In an early indication that the Copenhagen accord failed to satisfy the market, the price of permits to emit greenhouse gases tumbled on Monday.
Can anyone think of what it might mean to "satisfy the market" (in this context), and why lower prices for a particular commodity should be taken to indicate any such general "dissatisfaction"?
I gather that the underlying economic fact they're reporting on is something like the following: the falling price of emission permits indicates that the Copenhagen accord did not reduce the legal cap or 'supply' of GHG emissions as much as investors expected. But what justifies glossing this as "failing to satisfy the market"? (Does 'the market' here just mean 'people who invested in greenhouse gas permits'?) It sounds suspiciously like empty rhetoric. Am I missing something?