Puffle Party Research Paper

One of the most pressing issues faced by Canada today is unemployment. In fact, reports confirm that the jobless rate continues to increase every year. As of February this year, the unemployment rate was at 7.0%. The presence of unemployment rate is evident in various provinces. In Quebec, the number of people working declined by 26,000 in February. Alternately, the number of employed in British Columbia fell by 10,000; while Saskatchewan nearly 6,000 individuals are unable to find jobs. The Conference Board of Canada projected that the country’s labour woes could reach to more than one million workers by 2020. In addition to this, experts predict that the unemployment rate in this country will surpass that of the United States. Along with the dismal figures and projections, the problem of unemployment consequently creates numerous negative consequences on the nation’s economy, its government, and of course its people. Some of the known effects of unemployment include reduced spending power, an increase in financial cost, recession, and even crimes and violence. Individually, long-term unemployment may result to depression, loss of self-respect, and strained relationships with family and friends – ultimately causing damage to the person’s overall well-being. The adverse effects of unemployment only show that this issue imposes a significant cost both on a national and individual level. As such, it is of primary importance to create an immediate plan of action to alleviate

The change I’d like to see is that big corporate companies, like Essar Algoma and U.S steel pay carbon taxes. Having to pay money for every ton of pollutants released, will give companies the incentive to reduce their

One major objection many economists have to the question of carbon tax effectiveness is whether the taxes on carbon are high enough to create any change in

Stephen Harper has continually disgraced Canada and its citizens throughout his almost 10 year reign as Prime Minister. There are many problems that have risen throughout Harper’s governing; the widening of the wealth gap, the lack of women’s rights and aboriginal rights are just a few. With an election around the corner, it’s time for change.

The Northern Ontario Party is happy to announce that our platform which came out of the desire of our members to create a strong, independent, and prosperous Northern Ontario for all northerners. After a members’ vote and some polishing by our executive board, we are excited to present to the public, what the Northern Ontario Party will stand and fight for in the 2018 election.

The Climate Leadership Plan in both Federal and Provincial Governments (Alberta, BC, and Federal) impose restrictions and carbon tax leading to increased administration costs and reduced profitability.

Government enacted solutions are probably the most effective ways to reduce carbon emissions and to control pollution since unfortunately the majority of individuals mainly act to their own self-interest and are not concerned with the future of the planet. This is a prime example of the tragedy of the commons, which is the exploitation of a common resource. In this case the common resource is the atmosphere. The first method proposed is the carbon cap trade system. The term cap means the limit or the maximum of the amount of pollutant to be emitted. A trade refers to the transfer of permits that have to be bought by firms that need to increase their volume of emissions from firms that require fewer permits 1. The carbon tax method is a tax on the carbon content of fuels — effectively a tax on the carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels 2. So, which system would be best for the government to enact to reduce carbon emissions in the atmosphere?

In Australia, there is an emerging consensus that the government should take further actions to help mitigate and combat climate change. The current most accepted policy by government is the introduction of a carbon tax followed by an ETS in 2015. However we are focusing on the carbon tax in this essay and not the ETS. Here is a brief explanation of the dynamics of a carbon tax. A carbon tax is a tax on energy sources, which emit carbon dioxide (Co2). Therefore, carbon taxes address the problem of negative externality. Externalities are the subsequent effects when individual production or consumption of a particular good or service imposes costs or benefits on others. Therefore negative externalities are effects, which pose harm to others without their direct interaction (Basic Economics 2011). However, usual market practices and transactions do not reflect these cost and benefits in the prices involved in the transaction, or take into account in their transaction decision. Therefore this is a form of market failure. By imposing a cost on these negative externalities, the hidden cost can be addressed. Ultimately the purpose of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and therefore reduce

In managing the emissions of GHGs(Green House Gases), carbon taxes will be imposed mid 2012. "Economic theory anticipates that with the increased costs of emitting GHGs, drives emitters to downsize their activities." Salem Press (2009)

However, the Gillard government has instituted one fairly radical and controversial policy: the new imposed carbon tax which took effect on July 1, 2012. The tax requires 500 of Australia's top polluting companies to "pay a fixed price, starting at Aus$23 per tonne, for their carbon dioxide emissions for the first three years. The mechanism would then shift

Cap and trade is usually the policy referred to when the literature uses the ambiguous phrase of ‘carbon pricing.’ While a carbon tax is functionally a pricing mechanism, the small quantity of available cases of implementation mean that cap and trade is the default mechanism for carbon pricing in the status quo. The primary benefit of the cap and trade approach is creating an almost infinitely scalable carbon market. Cap and trade accomplishes this by functioning simultaneously as a disincentive and an incentive. While exceeding the cap triggers a fine, registering under the cap allows for the difference in emissions to be auctioned off by the company. This means that companies always have an incentive not just to meet the cap, but to emit the least amount of pollutants possible to allow for more capital to trade in the carbon market, maximizing efficient distribution of emissions (Borghesi and Montini 2016).

Should the U.S federal government adopt a carbon tax to decrease c02 emissions of public and private franchises.

A tax simply puts a price on the amount they pollute. An article in the Huffington Post written April 12, 2014, updated March 5, 2015, by Kenneth P. Green, discusses the implications of a carbon tax. The article is valuable since it looks at many aspects in which a carbon tax can be positive and negative; however, it does not include public opinions and what citizens think of carbon taxes. It is reliable since it offers a wide range of perspectives and originates from a source that is very proficient in the field of environmental studies. Green is a writer who has studied about climate for many years, meaning his opinions are well built due to his expertise. One interesting thing to take away from the article is the discussion of the reason for a carbon tax. According to the article, Canada only emitted 1.8% of the world’s greenhouse gases in 2012 (in contrast to the Horizons textbook) – is there then any point in reducing emissions? Even if Canada reduced emissions largely, it seems the effect worldwide would not be drastic. The article then makes the point that, “If it isn 't about environmental protection, essentially it is about changing people 's behaviours in ways that drive them away from activities that produce greenhouse gas emissions.” A national carbon tax will affect Canadians in different ways—transportation, energy, clothing, and food prices would rise with the addition of a carbon tax. Often carbon taxes are

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

The most pragmatic approach for a carbon tax system would be a tax on the carbon content of fossil fuels. A carbon tax could be applied to a significant number of points in the “product cycle” of fossil fuels, ranging from primary fuel extraction to product and service end use. Even though emissions occur at the energy generation point, but there would be far less monitoring points and hence lower implementation costs if carbon contents were measured and policy was applied to wholesale use. On a global scale, it