There is much back and forth bickering about the idea of shifting "carbon credits" from countries that produce too much carbon (dioxide) to countries that do not produce as much carbon. Radical environmentalists propose that countries producing large amounts of carbon be penalized for their excessive carbon production by making payments to countries that do not emit much carbon. In addition to punishing the carbon over-producers, this would serve to boost the economies of countries that produce little or no carbon. Proponents of the carbon credit plan are forgetting some important historical, as well as present-day, lessons. The noble guise under which this scheme is being hatched is the intent to reduce carbon emissions globally. Of course, this is all based on the notion that carbon production is bad for the planet. Important note: I did not say pollution; I said carbon, as in carbon dioxide (CO2). Carbon reduction enthusiasts all cite Global Warming, now referred to as Climate Change, as the reason we need to curb carbon, not to curb or correct pollution alone. You will find very few who disagree we must clean up the planet. However, you will find scores - if not hoards - of people who sincerely doubt the CO2-Climate Change Relationship hypothesis.

I recently responded to a series of replies on a blog, most of which were entitled "Forgetting the Past." This title referred to a response to an online magazine article concerning the whole prospect of carbon credit shifting, and the possible foreseeable problems. The respondent wanted to remind us that countries such as the United States and the United Kingdom are already so far behind in owing carbon credits to the rest of the world that we would go bankrupt within months of program start-up. Others argued for a saner and more rational approach based on credit for human and planet-enhancing technologies.

In this toe-to-toe dispute, we are all forgetting an important aspect of human behavior and existence. Please ponder why some countries are prosperous and progressive and on the cutting edge of science and development while other countries are just now coming of industrial age, and still others haven't made it even that far. Is it because the developed countries are unfair? Are they simply evil? No. The answer is in the ability of the political system of each country to allow freedom of the individual to pursue profit and individual improvement without oppressive regulation and taxation. Over-regulation and taxation suppress progress and creativity. Governments on the take and tainted with corruption further inhibit progress.

Where would we be, scientifically speaking, if progress and profit had been totally suppressed by something like carbon equity, or any other issue, in the past?

The next question: Is carbon equity a legitimate environmental philosophy at all, or just an economic equalizer and anti-science, anti-progress concept? When you penalize progress and innovation by taking away the incentive for individuals to advance themselves, you slow or stop that very progress and innovation. Furthermore, shifting wealth to countries that currently squander and misuse resources from countries that have actually earned that wealth through outstanding productivity would simply be a practice in stupidity and waste. Those countries have not figured out how to be prosperous or industrious yet, and have long histories of elitist leadership that keep the country's wealth for itself and promote poverty in its own people. Artificially shifting wealth, as will happen with carbon credit sales, will curtail the progress of the entire planet and line the pockets of third world leaders. It will NOT help the third world nations become the industrial giants, as you would expect. Redirecting political energy to encourage individuals, and allowing their freedom to succeed or fail, must be a priority. Those countries that have historically done this are currently the scientific and production giants. Those that have not are not. They easily could be if they allowed freedom of the individual to profit and progress; they cannot achieve that success by taking the hard-earned gains of others.

Next, and of the utmost importance, one must ask the very pertinent question of whether or not our planet's climate systems are so delicate and fragile as to be totally altered and destroyed by the naturally occurring and life sustaining molecule, CO2. Through the eons, volcanic eruptions and other carbon saturation events have occurred, yet the planet thrives. When studying global warming graphs, I cannot help but note that through the past 400,000 plus years, temperature change has always preceded CO2 change ...NOT the other way around.

If we feel the egotistic need to believe that humans are important and influential enough to alter the entire planet permanently through man induced-climate change, if we truly believe global warming is something other than a cyclical and natural event primarily driven by solar activity, we would be smart to look for a culprit other than CO2. Carbon comprises a minute fraction of a percent of our atmosphere, and therefore of the green house gasses, which historically react to global temperature change, but do not cause it.

Admit it, Folks; you just cannot control water vapor. More importantly, you cannot control PEOPLE by controlling water vapor, yet water vapor remains the biggest and most important green house gas surrounding the planet. This begs the most important question yet: What is the real agenda behind carbon control?

Could it be any more obvious? There are no politics, power, or economics in water vapor. If there were, I would be reading about water vapor credits being sold by Al Gore.