EU's 'carbon fat cats' get rich off trading scheme: study

Europe's system for industrial carbon quotas has enriched the
continent's biggest polluters, with ten firms together reaping permits
for 2008 alone worth 500 million euros, a new report revealed.

Dominated by steel and cement makers, the same "carbon fat cats" stand
to collect surplus CO2 permits that -- at current market rates --
could be worth 3.2 billion euros (4.3 billion dollars) by 2012, it
said.

This is roughly equivalent to the entire EU investment in renewable
energy and clean technology under its economic recovery plan,
according to Sandbag, a non-profit group in Britain that analyses
carbon market policy.

"Emissions trading is meant to be the central policy for cutting CO2
levels," said Anna Pearson, Sandbag's top policy analyst.

"The fact that companies are able to make large sums of money for
doing nothing highlights that the trading scheme must be reformed and
EU climate change target strengthened."

Under the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the European Union allocates
carbon polluting allowances to member states to meet obligations laid
out in the UN's Kyoto Protocol, for which the first commitment period
runs through 2012.

The states then assign quotas to the industries that belch the most
CO2 into the atmosphere.

Companies that emit less than their allowance can sell the difference
on the market to companies that exceed their limits, thus providing --
in theory -- a financial carrot to everyone to become greener.

But the energy, steel and cement sectors that dominate the system, hit
by the global crunch, are emitting less CO2 than forecast, which means
surplus carbon permits are flooding the market.

Among the top ten beneficiaries, steelmaker ArcelorMittal collected
more than 40 percent of the 2008 excess permits, reported Sandbag.

French cement giant Lafarge got about 12 percent, with Tata steel
group subsidiary Corus and Swedish steel maker SSAB-Svenskt Stal each
claiming about 10 percent.

Even if the permits are not directly resold for profit, the value will
still remain on the companies' books, rising or falling with the
market.

Most of the permits were generated simply because the companies were
allocated more free permits than they wound up using, according to the
report.

"Little or no actual 'effort' toward emissions reductions need have
taken place, yet these companies will be able to literally bank the
profits," it said.

The price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent has
fallen sharply over the last 18 months.

After peaking at nearly 30 euros (38 dollars) in mid-2008, CO2 is
currently trading at about 13 euros, according to BlueNext, one of
several European carbon exchanges.

Viewed narrowly, the recession-driven drop in CO2 emissions helps the
environment.

But low carbon prices give businesses little incentive to develop and
install new technologies to slash future emissions.
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/fren...udy_28844.html

Waxman's bill makes the USA's large, voluntary cap&trade, a mandatory
one,
like the much-larger EU one. anyway,
teh same effects can be achieve with a (small) carbon tax,
instead of just letting the arbitrageurs make all of the "credit" --
as with Waxman's '91 cap&trade bill under HW (for NOx and SO2,
viz acid rain).

The price of a tonne of carbon dioxide (CO2) or its equivalent has
fallen sharply over the last 18 months.
After peaking at nearly 30 euros (38 dollars) in mid-2008, CO2 is
currently trading at about 13 euros, according to BlueNext, one of
several European carbon exchanges.
Viewed narrowly, the recession-driven drop in CO2 emissions helps the
environment.
But low carbon prices give businesses little incentive to develop and
install new technologies to slash future emissions.
http://www.expatica.com/fr/news/fren...bon-fat-cats-g...

thus:
any demolition, "controlled" or not, will
produce a catastrophic collapse that is essentially "free falling;"
it is particularly true of "skyscrapers" that were built
with only secondary consideration given to tension (that is to say,
they are heavily over-engineered; see "tensegrity,' if
you can restrain yourself from googoling it .-)

thus:
the OP's 2-meter-per-second-or-less turbines wouldn't neccesarily
scale
for higher speeds; that's the problem with wind's huge dynamic range
(and this applies just as much to drag
on vehicles -- no dragsters with good mileage), although
I'm not sure of the power-law, since I have not proven it, myself.

thus:
I never saw that bin Laden really claimed that Queda did it, nor
have I seen proof that President Cheeny didn't allow it (or,
possibly just some thing, acoording to Mineta) to happen. But,
who are the muslim phsikists, who think that those planes had
constituted inadequate bombs (per comparison
to what is required for Cheeny to do it in the basement
for a week with the engineer) ??

Now our enemies know we were hoodwinked too.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6251AO20100306

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and the ICC's 3rd British invasion of
Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com