Should The United States Adopt A Carbon Tax? Essay

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

In 2010, Australia produced around 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide per person, more per capita than the United States and almost any other country, in large part because of the quantities of cheap coal available for electricity. In 2012, Australia enacted a tax on carbon emissions, starting at AU$23 per tonne and moving up to AU$25 per tonne in 2013. Two years after it was implemented, and before it developed into the next planned stage of an emissions trading program, Tony Abbott was elected and the senate voted to repeal it. I believe that a carbon tax like the one in Australia is an effective policy, but it must have the support of the people in order to reach its full potential for aiding in climate change-stopping or whatever. This essay

In the beginning, the writers present the process of the research conducted by the MIT researchers and conclusions that showed how even a low carbon tax would be effective at lowering carbon emissions. The writers continue the article by pointing out the effects of different policies, relating to the revenue created from a carbon tax, on corporations and lower income households. Finally, the writers draw attention to the fact that this carbon tax will greatly influence the effects of global warming. This article was written for Americans and is a solution that is perfect for the political spectrum of any government institution within the United States. The article addresses ways that a carbon tax can be used to please both liberals and conservatives. Though the writers did not conduct their own research, they did cite a study conducted by university researchers and a government organization and use interviews with key researchers in the study. Though this article cites only one research study, the idea of a carbon tax is still a viable solution and it will be used in my research to show that there is a viable solution to the problem of air

Carbon taxing coal-based products, in a revenue-neutral way, will help discourage overuse of fossil fuels. The United States needs to reduce carbon emissions in order to avoid the costs that pollution and climate change inflict on the general economy and individuals. Carbon, unlike other commodities exchanged and consumed in the free market, bears unique costs to the general economy that its market price does not encompass. The pollution we create when we consume carbon contaminates our air, raises temperatures, and makes severe weather events more frequent. A carbon tax is an economic mechanism that forces actors in a free market to come face-to-face with the social cost of

Imagine a world where no one can breathe. Clean air is only for the wealthy, and personalized air masks are all the rage. This scenario may seem like the plot to some dystopian novel, but this setting is a lot closer to becoming a reality than most people would imagine. In 2012, the world dumped 31.6 billion tons of carbon into the atmosphere- nearly 2.4 million pounds of carbon per second (CBS). If the world continues to carelessly dump carbon into the air that people breathe, then humanity should prepare for a future where gas masks are a necessity. But nobody wants that. In order to address the global issue of rising carbon emissions, governments around the world should institute pollution and carbon taxes as monetary and legal

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 February 2011, the Australian federal government declared a scheme to implement a Carbon Tax from July 1, 2012. Implementing this scheme has generated a controversial debate between Australians. The term “Carbon tax” refers to an environmental tax forcing polluters to pay per ton of carbon which they release into the atmosphere. This essay will provide the economical, social and political implication of carbon taxes, also with its introduction who will benefit and who would suffer.

A carbon tax is a fee on the emissions released from burning fossil fuels. According to carbontax.org, it is an “antidote to rigged corporate energy pricing”. So unlike cap-and-trade, it does not “create complex and easily gamed ‘carbon markets’ with allowances, trading and offsets”. It is implemented by placing a tax on carbon emissions. So carbon that is within products such as plastics will not be taxed as it does not get burned and release emissions into the atmosphere. The tax will be placed at the point where the fuel is extracted, imported, supplied, and consumed. As with all implementations, it will have its benefits and drawbacks.

It has been brought to my attention that carbon pollution has become a serious problem around the world. I believe we should do something about it because it can cause great harm in the future. As governor you have power over what…… Carbon pollution contributes to one of the most threatening environmental changes, Climate Change. Levels of carbon pollution has lead to rising the sea level, changes in our ecosystem and rising temperatures and can lead to so much more. Not only can you help convince California to step forward and do something about it, but you can help reach the goal for carbon emissions. Based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency, “2014 was the hottest year in recorded history, and 14 of the 15 warmest years on record have all occurred in the first 15 years of this century” (2015), the effect of carbon pollution on individuals is much more worse than it seems. I believe the government should put a law in order in which it mandates people to reduce their carbon footprint by 5 percent.

Global warming has been a controversial topic for years and some have even denied its existence; however, as more studies are being published every day in regards to our changing climate, it is hard to ignore this growing issue and how humans contribute to it. The term greenhouse gases refers to the group of gases that are primarily responsible for global warming and chief among these gases is carbon dioxide. Rising carbon dioxide levels can be attributed to a combination of burning fossil fuels such as coal, natural gas, and petroleum as well as deforestation in general ( Source A). To slow the effects of global warming, it is important for leaders in our society to consider their greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, and make

The new carbon tax which was implemented in 2017 will be doing great things for the environment. The government of Alberta website stated that they will be using 6.2 billion dollars to help the environment. Some of the money will be going to wind farms, solar panels, and other environmentally friendly infrastructure. The carbon levy will help ease the change from coal and gas energy to more environmentally friendly energy sources. In addition; the tax will cover 78-90% of Alberta carbon emissions and in a couple of years when the environmentally friendly infrastructure is in place we can expect that number to go up. If everybody was fully educated about all of the benefits of the carbon tax then almost nobody would be against it. But since all Albertans have heard is that it will cost them money they have been against it. Just as the carbon tax may be taking money out of our pockets currently it also will soon bring a dramatic change in our quality of life.

Lately, there has been a great deal of discussion about the possibility of implementing a carbon dioxide tax. From the religious and political opinion of John Locke, it is predicted that John would agree to the carbon tax. This is because first John was interested in Christian doctrine so John believed in the word of god and in the bible it states ‘’ You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it. You shall not defile the land in which you live, in the midst of which I dwell, for I the Lord dwell in the midst of the people of Israel” Numbers 35: 33-34. So anyway that we can reduce greenhouse

On March 18, 2016, The Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg ran through Tiananmen Square in Beijing and posted a photo of it. From the background of the photo, the color of the smoky sky was gray that indicates the serious air pollution. Some sarcastic comments criticize that he should have worn a face mask for his health and a heated online debate about China’s air pollution problems have been raised. The environmental problems have become one of the global realistic matters nowadays urging people to ponder the way of their living and producing. In the article “Acceptance Speech for the 2013 Ridenhour Courage Prize”, climatologist James Hansen states the importance of his solution to climate change under the threats by the exploitation of fossil fuels on Earth. He stresses that the collection of a carbon fee from the fossil fuel companies will distribute the funds back to the public, which “puts an honest price on fossil fuels, making them pay their costs to society” (258), and this approach will also promote the development of new technologies that can reduce pollution. I agree with Hansen’s proposal about collecting carbon fee. In fact, I would argue that we should accept a comprehensive ecological taxation system that imposes a tax on any substances or activities that cause environmental pollution, not only on burning fossil fuels, because it would inspire individuals and businesses to change behavior, bring economic benefits and improve the competitiveness of alternatives.

Albert Einstein, the famed physicist, once noted that “We can’t solve our problems with the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” Today’s world is faced with the dual threats of climate problems brought on by the use of fossil fuels and the economic challenge caused by the increasing scarcity and demand for those fossil fuels. It is time for society to look beyond the limited and dirty fossil fuels as the energy of choice and promote the use of the abundant renewable energy sources we are endowed with. Because the subsidies to wind and other alternative energies ultimately generate more income than their initial costs and because we continue to subsidize fossil fuels, we should modify governmental tax policy to incentivize