Climate Exchange Share Discussion Threads

[praipus] 09/6/2008 22:32

Verluaniun - 40% of carbon emissions are produced by power stations. No need to walk to work or sell the 4x4 or stop travelling by plane. Just encourage renewable energy generation.....carbon offset at the right price is a good way.

The con is governments making individuals feel guilty. When the governments could legislate for planning and carbon offset etc to encourage renewables generation Wind Turbines, Wave power, Solar (Solel.com etc) and Nuclear. Saving the 40% in very quick order.....ironically developing such capability might also stave off recession in the USA and elswhere.

[verulamium] 07/6/2008 16:26

Praipus - but the con of carbon trading does exactly the opposite of leaving the world a better place.

Imagine that I never get on a plane and walk to work, but my neighbour drives a 4*4 and travels to New York by plane every month. Using the carbon trading system, my neighbour can buy the right to continue to pollute from me. Net result - no reduction in emissions and a smug feeling neighbour who can claim to have a "zero carbon footprint" and who will continue to pollute.

The high oil price will do wonders in slowing CO2 emissions, and to encourage alternative fuels, CLE and their like do nothing.

[jiopl] 07/6/2008 16:09

A good article on CLE here.

[praipus] 07/6/2008 15:32

I can, and I'm greatfull that there are some people and governments who want to leave the world a better place than they found it.

[verulamium] 07/6/2008 09:43

Praipus - never assume what?

I don't see anything positive in that link for CLE, it's talking about an actual shift towards low and non-carbon forms of energy, not about any growth in the ridiculous smoke-and-mirrors carbon trading business.

[praipus] 06/6/2008 16:28

Zakmundo/Techmark never assume

[zakmundo] 06/6/2008 16:17

Techmark - 6 Jun'08 - 14:46 - 1572 of 1573

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A sweeping plan to drastically cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions and limit the effects of climate change met a resounding defeat in the U.S. Senate on Friday

Now that is interesting. And not good for CLE. Not good at all.



asparks - 6 Jun'08 - 15:50 - 1573 of 1573


On 4 June 2008, Moore Macro Fund, LP c/o Moore Europe Capital Management ("Moore")
acquired 595,000 Econergy International plc ("Econergy") ordinary shares of 1 penny each.

Now that is not interesting at all.

[asparks] 06/6/2008 15:50

RNS Number : 1958W
Trading Emissions PLC
06 June 2008




Trading Emissions plc
("Trading Emissions" or the "Company")
Rule 8.4

On 4 June 2008, Moore Macro Fund, LP c/o Moore Europe Capital Management ("Moore")
acquired 595,000 Econergy International plc ("Econergy") ordinary shares of 1 penny each.

Prior to this sale, Moore had held 3,705,000 shares in Econergy all of which were
subject to the irrevocable undertaking entered into between Moore, Trading
Emissions and Cenkos Securities plc, as previously disclosed in the Rule 2.5
announcement of 15 May 2008.

Moore now holds 4,300,000 shares (4.94%) of Econergy all of which remain subject
to the irrevocable undertaking.

Enquiries
EEA Fund Management Limited [phone]
Simon Shaw, Investment Advisor to Trading Emissions
Cenkos Securities plc [phone]
Nominated Adviser and Joint Broker
Ivonne Cantu / Liz Bowman


This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange

[techmark] 06/6/2008 14:46

WASHINGTON (Dow Jones)--A sweeping plan to drastically cut U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions and limit the effects of climate change met a resounding defeat in the U.S. Senate on Friday as a growing number of lawmakers became concerned about the effects on the economy.
The 48-36 votein the U.S. Senate was 12 short of the number needed to bring debate to a closeand vote on the bill. Democrats from oil and manufacturing states joined Republicans to oppose the legislation by Sens. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va.
Climate-change legislation had always been viewed as a long-shot, but supporters had hoped to set the framework for action next year by establishing principles for compromise. Instead, Democratic leaders who had pushed the bill found themselves on the defensive as gasoline prices hovering near a record-high $4 a gallon played into the hands of Republican opponents who pointed out that the measure would raise energy costs.
Big polluters have lobbied hard against the bill, which would require power plants, oil refiners and other polluters to pay for the right to release carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The goal is to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 66% by 2050. A U.N. scientific panel last year said the world needs to cut emissions of heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere by 50% to 85% by 2050 in order to limit damage from climate change.

[techmark] 06/6/2008 14:43

Breaking news - I am hearing that the US senate has voted not to proceed with the climate change bill.

[jiopl] 04/6/2008 19:15

Hi queeny2 there might be reasons to short CLE like volumes reducing on ECX and growing on climex.


but that article is not one of them because its not credible,its not peer reviewed and its full of errors!
See



Hopefully McCain or Obama will have the sense to base there policies on the overwhelming scientific evidence.

No position on CLE,sold for a small profit just interested to see what happens now!

[queeny2] 04/6/2008 10:21

last seen Harbinger's main fund was up 116% in 2007 (yes, no typo), and 20% so far this year, and $12.5 billion. hmmmmm. no selling pressure there!

[queeny2] 04/6/2008 10:18

that's not a catalyst! that's why we want to be short!

I don't see a predictable catalyst. so you either need to shut your eyes and sell more every £2 rise until your balls ache. or invent some trading rule. rsi seems unreliable. 30 day minus 200 day stretched, but same thing sort of.

In a way that link I posted may be interesting - I hadn't realised there was enough of a credible scientific backlash against man-made carbon-caused dangerous warming, which could, possibly, have an impact on McCain or Obama actual policies, or their timing.

I especially enjoyed the finding that the last 50 years have seen greater plant and animal diversity due to our carbon output!

[verulamium] 03/6/2008 23:45

Interesting thoughts Queeny, thanks, and a great link. You're right that a catalyst is needed - but growth slowing rapidly about 4 years before they can afford it to is a good start...

[stromboli1] 03/6/2008 21:07

Techmark -thanks for the link. Long time since I heard that - Does that date you to around 40 this year - like me!

[stromboli1] 03/6/2008 21:07

double post

[queeny2] 03/6/2008 20:43

I'm very interested in this as a short, but the problem with stocks which one thinks are trading at, say, 5x the right price, is that they can trade at 10x the right price - dotcom is a good analogy, it was ducking hard to stay short and solvent.

so.... what's the catalyst, how does one stay short and solvent, and catch most of what will, at some stage, be a halving of the price - but from what level? why £20? could be £25.

I've taken quite a lot of stock on loan (which is hard and expensive) ready to short. but haven't dared pull the trigger.

all i can think of is use chart rules, as in, say xxxxxxxx (absurd at £2, start shorting at 160p and follow it down) but there was a catalyst there - results were always likely to be awful, and the truth would out at some point.

there is no borrow (think eurotunnel in 1990, sitting duck, but no borrow).

one possible catalyst is Harbinger - they simply can't sell any, how much more can they buy?

i'm fishing for ideas on timing, thinking aloud.

and it doesn't help to think too hard about the morals and scientific truth about CO2 emissions, although is a cracking read!

[verulamium] 03/6/2008 15:40

How has this not collapsed today? The valuation relies on exponential growth - today's update is confirmation (if any was needed) that it's not going to happen.

In a downturn, Co2 emissions will reduce anyway, and the last thing anyone will be wasting money on is offsetting them. If there's a more obvious medium-term short, I'd love to know about it...

[zakmundo] 03/6/2008 14:45

Why should anyone judge performance on just 4 months data, look at the broader picture year on year

oh in a perfect world I quite agree - its just with very short amount of trading to date, and priced for absolute perfection, CLE will need to maintain month-month momentum to keep shareholders and the market happy.

With LSE valued at £2.6bn on a trailing post-tax profits of £178m, and CLE valued at £940m on a trailing loss, CLE cannot afford to look like anything other than a stellar growth co. Its all very well 2008 volumes to be 50% higher than 2007, but if month to month are static or falling, then the forward p/e basically looks unsustainable.

[techmark] 03/6/2008 14:36

Just look at the P/E !!

[corvidauk] 03/6/2008 14:35

zakmundo - Why should anyone judge performance on just 4 months data, look at the broader picture year on year. I think you might see rather a different reading! ok

[zakmundo] 03/6/2008 14:32

only for those who are short...

[j l] 03/6/2008 14:21

LOL! Would be nice if he said that ;-)

[zakmundo] 03/6/2008 14:15

Lasata

he might well say that - but I bet he didn't say "Oh by the way, since we peaked in Feb our total contracts traded have fallen in every month since" did he?


Month ECX ETS ECX CER CCX CCFE TOTAL
Jan 131,597 0 13,389 55,350 200,336
Feb 177,608 0 100,496 42,580 320,684
Mar 169,090 8,589 82,946 56,089 316,714
Apr 172,987 17,656 71,622 47,344 309,609
May 115,116 24,392 112,058 50,966 302,532