"Taxation Without Representation," sounds familiar doesn't it? Is this not the slogan that members of the thirteen colonies used to illustrate the repressive acts of the tyrannical leadership and the unrepresentative nature of the taxes imposed upon them? Unfortunately, this phrase rings true again in the politics of the U.S. capitol.

Washington, D.C., a metropolitan conglomerate of almost 600,000 U.S. citizens, still emphasizes the slogan's historical parallel through the use of ostentatious license plate inscribing. The only American city without a voting member in the house or senate, this city finds itself in a unique political conundrum. City funds are appropriated by Congress, and the only native input is found by way of Eleanor Holmes Norton, the non-voting representative of our nation's capitol. Recently elected Mayor Adrian M. Fenty has promised to propel the district towards "world-class" prestige (of that other than political significance) and fulfill the district's motto, Justitia omnibus, "Justice for All." 

To this I attribute the rapidly gentrifying areas of Columbia Heights, Anacostia and parts of S.E., north of the Anacostia (for those of you familiar with the layout of D.C.). However, this is not only occurring in Washington, it has been or is currently problematic in Los Angeles, New York City boroughs and other predominantly minority-populated, urban neighborhoods. But more importantly, local policies are not protecting the low-income and section 8 housing neighborhoods in many of these metropolitan cities. The housing developments are being flattened to make way for condominiums and upper-class housing complexes by those attempting to capitalize on the breathtaking views of metropolitan society. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/forcedout/)

These residents are being marginalized into the suburbs, where they struggle to find jobs, and loose out on the readily accessible public transportation and public services offered within city limits. You can argue for the safety and charm these new urban middle-and-upper-class developments bring, but at what expense? Anacostia recently opened its second Supermarket, and for those of you that know Anacostia, it is far too expansive for only two Supermarkets. The problem is that it was strategically placed against the backdrop of newly-built, suburban-looking middle-class housing, attempting to push out the native residents of historic Anacostia. 

What gentrification is doing is pushing out the residents of urban cities, pushing out the residents who rely on public transit, who rely on the multiplicity of human services found within city limits. These newly gentrified areas simply allow the wealthy a new home, of which they most assuredly do not need. They move from areas of accessibility into areas of accessibility, forcing the poor and repressed further into the clogged gutters of urban society. We can be ashamed of the American poverty found constant across metropolitan society, it is our creation. But we cannot attempt to hide the downtrodden by subjugating them into the materialistic over-consumption of suburban society, of which they cannot, and will never survive. 

The archaic and medieval practice of selling indulgences whereby sinners were assured that they would escape or evade purgatory was abolished by the Christian church in 1563.

When applied to the practice of selling carbon permits for the purpose of curbing carbon emission, it seems ludicrous. Yes, the environment is not ours to sell. And yes, allowing the indulgence of some but not all does not seem quite the "moral" practice. Although, this conceptual adaptation requires the action of environmentally destructive pollution to be "sinning," which is contentious, but I can accept. Where I do disagree, is in the labeling of the exercise of regulating carbon emission, (through a gradual, innovative and cost-effective method of cap-and-trade) as the allowance, through monetary payment, of monitored "sinning."

Had we allowed any of the seven deadly sins to become this destructive, would we simply dismiss the method of reducing their destructiveness because those of questionable (environmental) moral standing foolishly partisan the environmentalist community? (You can argue for the destructiveness of the other deadly sins if you like, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that the socioeconomic ramifications of climate change will be life-changing, to the point of resource war, mass famine, global instability).

Two "non-indulgent" alternatives:  

Voluntary market-mechanisms (VMMs) may propose "win-win" solutions at not cost to the social or economic infrastructure. It may bring previously uninvolved participants onto the environmental platform and it does increase peer influenced decision-making, which isn't always so bad. The major problems, which rule out VMMs as a pragmatic policy decision are: 

Foremost, the performance of "least-cost" upgrades. Corporations, Governments, or individuals who participate in these voluntary environmental programs make upgrades based on social status and market benefit. There is not fear of punishment or reparation.

Its ineffective targeting of affected areas does not create any incentive for major carbon-emitters to improve local conditions, leaving local communities to argue it's idiocy.

The other solution, command-and-control regulation, is far less practical in terms of creativity and progressive qualities. Yes command-and-control regulations establish a cap, is quick and effective, relatively unambiguous, and produces stable rule-enforcements. However, the problems should be obvious.

-Command-and-control regulations provide no incentive to advance green technologies, placing all the responsibility on government subsidies and private donors. 

-it relies solely on the power of the state and the accuracy of a newly established carbon register.

-It creates new, heedless bureaucracy. Not to mention, it would be very costly. 

Ok, so cap-and-trade:

C-and-T would be flexible. It would not conflict with capitalism or conflict with the way the state and global free-market economy have progressed (more appropriate- regressed) over the past decade. It would thrive on capitalism, and as we can already see evolving, create a global competition to develop renewable technologies. It would also install a cap on emissions, the same as command-and-control, but create incentive for polluting institutions to lower their emissions, as to increase profit revenues and punish those to pollute too much. Yes, it would create new bureaucracy, but far less than would be established under command-and-control, and through the punishment polluting institutions and the auction of carbon permits, a new source of revenue would be created. It can also target specific locales more effectively than voluntary market-mechanisms and would allow for marketed PR in specific polluting-institution locations. 

I would not consider this to be a purchase and sale of indulgences. If it is the most immediate and economically congruent method to save the planet, don't we have to adopt it?