Seattle USEAC

Innovation and progress are not uncommon bedfellows; in fact, one is rarely seen without the presence of the other. But there’s a new twist to this tale, the story in which the main characters are the greenhouse effect, carbon emissions and global warming. As mankind advances by leaps and bounds in the field of industrialization, it leaves behind the footprints of destruction, if experts (or doomsday merchants, depending on which side of the table you’re on) are to be believed. Every gallon of gas we guzzle translates into smoke that’s choking our atmosphere, every spire that rises from the smokestacks of a factory signs the death warrant of a tree somewhere, and every light that burns unchecked in our homes heralds the arrival of unexplainable changes in weather patterns.

The alarms are being sounded to alert the world to this dangerous tendency of innovation to choke the very existence of mankind, and policymakers are enjoying a field day dictating terms to the polluters regarding how much each one is allowed to defile the earth and its atmosphere. The cap and trade on carbon credits is one such policy that is designed to reduce the total amount of carbon emissions in the world.

Carbon credits refer to the system by which an entity, either a person or an organization, is allowed to buy the right to pollute the earth with carbon emissions. Each entity is assigned a cap or upper limit on the amount of carbon emissions it is allowed during a certain period of time. If the limit is exceeded, the entity has the option of buying the “credits” of other entities who have not used up their share, at existing market rates. While this practice has been in existence for a while, the trading of credits has been of one’s own volition. But if the Warner-Lieberman Climate Security Act is passed, it will mandate organizations to trade credits once they have hit their cap limit.

While the policy looks good on paper, it raises many controversial questions. Is it right that we allow those who have more money the right to pollute the earth and hasten the destruction of its natural resources? Isn’t it more advantageous to the interests of the fight against global warming to restrict entities to the cap and applaud and award those who emit emissions under the cap? Isn’t the whole exercise of the Act meant to reduce the greenhouse effect instead of allowing it to a certain extent?

The answers to these questions will never be answered, at least not in a way that’s satisfactory to all concerned. And that is because we, as a race, have become so attuned to the comforts and benefits that innovation has afforded us that we are turning a blind eye to the consequences of our lifestyles. Even the preachers of austerity live a far from Spartan life! In fact, entire sectors of education such as top online universities will have to pick up the slack and reform high energy consuming areas such as x-ray tech schools. If global warming has to be stopped or at least slowed in its tracks, the only solution is to forgo the innovation that we are so proud of today, and since that is not something that will happen in the near future, we can only wait and see if things will become as worse as predicted.