Essay about "A Small Price for a Large Benefit"

Climate change is not a new concept. It has been mostly referred to as global warming in the past. As much as people would like to file this issue away as something to deal with at a later date, it simply cannot wait. This problem we face is costing us billions of dollars, forests and wildlife are being eliminated, and people are dying. Starting to sound like a big deal, right? Future generations will be affected the most. People who do not even exist will have to pay for what we, all people, have done to this earth. To begin to make changes, one must realize the severity of the issue. Bill Mckibben, author of “Recalculating the Climate Math,” conveys that “We’ve already raised the world’s temperature by one degree—enough to melt almost half the ice in the Arctic, kill off huge swaths of the world’s coral, and unleash lethal floods and drought. July and August tied for the hottest months ever recorded on our planet, and scientists think they were almost certainly the hottest in the history of human civilization” (Page 3 of 5). Global climate change is a serious problem because it increases natural disasters and is the cause of extreme weather.

At this point in time our possible solutions to the global warming are few; our technologies aren’t advanced enough to take the brunt of energy production and wean away from fossil fuel, and we have been too passive for too long regarding our CO2 emissions that’s it’s not feasible to either use cap and trade, or a flat out reduction of CO2. At our current rate of growth, energy from alternative energy sources will be around 8% of the total energy usage by 2025 (Butler 3). This is not nearly enough to be used as a feasible solution to combat our rising CO2 production, and by the time this is feasible, sever climate changes may have

They looked at two scenarios, inaction, where business’ continue finding and using carbon as they see fit, and action, where business’ use a low-carbon energy mix. They found that not only would the investment cost of the action scenario be no more than inaction, but it would even cost a bit less- 190.2 trillion dollars for action and 192 trillion dollars for inaction. This is before even considering the amount of money saved by the effects of the action scenario itself. The report found that, “the difference in climate damage costs between low (1.5°C) warming and high (4.5°C) warming scenarios could be as high as $50 trillion” (Business Insider). The effect of such a large economic company reporting this data is the perfect example of how using economics for the sake of reversing global warming can be really beneficial. The argument often used by economists is that becoming more sustainable would hurt the economy, but the data in this report proves just the opposite, and how terrible it would be if we did nothing. For the sake of investment in industry’s like coal and gas, this information is often denied. But this is not anywhere near the first time industry’s have had to adapt due to uncontrollable events. This report emphasizes the importance of recognizing

The Hamilton Project, CATO Institute, Stanford and Harvard all agree that policymakers should set the price of the carbon tax equal to the social cost of carbon (P=SCC). The Cato institute defines SCC or the social cost of carbon as “the present‐discounted value of the net future external damages from an additional unit of carbon dioxide emissions” (Murphy). This is one of the key concepts that is examined when it comes to economic and/or environmental policy decisions regarding CO2 emissions. This in turn means that a hypothetical carbon tax would be equal to the environmental and social negative externalities that are produced by each additional ton on CO2 emissions (marginal cost). The Hamilton project gives a hypothetical tax scenario of $16 per ton and increasing by 4% per year or so in accordance with the inflation rate. The reason for the incremental increase is because $16 is still far below the Government’s central estimate of $23 and below Canada and British Columbia’s carbon tax policies (“New”). Starting at a lower rate will allow for the gradual assimilation into this new tax policy, if it were implemented.

Within the past few decades, there has been no political or public discussion as heated and controversial as the debate over climate change. Climate disputes can be traced back all the way to 1837, when Louis Agassiz proposed a theory claiming that Switzerland had once been covered with large ice sheets, and have become a big part of the international scientific community since then (Archer and Rahmstorf 2010). Today, climate change is not only a scientific issue, but it has grown into an economic and political issue as well. The rising amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, most of which has been added through human activities, has caused a climb in the average temperatures around the planet. This can have huge effects on the future

“There is one issue that will define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other, and that is the threat of a changing climate,” Barack Obama. As stated by Barack Obama, climate change is an immediate global threat that can no longer be ignored. Carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere has lead to visible changes in global climate. Thus, the need to implement market mechanisms that encourage markets worldwide to reduce their emissions is essential. In order to maximize emission reductions, while minimizing social loss and other negative repercussions, market-based incentive policies are the most applicable options. These options include carbon taxation and cap and trade. Both options have faults, however they provide nations with the best available ways to combat climate change. Through theoretical and practical analysis, it is suggested that carbon taxation may be the preferred policy to impose.

The warming trend the we are observing right now is particularly important because it’s proven to be mainly human-induced and proceeds at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years (IPCC, 2007) There is a strong, credible amount of evidence, based on numerous lines of research, which suggests that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part due to human activities. Certain scientific conclusions have been so scrupulously studied and tested, and supported by so many independent scientists that the likelihood of them to be proven wrong is incredibly small (The National Academies Press, 2010) However, even though we have a scientific consensus on climate change and its cause, the political response to a global warming problem has been strongly impacted by climate change denial, hindering efforts to prevent climate change and adapt to the warming climate (Dunlap, 2013) There are groups of people who reject this

As aforementioned, our survival depends on the ability to learn from past mistakes, especially as it pertains to the issue of negotiations for a solution to climate change. A 2014 synthesis reports “human influence on the climate system is clear recent climate changes have had a widespread impact on human and natural systems many of the observed changes are unprecedented the atmosphere and ocean have warmed amounts of snow and ice have diminished sea level have risen greenhouse gas emissions are extremely

Global warming is one of the most stressed issues on mainstream media today, behind the war on terror. Although, should we be worried about it? In this annotated bibliography, the sources consider plenty of information about climate, such as, how it affects the earth, possible solutions to the energy problem, and proof that global warming is happening and that it is caused by an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere. For solutions to the problem the sources contemplate nuclear energy, solar energy, and the idea of encouraging innovation and technological advancements. There is an article that makes the situation more personal by narrowing the group down to a specific region and describing the consequences they are facing and the steps they are taking to help solve the problem. Reading the sources in this bibliography would provide a person with a vast amount of information about climate change with a stress on possible solutions and information about them.

Most economists, such as Adam Smith, would agree that price is an efficient way to guide decisions of consumers and producers. Putting a price on carbon emissions would increase the consciousness of big companies, as well as individuals, on how much CO2 they produce. As of now, most of the United States does not put a price on carbon emissions, leaving CO2 “unpriced”2 Carbon taxes should be established to reflect the detrimental societal cost which would discourage further carbon emissions at or above the level they are already at.

This paper is intended as a starting point for creating a framework within which to discuss and analyze what appears to be a substantial change in worldwide climate. It is essentially a synthesis of three books: (1.) an inconvenient truth, the crisis of global warming, written by Al Gore (2007), (2.) At Home

“Ever since civilization began, each generation has left the next planet similar to the one it inherited. Our generation may be the first to abandon that tradition” (Brown, 2009). It is clear the amount of damage that has been done to the environment is due to this current generation and the problem I will be focusing on is climate change.

In Louisiana alone, it is estimated they will lose over 64,000 jobs because of weakened world markets due to the mandates of the treaty. The state is also expecting electricity bills to increase by 70 percent and the cost of gasoline to rise by 50 cents due to tax increases (Livingston, 1998). A study by WEFA (Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates) estimates that the cost to the U.S. per year due to the agreement could reach 300 billion a year--more than is annually spent on elementary and secondary education. This translates into $2,700 of lost income for a family of four by the year 2010 (Novak, 1998). As a result of all of this, Cato Institute claims that there will be a reduction of planetary mean temperature by only 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50 years (Kyoto Treaty, 1998). If these statistics are accurate, there is reason to believe that the Kyoto agreement will not be enough and that more will need to be done in order to stop this problem. The Kyoto Protocol is one method that governments are using in an attempt to control the potentially damaging effects of CO2. In Ottawa, Canada, the government feels as though they have a different method that will produce revenue while also reducing greenhouse gases. This alternative to taxes would take place by auctioning permits to emit CO2. These permits would be tradable between companies similar

Environmentalists started to warn the world about the potential threats of global warming in the late 20th century. Mckibben states that some of the changes predicted by weather experts fifteen years ago have already started to happen (667). Unfortunately, few people are keen to take heed of the grave implication of an adversely changing climate. The developed world is comfortably engaging in its innovative journey, while the third

Imagine dramatic environmental changes, the displacement of millions, and various animal extinctions; these are all possible outcomes for the future. As a matter of fact, these ideas are not far-fetched whatsoever, because many reputable sources verify these claims. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97% or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities (NASA). In other words, global climate change is a stark reality because of human civilization. However, when the issue of climate change pops up in a conversation, a standard person would most likely not know about the topic or try to avoid it altogether.