Close this Advertisement

Experts Set Debate on Carbon Trading for U.S. Business

  • Oct 06, 2009

Trayport, Europe's carbon trading platform, is sponsoring a debate on "Is Carbon Trading the Next Big Thing for US Business?" from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Oct. 13 at the Hudson Hotel in New York City.

Leading U.S. and European authorities will focus on the effectiveness, economic benefits, profit potential and environmental soundness of a cap-and-trade program similar to the EU Emission Trading Scheme (EU-ETS).

The European Union (EU) made carbon trading mandatory in 2003. Despite taxpayer objection, U.S. manufacturers, energy companies and others have begun trading carbon credits on voluntary markets. Moreover, India and China now share a sense of urgency over reducing carbon emissions and embrace carbon trading as a solution.

"The U.S. economy stands to benefit. The nation will likely have excess emission quotas to sell and opportunities to generate credits for sale under both the California and Federal legislative proposals and will look to electronic trading as the means to achieve this. Carbon trading will also create jobs to monitor emissions, trade credits and develop green technology," says Elliott Piggott, managing director of Trayport, Inc.

Fred Fishkin, CBS Radio journalist, will moderate the pane that includes:

      Dinesh Babu, chief executive officer, Carbon Ratings Agency;
      Veronique Bugnion, managing director Analytics & Research, Point Carbon;
      Steven Schleimer, director, Barclays Capital;
      Prof. Praveen Kumar, faculty fellow, CT Bauer College University of Houston;
      Christopher Hunter, vice president, Carbon Finance (US), Climate Change Capital ;
      Kiernon Allen, marketing director, Bluenext ;
      Michael Cosgrove, managing director/head of Commodities & Energy Brokerage, North America, GFI Group;
      Elliott Piggott, managing director, Trayport.

Comments

Wed, Oct 7, 2009 Paul Eagle River, Alaska, USA

Like the first commenter said, "It is all about the money." The carbon credits trading schemes are a bureaucrat's dream. One can trade for a fee. Who gets the fee? You have now created a whole industry that does absolutely nothing. If you want to do something, get a copy of Lawrence Livermore Laboratory's US energy budget. Find out where the energy sources are, where the sinks are, and figure out how to meet the needs in appropriate and reasonable manners, that produce the greatest bang for the buck. For example, it should be a criminal act to create a thermal power plant, green fuel, coal, or what ever, without utilizing the low level waste heat. If your knickers are in a knot over CO2, then make CO2 a resource for an industrial process. Copper smelters took the sulfur dioxide from their stacks and made sulfuric acid, a useful industrial chemical. It is innovation and creativity that will solve our energy and pollution problems, not bureaucrats.

Wed, Oct 7, 2009 BOB TENNESSEE

Please, do they think we are all idiots!!!!! This is all about the money. If you truly want to lower carbon emissions than set an allowable limit for companies to meet. If they don't meet these standards than fine them the first time and for a second offense put there CEO in jail. After a few CEO's go to jail they will lower their carbon emissions, if not close the company down. People need to realize how critical this is. If you look at data going back 100 years you can see the earth's temp warming at an alarming rate and if we don't do something now it will be to late.

Wed, Oct 7, 2009

I agree with Baldwin's opening - Seemingly clueless, yet inquiring, alas that is only a ruse, he has concluded the whole thing is a con. - As for the objections against taxpayers objections, this sounds like the same person who continues to believe that Sadam had weapons of mass destruction, Afghan is the place to be, and Americans have the best health care in the world. Instead of Hot flat and crowed, we need to [worry] about being hot flat and stupid.

Wed, Oct 7, 2009 Chris

It's not the environment, it's the money, it always is. I suspect that the so-called "experts" are somewhere close to it or trying for all that's in them to get there. "When common sense fails, stupidity reigns supreme." Pray for the elected rulers to come to their senses or to be replaced as soon as possible. "Political correctness and facts are usually at total odds." Thanks, I needed that.

Wed, Oct 7, 2009

Isn't the whole philosophy of carbon trading reverting to the lowest common denominator? If some companies can do well enough to sell their improvements of their emmissions, why shouldn't they be set as an example for others to achieve, rather than let them sell their "leftover" benefits to the environment for money to polluters who won't bite the bullet? This brings any benfit to the environment to a lower pre-set, artificial limit. Limits should be imposed based on the science and what's achievable, and then everyone should have to meet them.

Tue, Oct 6, 2009 Grant Murdie Burgas, Bulgaria

Am I missing something here? "The nation will likely have excess emission quotas to sell." Does not the U.S. have the highest carbon footprint per capita in the world? How on Earth can the nation (as a whole) have excess emission quotas to sell - unless of course the allowable/target emissions limits are set way above the already dirty mess we find ourselves in? Trading paper and money should not absolve polluting industries of their obligation to pollute less.

Tue, Oct 6, 2009 Carr Baldwin Michigan

I must be ignorant, but who is the one who establishes the emissions allowance for a specific facility? Is there any appeal process? What is the procedure and what are the criteria? Anyway, the whole thing is a con. Anyone making an objective analysis of the available data will conclude that we are already into global cooling - must prove the effectiveness of a policy that has not even been implemented.

Tue, Oct 6, 2009 Berthold Klein Cleveland,Ohio

You are all ignorant of the fact that "Man-made global warming/climate change" is a political fairy-tale!!!! The greenhouse gas effect was disproved in 1909.
As attorneys/businessmen I am sure you have little or no knowledge of physics or the Laws of Thermodynamics therefore you will not have enough knowledge to make an intelligent decision on the comments that the concept of the greenhouse gas effect VIOLATES THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMIC" Thus CO2 and any other supposed GHGs cannot cause global warming.
Please discuss this with a knowlegeable physicst and not a politican physicst as Dr. Chu. Look up the web-site www.strata-sphere.com as a start.

Tue, Oct 6, 2009

The words that bother me the most is "Against taxpayers objections" Our representative are elected to represent the will of the people but it seems to be ignored more and more and it's always for some other "good cause"

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above