There has been a debate whether or not take in count an ecological plan called Cap & Trade. Cap & Trade is a plan, which investors and Wall Street Marketers have created, with the purpose of reducing carbon eighty percent. For this proposal, they plan to divide the carbon to permits. Then, each county receives a certain amount, which are sold to companies. These enterprises have the option to use them or to sell them to other companies. In conclusion, from the point of view of the investors they say “it’s safe, and at the end everyone wins!’

I actually disagree with their philosophy of thinking, and think there are some flaws. The first defect I see is who actually verifies if the companies promising not to use carbon are actually keeping their promise? Companies always have the capability of twisting the system to benefit them. So when they see that the system can be distorted they abuse it.

Secondly, this plan is actually giving the more money to the influential people who created this obstacle. Most of the money they earn is because they sell these permits. If we compare this point with the first, it kind of makes cause and effect: cause, companies do not take their part of the carbon out of the atmosphere; effect, companies get paid money for damaging our planet.

Lastly, one huge weakness I see is the hands we are leaving this plan up to. The creators of this plan were huge corporations and Wall Street works, not the everyday citizens. This leads to the problem which is huge corporation creating these plans with the purpose of benefiting themselves and not the citizens. An example is the huge companies selling permits, but at the same time add large amounts of carbon in our atmosphere. These companies don’t care if us the citizens suffer because of the air pollution. They only care about the amount of money being submitted in there bank accounts.

Some possibilities to solve this problem are trying to get the creators of this plan to incorporate the citizens. With this method they would come up with a solution that satisfies us all. At the end we all go out winning. Another solution may be not giving companies’ permit, unless they have data to prove that they are reducing the amounts of carbon there using.

In conclusion, I believe that Cap & Trade is a plan that should be modified before approving. Why? First because companies might sell permits and be adding carbon to the atmosphere. Secondly, companies are getting more income for adding more carbon. Third and last one, we are letting companies satisfying there needs but not ours. These points are the devil of our details.