Why did British Steel have to borrow 120 million pounds (from the government) to cover its ETS obligations?How does the EU Emissions Trading Scheme account for increased emissions outside the EU?Who collects the wealth raised by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme?Did the British government call American revolutionaries terrorists?Could the British government un-trigger Article 50?Why is the British government waiting until March 29th to officially Brexit?Why did the British not want India's allegiance to be completely dissolved from Britain?Did the British government have any option to not to get out of EU?Could (in theory) the British government or some other British entity “neuter” the British MEPs before Brexit (Spring 2019)?Did Germany profit from the (third) Greek bailout?Does the EU Common Fisheries Policy cover British Overseas Territories?Why did the UK remove the 'European Union' from its passport?Who collects the wealth raised by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme?
Is it legal for a bar bouncer to confiscate a fake ID
Colloquialism for “see you later”
Does Disney no longer produce hand-drawn cartoon films?
Has there been a multiethnic Star Trek character?
Is it a problem if <h4>, <h5> and <h6> are smaller than regular text?
Mathematically, why does mass matrix / load vector lumping work?
Which languages would be most useful in Europe at the end of the 19th century?
Union with anonymous struct with flexible array member
Jargon request: "Canonical Form" of a word
With Ubuntu 18.04, how can I have a hot corner that locks the computer?
What makes Ada the language of choice for the ISS's safety-critical systems?
Is an entry level DSLR going to shoot nice portrait pictures?
Winning Strategy for the Magician and his Apprentice
How come the nude protesters were not arrested?
How to safely destroy (a large quantity of) valid checks?
Is it possible to have the age of the universe be unknown?
How is water heavier than petrol, even though its molecular weight is less than petrol?
How can this tool find out registered domains from an IP?
English word for "product of tinkering"
How do governments keep track of their issued currency?
Does the Long March-11 increase its thrust after clearing the launch tower?
Generate basis elements of the Steenrod algebra
Cascading Switches. Will it affect performance?
SQL counting distinct over partition
Why did British Steel have to borrow 120 million pounds (from the government) to cover its ETS obligations?
How does the EU Emissions Trading Scheme account for increased emissions outside the EU?Who collects the wealth raised by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme?Did the British government call American revolutionaries terrorists?Could the British government un-trigger Article 50?Why is the British government waiting until March 29th to officially Brexit?Why did the British not want India's allegiance to be completely dissolved from Britain?Did the British government have any option to not to get out of EU?Could (in theory) the British government or some other British entity “neuter” the British MEPs before Brexit (Spring 2019)?Did Germany profit from the (third) Greek bailout?Does the EU Common Fisheries Policy cover British Overseas Territories?Why did the UK remove the 'European Union' from its passport?Who collects the wealth raised by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme?
Can someone clarify why British Steel had to receive a UK government loan for this sum of 120 million pounds?
Did British Steel need this money to buy ETS allowances, or were these fines for not buying allowances previously? Or both? I understand that a large portion of industrial (non-power-generating) companies still receive free allowances (44.2% in 2018, 37.1% in 2019). Also steel manufacturing appears to qualify for the carbon leakage exemption, which gives 100% free allowances. So, how did British Steel ended up owing 120 million pounds in ETS?
united-kingdom european-union economy climate-change bailout
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
add a comment |
Can someone clarify why British Steel had to receive a UK government loan for this sum of 120 million pounds?
Did British Steel need this money to buy ETS allowances, or were these fines for not buying allowances previously? Or both? I understand that a large portion of industrial (non-power-generating) companies still receive free allowances (44.2% in 2018, 37.1% in 2019). Also steel manufacturing appears to qualify for the carbon leakage exemption, which gives 100% free allowances. So, how did British Steel ended up owing 120 million pounds in ETS?
united-kingdom european-union economy climate-change bailout
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
1
This seems to be something more for business than for politics. What political aspect of it are you interested in?
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:36
@Trilarion: I think government bailouts are a legitimate topic here. As is ETS. I've discovered the answer in the meantime (and it's also political!) but since people seem to dislike me self-answering I'll let someone else discover it (too) and get credit for it.
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:40
Was no critic, just seeking a bit of clarification.
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:48
1
@Trilarion the situation is entirely political in its making, unfortunately :(
– Moo
May 22 at 21:58
add a comment |
Can someone clarify why British Steel had to receive a UK government loan for this sum of 120 million pounds?
Did British Steel need this money to buy ETS allowances, or were these fines for not buying allowances previously? Or both? I understand that a large portion of industrial (non-power-generating) companies still receive free allowances (44.2% in 2018, 37.1% in 2019). Also steel manufacturing appears to qualify for the carbon leakage exemption, which gives 100% free allowances. So, how did British Steel ended up owing 120 million pounds in ETS?
united-kingdom european-union economy climate-change bailout
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
Can someone clarify why British Steel had to receive a UK government loan for this sum of 120 million pounds?
Did British Steel need this money to buy ETS allowances, or were these fines for not buying allowances previously? Or both? I understand that a large portion of industrial (non-power-generating) companies still receive free allowances (44.2% in 2018, 37.1% in 2019). Also steel manufacturing appears to qualify for the carbon leakage exemption, which gives 100% free allowances. So, how did British Steel ended up owing 120 million pounds in ETS?
united-kingdom european-union economy climate-change bailout
united-kingdom european-union economy climate-change bailout
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
edited May 22 at 22:44
Fizz
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
asked May 22 at 21:11
FizzFizz
21.1k255126
21.1k255126
1
This seems to be something more for business than for politics. What political aspect of it are you interested in?
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:36
@Trilarion: I think government bailouts are a legitimate topic here. As is ETS. I've discovered the answer in the meantime (and it's also political!) but since people seem to dislike me self-answering I'll let someone else discover it (too) and get credit for it.
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:40
Was no critic, just seeking a bit of clarification.
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:48
1
@Trilarion the situation is entirely political in its making, unfortunately :(
– Moo
May 22 at 21:58
add a comment |
1
This seems to be something more for business than for politics. What political aspect of it are you interested in?
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:36
@Trilarion: I think government bailouts are a legitimate topic here. As is ETS. I've discovered the answer in the meantime (and it's also political!) but since people seem to dislike me self-answering I'll let someone else discover it (too) and get credit for it.
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:40
Was no critic, just seeking a bit of clarification.
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:48
1
@Trilarion the situation is entirely political in its making, unfortunately :(
– Moo
May 22 at 21:58
1
1
This seems to be something more for business than for politics. What political aspect of it are you interested in?
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:36
This seems to be something more for business than for politics. What political aspect of it are you interested in?
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:36
@Trilarion: I think government bailouts are a legitimate topic here. As is ETS. I've discovered the answer in the meantime (and it's also political!) but since people seem to dislike me self-answering I'll let someone else discover it (too) and get credit for it.
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:40
@Trilarion: I think government bailouts are a legitimate topic here. As is ETS. I've discovered the answer in the meantime (and it's also political!) but since people seem to dislike me self-answering I'll let someone else discover it (too) and get credit for it.
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:40
Was no critic, just seeking a bit of clarification.
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:48
Was no critic, just seeking a bit of clarification.
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:48
1
1
@Trilarion the situation is entirely political in its making, unfortunately :(
– Moo
May 22 at 21:58
@Trilarion the situation is entirely political in its making, unfortunately :(
– Moo
May 22 at 21:58
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Part of the problem is that EU companies are annually issued free carbon tax credits to a certain amount to satisfy obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme - these can be traded or "cashed in" against ETS allowances for emissions.
The EU recently suspended free credit issuances to British companies, in preparation for Brexit, but did not release those companies from their obligations for meeting allowances, and thus British Steel now faces a large emissions bill rather than it being covered in whole or in part by free credits (previous years saw British Steel covered 100% by free credits, with an excess in credits that it could trade - those previous years excess credits would have covered this years bill, but were instead traded on the expectation that this years free credits would be issued).
This isn't wholly the EU's 'fault', as British Steel could easily have not traded excess past credits, but equally there was very little notice of the EU suspending free credit issuance to British companies, so this was potentially difficult to foresee. Equally, it was the British governments choice to remain part of the ETS beyond the original Brexit date.
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
4
Indeed. And if someone needs a source gov.uk/government/speeches/… That source also says "The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union allows for full and continuing membership of the EU ETS until the end of December 2020. Therefore, once ratified, we will have the full legal basis immediately to issue free 2019 allowances." Also, UK steel makers made a lot of money in the past by selling their free allowances bbc.com/news/science-environment-35994279
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:54
7
@Fizz yup, the point of being able to trade credits is so the scheme acts as a reward for cutting emissions against the expected output your corporation is predicted to have - British Steel wasn't doing anything wrong by trading past credits (there are some articles out there that frame it that way), it was doing exactly what was intended: cashing in on reducing its own emissions.
– Moo
May 22 at 21:57
The second paragraph is all one huge sentence. You should maybe break it up a bit to make it easier to read.
– rghome
May 23 at 9:08
A concrete consequence of constantly kicking the can down the road. This is the sort of thing that needs to be part of the public consciousness. It would be good if the source was edited into the answer as comments are less permanent.
– Jontia
May 23 at 11:55
good answer, especially covering the fact that all parties involved have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
– Orangesandlemons
May 23 at 12:32
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "475"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41596%2fwhy-did-british-steel-have-to-borrow-120-million-pounds-from-the-government-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Part of the problem is that EU companies are annually issued free carbon tax credits to a certain amount to satisfy obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme - these can be traded or "cashed in" against ETS allowances for emissions.
The EU recently suspended free credit issuances to British companies, in preparation for Brexit, but did not release those companies from their obligations for meeting allowances, and thus British Steel now faces a large emissions bill rather than it being covered in whole or in part by free credits (previous years saw British Steel covered 100% by free credits, with an excess in credits that it could trade - those previous years excess credits would have covered this years bill, but were instead traded on the expectation that this years free credits would be issued).
This isn't wholly the EU's 'fault', as British Steel could easily have not traded excess past credits, but equally there was very little notice of the EU suspending free credit issuance to British companies, so this was potentially difficult to foresee. Equally, it was the British governments choice to remain part of the ETS beyond the original Brexit date.
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
4
Indeed. And if someone needs a source gov.uk/government/speeches/… That source also says "The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union allows for full and continuing membership of the EU ETS until the end of December 2020. Therefore, once ratified, we will have the full legal basis immediately to issue free 2019 allowances." Also, UK steel makers made a lot of money in the past by selling their free allowances bbc.com/news/science-environment-35994279
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:54
7
@Fizz yup, the point of being able to trade credits is so the scheme acts as a reward for cutting emissions against the expected output your corporation is predicted to have - British Steel wasn't doing anything wrong by trading past credits (there are some articles out there that frame it that way), it was doing exactly what was intended: cashing in on reducing its own emissions.
– Moo
May 22 at 21:57
The second paragraph is all one huge sentence. You should maybe break it up a bit to make it easier to read.
– rghome
May 23 at 9:08
A concrete consequence of constantly kicking the can down the road. This is the sort of thing that needs to be part of the public consciousness. It would be good if the source was edited into the answer as comments are less permanent.
– Jontia
May 23 at 11:55
good answer, especially covering the fact that all parties involved have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
– Orangesandlemons
May 23 at 12:32
add a comment |
Part of the problem is that EU companies are annually issued free carbon tax credits to a certain amount to satisfy obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme - these can be traded or "cashed in" against ETS allowances for emissions.
The EU recently suspended free credit issuances to British companies, in preparation for Brexit, but did not release those companies from their obligations for meeting allowances, and thus British Steel now faces a large emissions bill rather than it being covered in whole or in part by free credits (previous years saw British Steel covered 100% by free credits, with an excess in credits that it could trade - those previous years excess credits would have covered this years bill, but were instead traded on the expectation that this years free credits would be issued).
This isn't wholly the EU's 'fault', as British Steel could easily have not traded excess past credits, but equally there was very little notice of the EU suspending free credit issuance to British companies, so this was potentially difficult to foresee. Equally, it was the British governments choice to remain part of the ETS beyond the original Brexit date.
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
4
Indeed. And if someone needs a source gov.uk/government/speeches/… That source also says "The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union allows for full and continuing membership of the EU ETS until the end of December 2020. Therefore, once ratified, we will have the full legal basis immediately to issue free 2019 allowances." Also, UK steel makers made a lot of money in the past by selling their free allowances bbc.com/news/science-environment-35994279
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:54
7
@Fizz yup, the point of being able to trade credits is so the scheme acts as a reward for cutting emissions against the expected output your corporation is predicted to have - British Steel wasn't doing anything wrong by trading past credits (there are some articles out there that frame it that way), it was doing exactly what was intended: cashing in on reducing its own emissions.
– Moo
May 22 at 21:57
The second paragraph is all one huge sentence. You should maybe break it up a bit to make it easier to read.
– rghome
May 23 at 9:08
A concrete consequence of constantly kicking the can down the road. This is the sort of thing that needs to be part of the public consciousness. It would be good if the source was edited into the answer as comments are less permanent.
– Jontia
May 23 at 11:55
good answer, especially covering the fact that all parties involved have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
– Orangesandlemons
May 23 at 12:32
add a comment |
Part of the problem is that EU companies are annually issued free carbon tax credits to a certain amount to satisfy obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme - these can be traded or "cashed in" against ETS allowances for emissions.
The EU recently suspended free credit issuances to British companies, in preparation for Brexit, but did not release those companies from their obligations for meeting allowances, and thus British Steel now faces a large emissions bill rather than it being covered in whole or in part by free credits (previous years saw British Steel covered 100% by free credits, with an excess in credits that it could trade - those previous years excess credits would have covered this years bill, but were instead traded on the expectation that this years free credits would be issued).
This isn't wholly the EU's 'fault', as British Steel could easily have not traded excess past credits, but equally there was very little notice of the EU suspending free credit issuance to British companies, so this was potentially difficult to foresee. Equally, it was the British governments choice to remain part of the ETS beyond the original Brexit date.
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
Part of the problem is that EU companies are annually issued free carbon tax credits to a certain amount to satisfy obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme - these can be traded or "cashed in" against ETS allowances for emissions.
The EU recently suspended free credit issuances to British companies, in preparation for Brexit, but did not release those companies from their obligations for meeting allowances, and thus British Steel now faces a large emissions bill rather than it being covered in whole or in part by free credits (previous years saw British Steel covered 100% by free credits, with an excess in credits that it could trade - those previous years excess credits would have covered this years bill, but were instead traded on the expectation that this years free credits would be issued).
This isn't wholly the EU's 'fault', as British Steel could easily have not traded excess past credits, but equally there was very little notice of the EU suspending free credit issuance to British companies, so this was potentially difficult to foresee. Equally, it was the British governments choice to remain part of the ETS beyond the original Brexit date.
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
answered May 22 at 21:43
MooMoo
75338
75338
4
Indeed. And if someone needs a source gov.uk/government/speeches/… That source also says "The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union allows for full and continuing membership of the EU ETS until the end of December 2020. Therefore, once ratified, we will have the full legal basis immediately to issue free 2019 allowances." Also, UK steel makers made a lot of money in the past by selling their free allowances bbc.com/news/science-environment-35994279
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:54
7
@Fizz yup, the point of being able to trade credits is so the scheme acts as a reward for cutting emissions against the expected output your corporation is predicted to have - British Steel wasn't doing anything wrong by trading past credits (there are some articles out there that frame it that way), it was doing exactly what was intended: cashing in on reducing its own emissions.
– Moo
May 22 at 21:57
The second paragraph is all one huge sentence. You should maybe break it up a bit to make it easier to read.
– rghome
May 23 at 9:08
A concrete consequence of constantly kicking the can down the road. This is the sort of thing that needs to be part of the public consciousness. It would be good if the source was edited into the answer as comments are less permanent.
– Jontia
May 23 at 11:55
good answer, especially covering the fact that all parties involved have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
– Orangesandlemons
May 23 at 12:32
add a comment |
4
Indeed. And if someone needs a source gov.uk/government/speeches/… That source also says "The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union allows for full and continuing membership of the EU ETS until the end of December 2020. Therefore, once ratified, we will have the full legal basis immediately to issue free 2019 allowances." Also, UK steel makers made a lot of money in the past by selling their free allowances bbc.com/news/science-environment-35994279
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:54
7
@Fizz yup, the point of being able to trade credits is so the scheme acts as a reward for cutting emissions against the expected output your corporation is predicted to have - British Steel wasn't doing anything wrong by trading past credits (there are some articles out there that frame it that way), it was doing exactly what was intended: cashing in on reducing its own emissions.
– Moo
May 22 at 21:57
The second paragraph is all one huge sentence. You should maybe break it up a bit to make it easier to read.
– rghome
May 23 at 9:08
A concrete consequence of constantly kicking the can down the road. This is the sort of thing that needs to be part of the public consciousness. It would be good if the source was edited into the answer as comments are less permanent.
– Jontia
May 23 at 11:55
good answer, especially covering the fact that all parties involved have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
– Orangesandlemons
May 23 at 12:32
4
4
Indeed. And if someone needs a source gov.uk/government/speeches/… That source also says "The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union allows for full and continuing membership of the EU ETS until the end of December 2020. Therefore, once ratified, we will have the full legal basis immediately to issue free 2019 allowances." Also, UK steel makers made a lot of money in the past by selling their free allowances bbc.com/news/science-environment-35994279
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:54
Indeed. And if someone needs a source gov.uk/government/speeches/… That source also says "The Withdrawal Agreement negotiated with the European Union allows for full and continuing membership of the EU ETS until the end of December 2020. Therefore, once ratified, we will have the full legal basis immediately to issue free 2019 allowances." Also, UK steel makers made a lot of money in the past by selling their free allowances bbc.com/news/science-environment-35994279
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:54
7
7
@Fizz yup, the point of being able to trade credits is so the scheme acts as a reward for cutting emissions against the expected output your corporation is predicted to have - British Steel wasn't doing anything wrong by trading past credits (there are some articles out there that frame it that way), it was doing exactly what was intended: cashing in on reducing its own emissions.
– Moo
May 22 at 21:57
@Fizz yup, the point of being able to trade credits is so the scheme acts as a reward for cutting emissions against the expected output your corporation is predicted to have - British Steel wasn't doing anything wrong by trading past credits (there are some articles out there that frame it that way), it was doing exactly what was intended: cashing in on reducing its own emissions.
– Moo
May 22 at 21:57
The second paragraph is all one huge sentence. You should maybe break it up a bit to make it easier to read.
– rghome
May 23 at 9:08
The second paragraph is all one huge sentence. You should maybe break it up a bit to make it easier to read.
– rghome
May 23 at 9:08
A concrete consequence of constantly kicking the can down the road. This is the sort of thing that needs to be part of the public consciousness. It would be good if the source was edited into the answer as comments are less permanent.
– Jontia
May 23 at 11:55
A concrete consequence of constantly kicking the can down the road. This is the sort of thing that needs to be part of the public consciousness. It would be good if the source was edited into the answer as comments are less permanent.
– Jontia
May 23 at 11:55
good answer, especially covering the fact that all parties involved have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
– Orangesandlemons
May 23 at 12:32
good answer, especially covering the fact that all parties involved have not exactly covered themselves in glory.
– Orangesandlemons
May 23 at 12:32
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Politics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fpolitics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f41596%2fwhy-did-british-steel-have-to-borrow-120-million-pounds-from-the-government-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
This seems to be something more for business than for politics. What political aspect of it are you interested in?
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:36
@Trilarion: I think government bailouts are a legitimate topic here. As is ETS. I've discovered the answer in the meantime (and it's also political!) but since people seem to dislike me self-answering I'll let someone else discover it (too) and get credit for it.
– Fizz
May 22 at 21:40
Was no critic, just seeking a bit of clarification.
– Trilarion
May 22 at 21:48
1
@Trilarion the situation is entirely political in its making, unfortunately :(
– Moo
May 22 at 21:58