GraniteGrok

Well, let's see how that works out, shall we?  Are there any models out there that can predict how well this works out?  Has anyone else tried it, claiming the same things?

Oh yeah - Europe!  So how's it going for these signers of the Kyoto Protocol, who have showered great praise over themselves for "protecting the planet" and "we're all in this together", and heaped scorn on those countries that have not signed onto this delusionary pact to kill their economies (like the US and Australia - and who HAS lowered their emissions?)?

Er, not so well, as it turns out; there's this as a tease:

Heh!  For the last few years, it's all been about the climate, the climate, and the climate. Now they are far enough down the road that the self-imposed limits are supposed to be kicking in to where they matter.  The real costs of compliance is now going to start to kick in.

And now, politicians (those high minded patriots of Mother Gaia) are starting to show their true colors as the true results start to kick them: 

Poland has joined Germany in calling for industry exemptions to EU climate rules as a recession in Europe’s major economies is casting doubts on whether Brussels will be able to push through its ambitious CO2 reduction programme.

EU Industry Commissioner Günter Verheugen yesterday (25 September) gave specific assurances to Poland that 100% free CO2 permit allocation “should be possible” for the country’s energy intensive industries.

Let me ask a really impudent question - if the allocation permits are free, what does that mean about the success of this program?  Are people starting to understand that capital will go to where the costs are lower?  Are the politicians starting to have a "what were we thinking?" moment?  Are there a lot of CEOs banging on their tables, or banging on the exit doors of their countries?

Free allocations?  A rousing success then?  Free credits - such a "free market" solution!

Verheugen, speaking at a conference on the Competitiveness Council, repeated the Commission’s position that exemptions should not be formalised before an international climate change deal is reached in December 2009, and insisted that pushing industries out of Europe is not the aim of the EU climate package.

Right - here's the translation: let's not do anything about this until we get the chance to rope everyone else into this lunacy that will equalize the playing field. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking - good luck with that!.  This is about the same type of problem as the high taxing Brussels EU wonks are complaining about concerning countries with lower taxes; "it is not fair, you must raise your taxes to be the same as ours"!

And please do not be so stupid as to think that we are so stupid as to think that you really didn't believe that your policies would cause your tax generating cows to up and leave?  Oh, please; that statement is a class example of CYA.  In the mean time, here the "push comes to shove" moment:

But Brussels’ resolve on the issue may be softening. A non-paper circulated by the Commission cites the aluminium, steel and cement sectors as "likely to be strongly affected [and] would therefore be amongst the substances likely to benefit from partial to totally free allocations" (EurActiv 22/09/08).

The growing financial crisis in the US, which analysts say will have considerable recessionary impacts on major EU economies like Germany, the UK and France, may also make it increasingly difficult for the Commission to justify higher operating costs for industries.

A solid display of their courage of convictions! Once again, we see what happens when Government meddles in the private sector.  I guess that watching the slow motion fall of the centrally planned economies of the Communists, and the somewhat slower fall of their fairly socialist economies has not been much of a "learning moment" example, eh?

Member states are getting nervous about asking their industries to pay more for CO2 pollution, says Christian Egenhofer, a senior researcher at the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS) in Brussels. The “assumptions have gone”, Egenhofer said in reference to likely declining investments and growing constraints on governments’ abilities to use macro-economic instruments towards ‘green’ aims.

Ah yes, just like we have just seen here in the US where Social Engineering types thought that they, like King Canute, could wave their fairy wands and have the principles of fiscal economics dance to their tune.  Well, for a bit and for a time perhaps, but now that crunch time is coming due, it seems the only crunching they are going to hear is not of crashing of emission levels but of their nutsy ideas of inputs and outputs (that their input of "green" would not have an effect on their companies' creation of "green"- cash that is).

And a revolt is now brewing (and the Germans know how to brew!):

The demands of the Visegrad countries were given indirect backing at the beginning of the week (22 September) when German Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that her government “could not support the destruction of German jobs through an ill-advised climate policy”, the Financial Times reported.

And then, of course, there is this.  I haven't figured out if this is a true believer who wishes to jam his beliefs into the economy or a guy who is trying to justify his job:

EU Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, meanwhile, argues that an economic slowdown should not stall the EU’s climate efforts. "The financial crisis is here one day and it is gone another day. But the climate crisis will be there always and we must face it," Dimas told reporters in Brussels on 24 September.

Well, let's see which priority will take precedence over the other.  It's easy to be green when you are flush with cash (just look at Al Gore!).  Of course, it's kinda hard to support a family (or their high cost welfare states) when you've mandated their jobs out of existence.

So, where's NH in all this?

The few New Hampshire companies who actually need such credits are not saying if they are going to bother to bid at this stage. The state of New Hampshire itself won’t participate in the first auction, preferring to wait until the next one in December. In fact, some experts said – thanks to a declining economy and emissions reductions – power producers won’t need as many of the “allowances” being auctioned off to emit carbon dioxide.

Under the initiative, New Hampshire’s annual carbon budget is 8.6 million tons, which translates into 8.6 million allowances that must be auctioned each year, in quarterly auctions.

New Hampshire lawmakers passed RGGI into law last spring, but the state is still hammering out final rules so it won’t be taking part in the first auction on Sept. 25. Neither will New York, New Jersey and Delaware.

But that doesn’t mean that New Hampshire power producers don’t have any interest in the September auction of some 12.5 million allowances. An allowance is an allowance, no matter which state is issuing it.