The spectacular failure of the EU is not at all surprising and it's not bad. While some on this blog may consider a carbon trading scheme a "practical" way to halt increasing emissions, it would actually reverse economic growth instead. I've said this before, and I'll say it again: access to affordable electricity is most reliable method of improving standard of living, from the individual level to the international level. Technology has not yet been developed that will allow an emissions trading scheme to be successful without disastrous results.

The European Union's carbon trading scheme hasn't netted very good results so far - greenhouse gas emissions were up by up to 30 million tonnes last year.

Why the failure? Critics and officials alike say too many permits were sold, allowing emitters to buy them cheaply and keep on producing greenhouse gases

REPLY: Why the failure? Because the Hypocrites in the EU who signed the Kyoto Treaty are not living up to their promises????.....Neeeee-ya (Crunch, Crunch, Crunch), Could Be!......

Minnie is right! The European bureaucrats eagerly signed Kyoto and patted themselves on the back for having shown environmental leadership, (prounced superiority). One must remember that most EU nations are socialist and provide liberal social welfare benefits to their citizenry whether they are gainfully employed or not. If the bureaucrats are forced to choose between economic prosperity and living up to their Kyoto obligations then Kyoto will lose.

Proposed new CO2 emission requirements have met with stiff resistance from German automakers who are warning that if they are imposed it will cause widespread economic hardship, just like we "inferior Americans" have been saying all along. When BMW, Mercedes, and VW are forced to lay off workers because their cars are not selling then you can bet the arrogant bureaucrats will not force compliance. CO2 emissions will continue to rise in Europe no matter what kind of schemes the bureaucrats come up with.

Carbon trading is nothing but a ponzy scheme allowing the same amount of pollution to exist while lineing the pockets of the administrators of the scheme with greenbacks.

These 'investments' will do nothing more than make it near impossible for third world countries to improve their standard of living. The cheapest forms of energy like all life on earth is carbon based. This will also contribute to the demise to currently stable economies

What type of gasses are considered to be catagorized as green house? This is question is at the heart of the matter. Carbon dioxide is at the top of the list of IPCC listed green house gases while water vapor which is not on the list is the largest contributor to the green house effect.
Remove CO2 from this list and you have an entirely different situation.

Why the failure? Actually, the carbon trading scheme is doing quite well. You can make a nifty profit trading carbon credits. It's basically a "feel good" measure for those who can afford it. It sort of goes like this: You're using way too much energy and you feel guilty about it. So, to alleviate that guilt you can buy carbon credits and maintain your present standard of living. What a deal!! With roughly half of the US and probably 90% of Europe feeling guilty about their lifestyle choice, the demand is skyrocketing (as does the emissions).

Laura, by putting a cap on the number of carbon credits available, it will only be a short time before only the rich will be able to afford them and emissions will continue to skyrocket as the masses ignore the rules. That's what happens anytime you put a cap on anything.

Why the failure? Simple: Because the EU can't reduce emissions globally if NO ONE else is helping.

Trading-schemes are a market-based regulation that people who worship the Holy Grail of the free market usually support.

Just goes to show you...yet again...that the market-based mechanisms often don't work, especially with environment and safety issues.

Emilano,
Nations are graded on the carbon concentrations within thier own borders -it matters little if the rest of the world isn't regulating CO2. The fact is, most European nations signed the Kyoto Accords with no intentions of actually implementing them. Only one nation -New Zealand- actually paid the fines for not meeting the goals.

Face it, Europe is emitting CO2 at records levels.

Mark:

Thanks for the comment, I know understand why you seem to have such a low regard for the free market. You really do not understand how they work.

Carbon credits (CC) are not a free market thing. It is merely a way by which to buy a "clean" conscience. Please look to the Goracle. He burns fuels like they are going out of style. Since he has a bunch of devotees buying into his drivel, he can afford the credits to "save" himself. Because there are not competeing sources for carbon credits, it is not a cost competition. And, considering that Goracle created his own CC company, it really is sort of money laundering in a way.

Emiliano:

I understand your position and feel for it, but really, each country needs to step up to the plate and take responsibility for themselves.

Anyone remember their history? The Catholic Church tried a smiliar scheme with indulgences. The pitch went something like this: 'For every *whatever the monetory denomination was back then* donation you make to the Church you can spend less time in Purgatory. Why endure the torture of this spiritual middle ground; offset your time today. Make you donation now.'

Martin Luther certainly didn't buy the Church's scheme of indulgences and the carbon offset scheme is the same type of scam. I guess it's true that those who don't know their history are destined to repeat it.

Darren,

If cap and trade isn't free market, then what is it? This is the ONLY type of 'regulation' that free market fatalists support. I've heard many supply-siders vouch for these types of regulations; in fact, they call emissions trading 'free market environmentalism'.

Heck, the market fatalists always point to how the cap and trade strategy has reduced acid rain, and that we should do more cap and trade rather than strict regulations. It's ironic how these same people are now calling this a 'Ponzi Scheme'. Yeah, it's a Ponzi Scheme that THEY invented and THEY supported.

mark:

Not sure what a free market fatalist is. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Acid rain was not reduced by cap and trade. It was reduced by restrictive emissions upon exhaust gases. It is a good thing. Not sure how the CC industry is a ponzi scheme. I mean what does a Happy Days character have to do with this? LOL OK, bad joke, couldn't help it. If someone is saying that, they are just trying to bad mouth it anyway they can ad should be disregarded.

The reason CC's are not free market is because the cost of the CC's are not related to anything. It is not a real thing. It is the price to do business and that cost is then passed to the consumer. It is akin to a hidden tax like what was placed upon telecommunications during the 90's. If you have noticed, that tax is being rebated to us as a credit on this years returns. Strange huh?