Lately, there has a lot of concern surrounding the topic of CO2 and the footprints it leaves behind. There are basically two sides to this argument. Some say that carbon isn’t even a problem, while the other one says that it’s the biggest problem humanity has ever faced. But not many people seem to be excited about the current solution, “Cap and Trade”. Obviously, if you’re against the idea that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, you won’t find the solution to it very relevant either. However, there are some who seem to be pretty passionate about saving the planet, but seem to be even more passionately against Cap and Trade.
But, objectively speaking, what is Cap and Trade?
These are the facts: Cap and Trade is a system that puts a limit on carbon production by putting a global cap (limit), on yearly emissions. However, companies can get permits that allow them to increase their carbon production, which can then be traded with other companies who need them more than the people who received it.

If you look for articles or videos against Cap and Trade, you’ll find that people aren’t hesitant to tell us what they think is wrong with the system. Most of these people are very aware of the changing climate and really want to do something. Some of the counterarguments include the interests that the government gets when companies trade the permits, possible scams in the 3rd world, false claims to get more permits, increased coal use, using it as a distraction to real solutions, and pretty much everything else that could make the viewer feel panicked about the upcoming carbon apocalypse. However, although many of these arguments are valid, the people who say them can seem too much like the modern-day hippie we’ve all seen on some whale documentary to be fully credible.

The other side is the people who refuse to accept carbon as a pollutant. Most of these arguments don’t even seem credible while we’re reading them. In every quality persuasive piece there’s always a moment in reading/ watching it when you’re so absorbed by the arguments presented to you that you’re actually thinking of becoming an activist for the cause, that is, until you start analyzing it later. To me, this is not the case with the “pro-carbon” argument. One of the strongest points is “all life on earth is carbon based, and earth is loaded with carbon”. Of course it seems like they always forget to mention that carbon dioxide isn’t actually pure carbon, it’s one molecule of carbon joined with two molecules of oxygen. It’s like saying “all life on earth depends on water and water can never harm us”. This is true to some extent, but it’s very much possible to die of water intoxication.

It’s the same with carbon dioxide, the substance itself is not bad, it’s the excess that is harming us.

Cap and Trade may not be the ideal solution, but based on the information I’ve come across so far, no one seems to suggest a better one. There is definitely a problem with what we’re doing to the environment, and I do agree that it’s important that we care, but as long as it does not act as a distraction for other solutions, I don’t think it’s actually a bad thing. However, Cap and Trade is a solution for big companies, not for individuals. I don’t think people realize that it’s not just the big corporations that are killing the environment. Although Cap and Trade does affect us, people should be a lot more worried about what they do in their own homes, instead of leaving the rescue of the environment to the government and multinationals. Whether or not Cap and Trade works is irrelevant (unless of course you are the president of a big company) unless you are doing something to help too, which I think is a point that is vastly ignored in the media today. They make it seem as if it were someone else’s fault that we aren’t the 100% environmentally friendly super-society we expected to be by now, instead of motivating the public to help too. Are we really going to get anywhere if we just keep blaming everybody else?