"it undermines the carbon-trading scheme"
You can't undermine something with no foundations.
The Inconvenient Truth is that the trading of emissions, and of deficit-based carbon credits,and so on are complete and utter bollocks and always have been.
If they were capable of working they would not have been adopted.
"Energy Risk" published The ETS Law is an Ass almost three years ago, and I see no reason to retract a word of it.
Emissions trading and the other deficit-based schemes have been dreamt up by intermediaries for intermediaries.
Chicago Climate Exchange; European Climate Exchange; Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) - all owned by the usual suspects, and operate for their benefit, led as ever by Goldman Sachs, the brightest kids on the block.
The real solution lies in an "asset-based" market mechanism based upon the carbon in fuel, which we can get a grip on, rather than the carbon in emissions, which we cannot.
ie a workable "Carbon Clearing" and maybe even a "Carbon Currency" is what I have recently been working on, and I reckon I have architected a viable solution.
My recent articles in the August and September "Energy Risk" outlined how the market architecture and product design might look for the European electricity market and the Gulf Research Centre will be publishing a major article of mine in their December journal issue on the subject of a Middle Eastern initiative in the Gulf carbon fuels markets. "Any economic unit can emit money. The serious problem is to get it accepted" Hyman Minsky
But I don't think this is what the report is really saying. I think the subtext is that it's already too late so there's no reason to spend money on prevention.
Of course, you'll still have to spend the money - or someone will - on mitigation and consequences.
How much is it going to cost when London floods?
