Experts: Carbon Trading doesn't work that great

Well, duh! The problem with a pure free market is the arbitrary price of the commodity leads to massive speculation and volatility. Carbon emissions have no price based on reality because consumers are not really paying for them. The stock market is different because the price of the stock is based on the perception of how well a company is doing its business. What is the price of carbon emissions tied to? Pure supply and demand. If a country wants to pay for more carbon emissions, it raises its carbon tax, which is already happening in the UK. Also, carbon emissions prices are tied to how much a country is actually emitting, and estimating that is a cottage industry, where the government can pick and choose reports. So, because of taxation, the price of carbon emissions can keep going up, but the flood of carbon tonnes into the system by poor countries can keep the price down, but if countries aren't producing as much carbon as they thought, they won't buy as much, which will further drive the price down. The carbon trading scheme was supposed to be the stick approach to goad countries into curbing emissions and turn to alternative fuels. What if it works too well? You see, too many hypothetical variables. But here in the article, we see the real purpose of emissions trading: wealth redistribution.

But, after a good start in 2005, the market suffered two horrific crashes this year after it was discovered that EU countries were in fact disgorging less pollution than initially thought.

That's a piece of good news for the environment, but bad news for trade. The emissions market became flooded with sellers, depressing the price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2), the principal greenhouse gas.

Ruta Bubniene, of the green group Climate Action Network Europe, said faith remained in the market, despite its turbulence.

"This has so far been the most feasible measure of reducing emissions because it's acceptable to businesses which wouldn't otherwise agree" to a total, immediate phase-out of CO2-belching equipment, Bubniene said.

"The problem with emissions trading is that it's not the solution but merely a tool to bring about real action in an affordable and transparent way," International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) director Edwin Aalders explained.

[emph. added]

Because of the environmentalists' ideological underpinnings, socialism and communism, successful capitalistic economies must be made to hurt and that wealth given to poorer economies so they can compete better. Of course, capitalism is much quicker at adapting to the needs of the public, which may be what we're seeing in the curbing of emissions, if it's true (like I said, who knows?). What if we achieve the Kyoto Protocol goals without carbon trading? Hmm, the collectivists didn't see that one coming.

Update: Canada wants to joing the Asia-Pacific Pact mainly because it does not depend on a Kyoto Protocol carbon trading scheme. Australia is already meeting its Kyoto emissions goals without carbon trading. Environmentalists don't like it:

"Environmentalists lament the Asia-Pacific pact relies only on voluntary measures and contains no targets, timetables or financial mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas pollution."

Where's the hurt to your economy? That's their real lament.