The goal of the fight against climate change is to make the climate stable i.e. to achieve a flat Earth's climate.
However, it seems that the market tools needed for such a goal are rather unstable. The price chart looks like a hockey stick graph that would make Michael Mann extremely jealous:
The graph above is the newest graph of the price of the European 2007 carbon indulgences. Click it to get to their website. Two days ago, one ton was 5 eurocents. Yesterday it was 7 eurocents. Today it is 60 eurocents, a 750% increase in one day or 1100% increase in two days. I don't know what happened but I assure you that I unfortunately didn't own any indulgences.
Still, the current price of 60 eurocents is below the price of 30 euros during the holocene climate optimum of April 2006. ;-) Between March 2006 and last Sunday, the temperature increased roughly by 0.01 Kelvin degrees, from 287.66 K to 287.67 K, while the price of indulgences dropped by 99.9% or so. I wonder which of these two fluctuations or changes will have a more dramatic impact on the economy once indulgences become a key entity in the corporate budgets. Just to be sure: this was a rhetorical question.
Looking at these bizarre and meaningless wiggles, it might be better for the carbon regulators to peg the indulgences to the dollar i.e. to make the price fixed. You could emit CO2 for a fixed fine and you could get a fixed gift for saving them. That's essentially carbon tax which is a bad thing but probably a more sane one than this "market".