The global community has a moral obligation to reduce its greenhouse gases. Climate change talks in Copenhagen are set to begin in slightly over 46 days. And yet the United States is far from passing any legislation that would truly curb our greenhouse gas emissions below the scientific recommendations of 25-40 percent of 1990 levels. The House passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. This bill, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, proposes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 17 percent of 2005 levels, or in other words: 4 percent of 1990 levels. Additionally, the Boxer-Kerry bill in the U.S. Senate has requested a reduction of 15-20 percent of 2005 levels, only 7% of 1990 levels. Both of these goals, according to the legislation, would be reached via a cap-and-trade program; thus using the all glorious (see: sarcasm) market forces to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. However, those opposed to the bill are now referring to this as "crap-and-trade" Good for them, using the same language as a five year old. This really furthers the debate in our country.

There is a moral imperative to stop the search for bi-partisanship if it does not advance the U.S.'s responsibility to reduce our carbon footprint. In an op-ed written by Senators Graham and Kerry they announced their efforts to find bi-partisan support for climate change legislations. Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested that republicans would be willing to sign a bill if it included drilling, "clean coal" technology, nuclear power, and carbon capture and sequestration. While I personally support nuclear power, there are many things that do not make sense. There have been attempts to find any excuse to drill for oil, and here is another one. How does this advance our carbon reduction and environmental protection? Carbon capture and sequestration is a science that is not completely understood. The earth has a well developed system for regulating itself and converting pollutants, thus we do not know what will happen to our system if we start burying pollutants underground. They have to go somewhere, just because you can't see them doesn't make it go away. Additionally, "clean coal" is a minimalist effort and gives the green light to coal-fired plants.

Although some jobs, in particular sectors and constituencies- may be lost, it does not negate our greater responsibility to our general citizenry, and the global environment. The Atlantic Slave trade employed thousands of people, from ship builders, sailors, capturers, traders, auctioneers, and more. However, the United States eventually decided to end slavery because our sense of justice and morality outweighed the fear of job loss. However, we were grossly behind Britain and other European nations in abolishing slavery. Now we look back on our participation and we are ashamed, particularly because we were not the first to abolish the slave trade. I am afraid the same thing will happen here. I am not equating those working in the coal industry-particularly the hard working blue-collar Americans-with slave drivers. I use this example only to illustrate that the time has come for the United States to take a principled stance. We are already grossly behind Europe once again, and just a few generations from now they will look back and ask "what were they thinking? Didn't they see their own hypocrisy?" We claim to be a world leader yet are continually following in shadows. Everyone's lives are in danger with as climate change is accelerated. We DO have a moral obligation. The idea that our children will have a better future than we had will not come to fruition if we ignore our environment. They will not have the same bio-diversity, their air will be dirty, their water polluted, their rivers dried, and their cities flooded.