Terminating links between emission trading programs

Links between emission trading programs are not immutable, as highlighted by New Jersey׳s exit from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in 2011. This raises the question of what to do with existing permits that are banked for future use—choices that have consequences for market behavior in advance of, or upon speculation about, delinking. We consider two delinking policies. One differentiates banked permits by origin, the other treats banked permits the same. We describe the price behavior and relative cost-effectiveness of each policy. Treating permits differently generally leads to higher costs, and may lead to price divergence, even with only speculation about delinking.     

Comment: Investor demand and spot commodity prices

Tilton et al. claim in their article “Investor demand and spot commodity prices” to show that “investor demand can be pushing up a commodity's price even when investor stocks are falling.” In the present comment, it is argued that in both the cases described by Tilton et al., investors are supplying the market, putting physical material into it, rather than adding to demand. Thus, the reasoning by Tilton et al. is not concerned with the phenomenon referred to in the traditional theory, where, in the absence of changes in demand and supply fundamentals, prices rise as a result of increased investor demand for futures contracts.     

Mixed signals: market incentives, recycling, and the price spike of 1995

Environmental economics assumes that reliance on price signals, adjusted for externalities, normally leads to efficient solutions to environmental problems. We explore a limiting case, when market volatility created ‘mixed signals’: prices of waste paper and other recycled materials were suddenly extremely high in 1994–1995, then plummeted back to traditional low levels in 1996. These rapid reversals resulted in substantial economic and political costs. A review of academic and business literature suggests six possible explanations for abrupt price spikes. An econometric analysis of the prices of wood pulp and waste paper shows that factor which explained price changes in 1983–1993 contribute very little to understanding the subsequent price spike. From the econometric analysis and from other sources, we conclude that speculation must have played a major role in the price spike, perhaps in combination with modest effects from changes in government policy and in export demand. If speculatively driven price spikes can disrupt an environmentally important industry such as recycling, what is the appropriate role for public policy? When price volatility is sufficiently disruptive, then measures to control or stabilize prices, rather than interfering with the market, might help to make it more efficient.     

Reply: Investor demand and spot commodity prices

In a recent article (Tilton, Humphreys, and Radetzki, 2011), Tilton et al. argue that even when investor stocks are declining an increase in investor demand can cause a commodity's price to rise. They contend that this conclusion, which is based on two hypothetical examples, is both contrary to conventional wisdom and counter-intuitive. In my comment on the article (Olle Östensson, 2011), I challenged this finding. In a reply to my article, Tilton et al. maintain that their original finding is valid: investor demand can be driving commodity prices higher even when stocks are falling. In my present reply, I contend that their argument with respect to the first example confuses the actions of a minority of investors with those of all investors and is well accommodated within the framework of traditional theory. I further argue that their second example rests on an assumption regarding investor behavior that is unproven and that in any case falls outside the framework of analysis of futures markets.     

Investor demand and spot commodity prices: Reply

In a recent article (Tilton et al., 2011), we argue that even when investor stocks are declining an increase in investor demand can cause a commodity's price to rise, a conclusion that is both contrary to conventional wisdom and counter-intuitive. In his comment on our article, Olle Östensson (2011) challenges this finding. After assessing his concerns in this reply, we maintain that our original finding is valid: investor demand can be driving commodity prices higher even when investor stocks are falling.     

The World on a Collision Course and the Need for a New Economy

The first part of the paper is an attempt to demonstrate that what we are going through at the present time is not just an economic-financial crisis, but a crisis of humanity. It seems that for the first time in human history several crises converge to simultaneously reach their maximum level of tension. The dominant economic model is to a great degree responsible for the world’s collision course. Hence a number of myths that sustain the model are listed and analyzed. It is argued that a new economy, coherent with the problematiques of the twenty first century, needs urgently to be devised. The second part proposes the foundations for a new economy based on five fundamental postulates that allow the construction of transdisciplinary, holistic, and systemic visions to adequately understand the interdependence of all the elements that sustain life. It is stressed that it is no longer acceptable that Universities still teach economic theories of the nineteenth century in order to tackle twenty first century problems that have no precedence.