Ever wonder why Green and Eco Groups are so pro EU?

[Cassandra Syndrome]

1. Neither are "dangerous" - get real.
2. CDOs were risky during the crash of 2008 because the assets they were backed with were worthless.
3. The ETS is a way of managing a tax and ensuring that the most efficient industries pollute.

1. Get real? What's real about 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars? Thats 240,000 per capita for the planet. How does that represent scarce finite resources?

2. CDOs are risky full stop. As are CDSs. Goldman Snakes made more out of the bankruptcy of CIT Group through CDSs than what they actually had invested in it. It removes the concept of risk for certain parties. Now look at what is happening to Greece.

3. The ETS is not a tax. It provides corrupt countries like Russia an opportunity to bribe heavy CO2 emitters through their excess credits. And its not about the actual credits themselves its about the shadow derivtives involved.

Here is a good illustration on how 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars of derivatives are sucking away real wealth. No matter how much money they print its getting mopped up by phantom digits on computer screens.

[rubensni]

Interesting.

Now, could you explain what assets back the emissions permits being bought and sold under an ETS?

Then explain how they are not "worthless"

Buying emissions credits allows you to pollute. No asset backs them. They are worth something because if you don't have them you will be charged more in the long run.

What asset backs car insurance? None. It is a guarantee or a promise from the insurance company. But that does that make it worthless? Hardly.

[rubensni]

1. Get real? What's real about 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars? Thats 240,000 per capita for the planet. How does that represent scarce finite resources?

2. CDOs are risky full stop. As are CDSs. Goldman Snakes made more out of the bankruptcy of CIT Group through CDSs than what they actually had invested in it. It removes the concept of risk for certain parties. Now look at what is happening to Greece.

3. The ETS is not a tax. It provides corrupt countries like Russia an opportunity to bribe heavy CO2 emitters through their excess credits. And its not about the actual credits themselves its about the shadow derivtives involved.

Here is a good illustration on how 1.6 Quadrillion US Dollars of derivatives are sucking away real wealth. No matter how much money they print its getting mopped up by phantom digits on computer screens.

Talk about going off on a tangent!

[Tombo]

Buying emissions credits allows you to pollute. No asset backs them. They are worth something because if you don't have them you will be charged more in the long run.

What asset backs car insurance? None. It is a guarantee or a promise from the insurance company. But that does that make it worthless? Hardly.

Don't they do irony where you come from?

ETS is a bubble waiting to happen, worse than CDOs.

CDO were in fact entities back by mortgages - those are contractual promises to pay a stream of cash flows; something that has material value. The probability of full repayment of those mortgages was higher lower than markets came to believe, but they were not back by "worthless" assets.

On the other hand, as you point out the ETS is based on "permits" to emit CO2. That is truly intrinsically worthless. At the whim of a new (rational) legislator that stops regulating carbon emissions, they can be rendered worthless at a stroke.

They can be collateralised and geared and inflated in price on the basis of erronous expectations and information.

No, the ETS is a dangeorous beast indeed.

[ibis]

These are the same Greens that opposed every single EU Treaty before Lisbon, and abstained on Lisbon I?

[Cassandra Syndrome]

Don't they do irony where you come from?

ETS is a bubble waiting to happen, worse than CDOs.

CDO were in fact entities back by mortgages - those are contractual promises to pay a stream of cash flows; something that has material value. The probability of full repayment of those mortgages was higher lower than markets came to believe, but they were not back by "worthless" assets.

On the other hand, as you point out the ETS is based on "permits" to emit CO2. That is truly intrinsically worthless. At the whim of a new (rational) legislator that stops regulating carbon emissions, they can be rendered worthless at a stroke.

They can be collateralised and geared and inflated in price on the basis of erronous expectations and information.

No, the ETS is a dangeorous beast indeed.

To be fair it is all straightforward, rational and comprehensible to even the most foolish of Green Party members...

[Passer-by]

It would appear that posters are going out of their way to avoid discussing the contention from the OP, namely, that receipt of EU monies make the Green movement "pro-EU".

Do posters believe that Eurosceptics in the European Parliament are also pro-EU because they too receive money from the EU?

Or was the original contention just nonsense?

[Tombo]

It would appear that posters are going out of their way to avoid discussing the contention from the OP, namely, that receipt of EU monies make the Green movement "pro-EU".

Do posters believe that Eurosceptics in the European Parliament are also pro-EU because they too receive money from the EU?

Or was the original contention just nonsense?

Where was it established that "Eurosceptic organisations receive money from the EU".

[Cassandra Syndrome]

It would appear that posters are going out of their way to avoid discussing the contention from the OP, namely, that receipt of EU monies make the Green movement "pro-EU".

Do posters believe that Eurosceptics in the European Parliament are also pro-EU because they too receive money from the EU?

Or was the original contention just nonsense?

How is discussing the methodolgy of how scamming money on derived products from EU ETS going out of the way from the title of the thread?

[ibis]

Where was it established that "Eurosceptic organisations receive money from the EU".

UKIP, Sinn Fein...Libertas would have received EU money too, if they'd been successful.