thinking out loud

i recently read an article tackling the issue of our environmental future.... if we are to have one. even the greatest skeptics will have to admit now that global warming is at least somewhat due to human activity. the question remains, however, "How are we to deal with this issue?"

two prominent ideas are the cap 'n trade system and the carbon tax. the cap n trade system would cap the amount of carbon licensed companies are allowed to collectively produce and put into the atmosphere. then permits would be created that companies can purchase at a price set by the a new market allowing these companies to then emit carbon. permit prices are volatile as are any other prices determined by free markets. however, since we can regulate the cap on carbon emissions we are able to predict the effect it would have on the environment. the carbon tax can not determine with the same accuracy the level of carbon that will be emitted. the carbon tax simply taxes companies for the amount of carbon they emit. taxes are deemed to be largely inefficient, say economists, but require much less regulation than the cap n trade system, which would require the creation of an entire new market (and a department to oversee it; like any other market - stock market). carbon taxes can also be controlled by the government unlike the cap n trade system and thus the prices would be more predictable.

arguments go both ways on this topic, but it's important to realize the goal here and that's to save our environment and ultimately ourselves.

if we are to do that, however, we will need to gather complete international support and there in lies even more problems. for developing nations such as China and India and even Africa, what opportunities are they losing by considering their effect on the environment? the u.s. and europe are for the most part developed and could sustain themselves while producing less carbon. but for those countries that have yet to "modernize" or "industrialize", should they be allowed to emit more carbon relative to the west in order to catch up economically? will the u.s. allow even such a thought?

it's a similar argument that comes up when talking about nuclear weapons. why should the u.s. and russia control most of the nukes. what right do we have to tell other countries not to make them when we already have them. disarmament is one thing, but holding someone back is another. it's easy for us to say that other countries shouldn't create weapons or destroy the environment when we've already achieved all these things. this is not to say that we should allow them to create nukes and pollute the earth, but that power struggles are inevitable.

i have no point really, i'm just thinking out loud.