      “You’re not buying only junk, you’re buying junked lives. And more – you’ll see – you’re buying bitterness. Buying a plow to plow your own children under, buying the arms and spirits that might have saved you.”

      “Fella in business got to lie an’ cheat, but he calls it somepin else…You go steal that tire an’ you’re a thief, but he tried to steal your four dollars for a busted tire. They call that sound business

      If he needs a million acres to make him feel rich, seems to me he needs it ’cause he feels awful poor inside hisself, and if he’s poor in hisself, there ain’t no million acres gonna make him feel rich, an’ maybe he’s disappointed that nothin’ he can do ‘ll make him feel rich

      Banks “breathe profits; they eat interest on money. If they don’t get it, they die the way you die without air, without side-meat.”

      • Don’t argue with the deniers—
        Whether just misinformed, or liars:
        We don’t have much longer
        Before doom gets stronger
        And everybody expires.

        when we don’t exist, we won’t be missed.

      • That was awful!!

        I sat, in awe, agasp.
        Tried in vain to grasp,
        With uncertain dexterity
        Rendered fretting.

        Ill disposed
        To console a nations
        Hopes,
        Now bereft of a way foretold.

        Turned to dust
        Aspirations of the August,
        An English bile resiles
        And resounds with Balfour
        Bellicose intent to ride
        A stallion steed arms at hand
        To decide,
        at once and set fast,
        A victory supine.