Selling Polution

I happen to be listening to NPR, (Nashville Public Radio) and they were covering a story on governmental policies regarding air pollution. Despite all the bad press, the air condition currently is a lot better than during my pubescent period during the mid 1990’s. Nevertheless, it is apparent to the masses now that our planet and the earth-sphere, as mentioned in The Next One Hundred Years by Jonathan Weiner, is encountering some issues. Isn’t it human nature to deal with a catastrophe only after it has run it’s course or after the event horizon?

In the course of the story covering the purposed bill to limit the amount of CO2 and CFC’s companies are allowed to output, it occurred to me, is it the right of the government to regulate what companies due with their land and their ‘air space’? Don’t get me wrong, I totally agree that all things are shared, the air I breathe may have come from a tree near a river in Hong Kong.

What begs the question is whether polluting should be seen as a commodity to be sold or exchanged? Obviously, it will happen and has been happening, but should it be seen as a moral imperative, an ethical taboo to profit from pollution in a direct means because the government allows a company to sell its ‘pollution rights’?

Where does one’s moral compass have to be pointing to make this right or wrong? If you allow someone to purchase the rights to pollute more than what they are suppose to but buy more ‘pollute time’ is there any benefit other than more tax revenue for the government. Just food for thought.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/would-a-carbon-tax-be-worse-than-this.html

http://www.joplinglobe.com/editorial/local_story_136091157.html?keyword=secondarystory