There should be Cap-and-trade system or something similar for greenhouse gasses.

1)I will agree that all emitters of emissions should be subjected to the policy and that we shouldn't make exceptions for certain groups, however I will maintain that a policy that makes a few exceptions for example exempting small emitters would be better than no policy at all. The comparison of drunk driving of course doesn't equally compare to greenhouse gas emissions; however the same idea applies to both and that idea is that harmful activities should be reduced, and a burden should be placed on groups that do those activities. 2)Here ill post some sources of health impacts done by certain emissions (note that I am not just using CO2 but all emissions that contain Carbon) http://scienceblog.com... ^Air pollution from cars, and factories linked to learning/memory problems and depression. http://www.bbc.co.uk... ^Rising CO2 levels responsible for increase in hay fever. Increases lung disease/COPD, from Carbon and other pollutants. http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Fine particle matter, nitrogen dioxide, sulfa dioxide linked to pneumonia http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Nitrous oxide and other air pollutants connected to appendicitis http://www.sciencenews.org... http://uk.reuters.com... ^Air pollution such as exhaust from cars and coal plants increases diabetes. Mice that inhaled real world concentration were more likely to have cardiovascular disease and have diabetes symptoms. ^ http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Fine-particle pollution, or soot in the air increases obesity. Exposure to fine-particle air pollution early in life increases obesity rates even if you eat a normal healthy diet. Fine-particle air pollution also increases the chance of having unhealthy blood sugar levels. It does this by increasing inflammation of cells, which when inflammation occurs in fat cells in makes them retain more fat. http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Air pollution such as soot and smoke from power plants and automobiles can cause cardiovascular disease. Air pollutants such as soot and smoke below standards set by the EPA causes arteries to be 50% more blocked by plaque. Exposure to the air pollution also increased bad cholesterol levels, and blood pressure. http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Air pollution such as the pollution from cars, including greenhouse gasses increases the chance of NO2 having breast cancer. Women living in the most air polluted areas are twice as likely to develop breast cancer then women living in the least polluted areas. Pollutants include NO2. http://scienceblog.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... http://www.medicalnewstoday.com... ^--Children exposed to above median levels of hydrocarbons (pollutants that are released into the air by the burning of fossil fuels) had lower IQ'es of 4.5 points. http://www.naturalnews.com... http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Living near a freeway is associated with an increased risk of having children with autism. Children born from mothers living near freeways are twice as likely to have an autism disorder. Also exposure to mercury and other pollutants increase the risk of autism by 50% http://www.sciencedaily.com... ^Mice exposed to vehicle pollution suffer brain damage. 3)Now I'll list other negative effects greenhouse gasses cause 1)An increase in waters acidity which results in lower fish/wildlife populations 2)An increase in grasshopper habitat and population which damages crops 3)An increase in mosquito habitat and populations which increase the spread of several disease such as malaria. 4)A sea level increase due to global warming. 5)Ozone depletion which allows more harmful UV lights etc . 6)Increase in tropical storms (100%), tornadoes (30%), floods (500%), droughts (300%), heat waves, wildfires(400-650%). 7)Decrease in crop/food yields (including a 20% drop in oyster populations, a 3.8% drop in corn yields, a 5.5 drop in wheat yields and a 15% drop in some rice yields) (note sources will be posted upon request.) 4)Here is my analysis of your argument that we should not have a Cap-and-trade (or an emissions tax). You don't oppose cap-and-trade because you oppose limiting greenhouse gas emissions, you oppose it because you find that "Europe's method," has better results. Given that we have SO2 for a decent example of the effects of both methods we should be able to determine which system is better, and you have. Europe's method clearly works significantly better. So basically right here I am conceding the debate, and will point out two more things. 1)Europe's method was a mandated reduction of the pollutant for all polluters. 2)Even though Europe's method worked better and should be put into place over cap-and-trade, cap-and-trade would still be better than having no policy. Thank you for debating; I learned something and appreciated it immensely.