Comments on: Kerry-Boxer Senate Climate and Energy Bill – Another Congressional Failure

By: greg gerritt

greg gerritt — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 22:04:37 +0000

I too prefer carbon taxes, and all sorts of taxes on the depletion of resources and pollution, but I think the author goes a bit far in setting up his strawmen to attack.

By: Carbon Trading: Scam, Sham, or Just a Really Bad Idea? - Ted Cushman: The Ten-Penny News

Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:23:55 +0000

[...] who has worked for more than thirty years in green building and energy-efficient construction. In a blog post on the website of the New England Sustainable Energy Association (NESEA), Unger describes [...]

By: Fred Unger

Fred Unger — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:26:31 +0000

Mr. Chilton,

Thank you for catching that error. As you suggest, I had merely forgotten to close the quotation at the end of your quote. I have corrected that and started the following portion of what used to be the same sentence as a separate sentence, which is clearly my own words and not yours.

On your quote in the body of the article, that was taken from the Financial Times, March 10, 2009 in which you are quoted as saying “I can certainly see carbon becoming the biggest of any derivatives product in the next four to five years. And that would of course mean overtaking T-bills [Treasury] and any contract that is out there right now.” For reference please see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d5d85ac-ee43-11dc-a5c1-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

I am curious to know your personal opinion, if you are able to share it in light of your professional position, regarding the wisdom of trading these derivatives based on fundamentally unverifiable international carbon offsets. It seems to me that after the sub-prime mortgage crisis, Congress would be well served by being a bit cautious before creating yet another such huge derivatives scheme.

Any thoughts you might share would be appreciated.

Thanks,

By: Bart Chilton

Bart Chilton — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 00:15:30 +0000

Hey Fred:

Please close my quotation after “five years.” I did’t say the rest of the sentence, and I’d rather not have folks think I did. I know it is just an error, but I’d rather not have it take on a life of its own.

If you wantred to be more accurate and current on what I have said, here it is. Witin five years of trading, the transactional value of carbon trading could reach $2 trillion, making it the largest physically-traded commodity market in the world. By way of comparison, Eurodollars are the largest of all traded commodites (physical or financial). Crude oil is the largest physically-traded futures commodity. At $2 trillion, carbon could surpass cruce oil, but not Euro dollars.

Thanks.

By: William H Fitch III

William H Fitch III — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:39:57 +0000

Hi Fred:

Nice consolidation….

Most of the general masses however do not even understand levels of details like this, 6th grade reading level etc… so they will believe what is most effectively marketed to them using traditional marketing techniques…
The only time you can get the general population on board is when its gets really bad. All the people in power of course know this.
Business as usual for lobbyists and pacs. Tools of business rather than the tools of the general population.
Enjoyed the read though….

…..Bill