American Climate Security Act calls for compromise

Our generation is one characterized by the perpetual cynicism concerning our current government. Not only are we generally dissatisfied with the allocation of investments (particularly in the war), but many of us feel that policies do not adequately reflect our political priorities. I am referring especially to those of us who, perhaps even without labeling ourselves as one, hold environmentalist viewpoints.

There have recently been several bills under discussion, none of which have been passed.

The most lenient one, which was proposed by Sens. Jeff Bingaman and Arlen Specter, works on a cap and trade system, allowing companies to bid on a limited number of pollution credits. However, under this bill, anywhere from 50-80% of credits would be given away freely. Additionally, the bill would include a "safety valve", which would allow for credits to be available more cheaply if trading pushed prices over the "acceptable" rates. This bill has very few Democratic or environmentalist supporters.

The strictest bill, introduced by Sens. Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer, vows to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% (below 1990 levels) by 2050. This intense proposition is supported predominately by the mainstream scientific community as well as radical environmentalists.

The most popular one right now, however, falls roughly between these two. Proposed this year by Sens. John Warner and Joe Lieberman, the American Climate Security Act includes projections of lowering greenhouse gas emissions by 15% (below 2005 levels) by 2020, and potentially 70% by 2050. This bill works on a cap and trade system, with an estimated 25% traded, 40% donated, and no "safety valve". However, the definition of greenhouse gas emissions discussed in this bill include those from power, industry and transportation, which only make up about 75% - leaving 25% of emissions unregulated and increasing. This bill is supported by "biz-friendly" group Environmental Defense, but leaves many radical environmentalists unsatisfied.

Though there seems to be an attempt to reach a compromise between corporations and environmentalists, it's apparent that neither side is willing to surrender its values to appease the other. There is a constant tug of war game between Big Business interested in saving their profits and The Environmentalists hoping to save the world, and in their conflicting interests, nothing has been accomplished. I cannot help but reach back to my own ideal of an inevitable marriage between economics and the environment if both sides admitted that they are undeniably intertwined and codependent. I am overwhelmed with confidence that public policies could bind the two so that they were held in equally high regard, and yet here we find ourselves arguing between them. But, alas, that's not my main point...

Throughout our history, we have had to make sacrifices in the face of progression - societal maturation that does not vow to always please every committee. One cannot be so blinded with idealism that he or she loses focus on the bigger picture, which is beneficial progression. We cannot allow ourselves as a country to continue to disregard the urgency of the climate crisis in preference of attempting to perfect a bill. This is the first bill vowing to reduce emissions instead of inhibiting them, and it is far more inclusive with the emissions targeted than any before it. It may not be ideal, but it's undeniably a rupture in our political stagnance on this issue - one that will undoubtably spark increased public awareness, corporate involvement, national activism, and international policy changes. When it comes to an issue as critical as this, sometimes one small step is all that's needed for perpetual progression. We cannot afford to argue over the size of the movement, just so long as it's in the right direction, and we must not continue to gamble with our future by playing politics.