Carbon Emission Restrictions

The human race is responsible for over 2000 gigatonnes of carbon emissions since 1750. Carbon emissions have been there since the industrial revolution, with the major sources of emissions originating from human activities. Carbon dioxide emissions, mainly from fossil fuels, have been rising dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution. Increased carbon emissions from developing and developed countries have been associated with increased global warming and climate change in recent times. The relationship between carbon emissions and how they contribute to global warming has raised debates on controlling carbon emissions.

The EPA released a proposal that will require the power plants using coal to capture and store carbon emissions instead of releasing the emissions into the atmosphere. The proposal has raised major arguments between groups that oppose it and those who embrace it. Eileen Claussen supports the proposal arguing that it would decarbonize the power plant industry, allow clean energy production, and allow the choice between coal and natural gas. However, Paul Cicio claims that the proposal is dictating over the energy policy, that power production will be costlier, and that EPA can eliminate natural gas from the power generation industry. Eileen argues against the idea that the proposal will be a threat to the US economy.

Even though the EPA proposal is meant to reduce carbon emission, it will be costly for upcoming power plants. Manufacturers in the US cannot spur meaningful economic growth, retain and attract investment in US production if the EPA imposes this enormous regulatory burden. According to Paul Cicio, the proposal will increase costs in the manufacturing industry and will bring uncertainty to the US manufacturing competitiveness and jobs. The restrictions on carbon emission pose a serious threat to the US economy (Easton, 2011).


Re-wilding refers to restoring the ecosystems or environment immensely to the natural state that it was before human interference with the environment. Re-wilding can be done by introducing flora and fauna to the ecosystem that they were in initially or to a similar habitat. Human activities like hunting and habitat destruction over the past centuries have led to the wiping out of some of the fauna from their natural habitat. Most of these animals wiped out from the wild have become endangered. Re-wilding became an effort by various authorities and governments in the world to re-introduce the fauna to the natural habitat they once lived in or similar habitat.

Josh Donlan has supported the Pleistocene re-wilding as an optimistic agenda in North America’s conservation efforts of the 21st century. Pleistocene re-wilding is the re-establishment of fauna that existed 13,000-11,000 years ago by introducing similar species to replace the extinct species. Rubenstein supports the idea of conserving and sustaining the native ecosystems together with the remaining organisms. However, Rubenstein does not support the Pleistocene agenda arguing that North America cannot return to the exact ecosystem that was there 13,000-11,000 years ago, the Pleistocene habitat is uncertain for their practical introduction, and that the re-wilding would damage the current ecosystem and biodiversity in North America( Easton, 2011).

Human beings do not have the moral responsibility to rekindle the ecosystem that human ancestors destroyed 13,000 years ago. The communities in the ecosystem are also not ecologically similar to those that existed in the Pleistocene. It is therefore not possible to return North America to the ecosystem of Pleistocene era, and as Rubenstein et al. stated, Pleistocene habitat is uncertain and this may endanger the current ecosystem.