Automakers may turn to an online auction system to buy and sell carbon credits in the near future. As Automotive News reports, the Environmental Protection Agency will soon stop allowing automakers to simply pay fines for exceeding their carbon emission limits and will instead move to a carbon credit system. Under that plan, more efficient automakers will be able to sell the credits they don't need or use to automakers that want to build less efficient products. Unfortunately, automakers are notoriously competitive and likely won't be willing to help each other out, even if it means making a little extra cash.

The solution is to use an anonymous market where automakers can buy or sell credits without ever knowing who's on the other end of the transaction. Several companies have already signed up for accounts with Mobilis Trading, though none have actually bought or sold credits just yet. That may change as the government puts ever more pressure on automakers to reduce emissions.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 49 Comments
      Actionable Mango
      • 1 Year Ago
      The headline of this article doesn't make sense, nor does it match the content of the article at all. CAFE standards and carbon credits are two completely different things. Carbon credits can be traded. CAFE standards are about fuel efficiency, not carbon credits. CAFE standards don't have credits and cannot be traded.
        DanielS
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Actionable Mango
        Exactly. Even the AutoNews article only mentions the word "carbon dioxide" once. Very vague and confusing.
      knightrider_6
      • 1 Year Ago
      This is dumb. Why not just raise taxes on gasoline to say $4 per Gallon and let the "free markets" figure the rest of this out on their own.
        icemilkcoffee
        • 1 Year Ago
        @knightrider_6
        A carbon trading scheme is exactly that- letting the free markets decide how to reduce carbon emissions.
      James
      • 1 Year Ago
      So they won't be allowed to just pay a fine anymore, instead they have to pay for "credits"? What happens if they don't buy enough credits, they pay a fine? How is this materially different, and thus how will this have the effects intended?
      Basil Exposition
      • 1 Year Ago
      All this to avoid a simple gas tax hike?
      AngeloD
      • 1 Year Ago
      Goldman Sachs Bank, Morgan Stanley, George Soros, Al Gore, etc. WILL recoup their investments in carbon credit exchanges, one way or another they WILL earn the hundreds of billions these this fraudulent scheme will generate. Wall Street has invested far too much money in Barrack Obama's and other senior Democratic Party political campaigns to let this die. Americans WILL pony up a significant amount of their wealth to these asset strippers, Americans WILL give back a substantial amount of their standard of living to these scum. Americans today are simply not well enough educated, are too scientifically illiterate, are too passive, are too ignorant, to resist the depredations of these asset strippers. The religious mythology of anthropogenic global warming WILL be imposed on Americans, their wealth WILL be transferred to these asset stripping scum.
        Ryan
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        Take a look at the big oil companies and what they are doing with their 'profits' first. The American people are giving lots more money to them.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Ryan
          LMAO. Yes, a 6-10% profit is just wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy too much for any company. Stop looking at the actual dollar amounts and grow up. Life is based on percentages and the "oil" companies don't make that much money. I don't see you whining about the amount of money apple made last year and they didn't innovate sh!t. Yet the evil oil companies invest millions in "green tech" because they are not stupid enough to think that oil will last forever as an energy source. So they are hedging their bets on future technologies. I swear irrational people like you should have your voting privileges revoked. Next, people are VOLUNTARILY giving money to the big bad evil oil companies. Do you understand what it means to VOLUNTARILY BUY SOMETHING? If you don't like it, you are not FORCED to buy it. This BS above is the government sticking it's nose where it doesn't belong and costing US more money. $cr3w you and your idiotic government officials. All of these f---ing morons need to be fired, at minimum. Hung for treason in some cases. PS, Notice, I don't single out a side. ALLLLLLLLLLLL ELECTED GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE PSYCHOPATHS HELL BENT ON CONTROLLING US. I'm so glad that's what you want.
        Spec
        • 1 Year Ago
        @AngeloD
        What is it with the right-wing and conspiracy theories? Everything is a grand conspiracy. Climate change is a hoax, FEMA camps, Obama gonna take ma gunz, Sandy Hook was staged, evolution was made up by scientists straight from the pits of hell, Agenda 21 is a grand conspiracy for world government, etc.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Spec
          Miami and many other places are supposed to be under water right now. Please, explain what happened? Not everyone that doesn't believe in your BS climate change thinks that evolution didn't occur. THERE IS ACTUAL EVIDENCE OF EVOLUTION. There is no evidence that "climate change" is a MAN MADE PHENOMENON. There are a half a dozen assumptions that have to be made just to make their stupid models work. Just like we were told that miami would be under water in 2010 if we didn't do something NOW. But hey, the government only does things to help people, right? Ignorance, you are it.
      2 wheeled menace
      • 1 Year Ago
      I got a better idea. Outlaw global oil subsidies ( 2 trillion a year currently ). It will make gasoline more expensive. people will use less. there will be more incentive to develop alternatives. These schemes will be gamed in the mean time, and likely won't put a dent in things. China is the largest polluter in the world now. Good luck getting them to comply. We will only hurt ourselves, whilst all our emissions end up coming out of a tailpipe far far away..
        2 wheeled menace
        • 1 Year Ago
        @2 wheeled menace
        Why tax people to make energy less expensive to buy, which encourages buying it, then tax them for what comes out of the tailpipe, discouraging the purchase. Does that make any sense to you? I will forever be more interested in making my own energy renewably and using electric drive as a primary form of power. You just can't manipulate electrons the same.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Agreed. Get rid of all government subsidies, even if it causes prices to increase, and then let the market decide what is this most viable technology. I'm all for conservation, because we will eventually run out of fossil fuels and it's idiotic to burn your food supply in your gas tank. But we just need to get the government out of all industry and let things succeed/fail on their own merits. Personally, I don't think pure EV's are the answer. I think hydrogen will be the answer in the long term given the fact it is easier to refill on the go. But I could be wrong.
          brandon
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          Fossil fuels should cost what they would cost with no government intervention. Same with electric cars. The government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers. I only feel hydrogen is the future because of it's ability to be quickly refueled in the future. Also, I personally think man made "climate change" is a crock of sh!t. However, I do think we owe it to ourselves and future generations to control general air quality. We should not be using the government to do so, though. I can't see high voltage electricity, in batteries, being the future because of safety. Even if we get recharge times down it's going to require super high voltage/current systems to even accomplish see their benefits. So, even with the future being with electric motors, it's going to require an onboard generation source for that electricity. @Ks Consumption only "gas" taxes are the only thing we should have to pay for roads and such. There should be no yearly "car" or "tag" taxes. That way you are paying for both the miles driven and the inefficiencies of your car. If you drive tons of miles in an suv you will pay a greater amount in taxes than a VW TDI. But you will probably pay the same driving your TDI as someone who drive 10k a year in a suburban. Last, someone who drives 10k a year in a TDI will pay very little. That's how it should be.
          ksrcm
          • 1 Year Ago
          @2 wheeled menace
          "Fossil fuels should cost more. Their price ought to reflect scarcity, the cost of cleaning up pollution during the refining, drilling, and shipping process, and some other factors that have long been externalized." I lived and drove in Europe until I was 34 years old. I lived and drove in U.S. for the last 12 years. I have to say that I like U.S. approach a lot better. You know why? Because by raising the gas prices you are punishing everybody, including people like me who appreciate to own completely paid TDI and have no clue they own that car. If that was in Europe, that car would weigh a lot on the family budget. A lot. Here, until the usual every 10,000 miles service visit, I don't feel at all the expense of owning it. I just wish they would also put significant financial burden on a registration of vehicles based on mpg they achieve and miles driven last registration cycle. It's only fair that you pay for fuel CONSUMED, not for fuel you WOULD consume. Meaning, keep that 9 mph Tahoe XL if you need it for 1,500 miles driven each year and still punish somebody that drives feel-good 2.5 l 4 cylinder for 30-40,000 miles each year. That way you only "punish" people who want to drive huge inefficient vehicles or consume a lot of fuel and leave alone those who are already doing their part to consume less fuel. So, MPG mandate to carmakers and yearly tax on fuel consumed are much better than blanket $9/gallon gas price punishing everybody regardless of their efforts to consume less or not.
      Thipps
      • 1 Year Ago
      Lets hope not, the eco movement has by highjacked by psychopaths that are trying to use it for carbon taxes, which is a tax paid to private banks for every little aspect of our life. Scary thing is i believe eugenics is at the core of the debate. they believe there are far to many people on earth and 85% of us need to go. carbon taxes are only the beginning, one child laws and others follow. know what would help manufactures build more efficient cars? lax the regulations so that we dont have to have 2 ton cars with 96 airgags that could survive the apocalypse. Some people would choose a car thats efficient over safe. others would choose safe, but the great thing is as tech develops even the efficient cars become safer and the the safe cars become more efficient. just let the free market work and people make their own choices and take responsibility for those choices
        Rotation
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Thipps
        Carbon taxes are not paid to private banks. Yes, carbon credits/trading is definitely taxes though. No doubt about it. While there are rabid greenies who believe that population reduction is the only way to inhabit this earth, these groups are fringe and do not have enough influence to drive policy. Stop with the free market thing. The free market doesn't work when there are externalities. It just drives people to exploit the externalities (by shucking responsibility) to derive profits. Carbon taxes/trading are an attempt to make these externalities into real financial liabilities so that market forces can can work properly to sort it out.
          Pj Taintz
          • 1 Year Ago
          @Rotation
          its an attempt to make money by the powers that be, and its to try and control an entire industry without thinking of how it will affect pretty much everyone.
      • 1 Year Ago
      [blocked]
      Rotation
      • 1 Year Ago
      This piece (the original) is less of a news piece and more of an ad for the trading house mentioned. The consultant who started the trading company is trying "fake it until you make it" by trying to get out a news piece explaining his company is the way this will be done and pretending that it's already starting.
      Awhattup
      • 1 Year Ago
      Everyone wants more power(me too) but we should keep our eyes on the environment as well.. its damage is accelerating more than we are aware. Stop being ignorant.
      Pj Taintz
      • 1 Year Ago
      this right here shows what a scam CAFE and carbon credits are. even environmentalists I know think carbon credits are a joke, for different reasons of course the only ones who are for this, expect to make money on it you just watch.
        icemilkcoffee
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Pj Taintz
        I thought the point of capitalism is to make money? Are you whining that some people will make money under carbon trading?
      Wojo
      • 1 Year Ago
      Dark pool trading for carbon credits, this just keeps getting better and better lol. This has fraud opportunity written all over it.
        macdoc
        • 1 Year Ago
        @Wojo
        The whole Carbon Credit scam is a fraud! It's about Money nothing more.
    • Load More Comments