Politics, News & Issues >
Government & Policies
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the US implement a carbon tax on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide?
Title endorsed in part by:
Results so far:
| Yes | 32% | 7 votes | Total: 22 votes | |
| No | 68% | 15 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesFirst law of economics: people respond to incentives. Incentives can take the form of a concept like RECs, which reward companies and individuals for using renewable energy. Incentives can also take the forms of fines and taxes, which punish people from using CO2. We currently implement one system, we need both.
Even with the incentives that currently exist to produce renewable and carbon-neutral energy, the technology is not yet economically viable on a large scale. Solar panels, wind farms, these are technologies that, if left purely to the free market, could not exist. The reason for this is that the free market does not take into account "externalities."
An externality is any force which cannot be accounted for in pure dollar amounts which still has some effect on the system as a whole. Pollution is an externality in most economic systems. The cost of producing a car does not take into effect the environmental cost of pollution. That is why we began regulating chemicals like Sulphur Dioxide which we acknowledged to be harmful. By putting a dollar amount on the chemical, we made it a mechanism that the market could deal with. Companies, in turn, began to institute measures to reduce their SO2 output. Now, you do not have massive clouds of acid rain hanging over our cities and industrial centers. We decided the cost was concrete and we took concrete measure to address it. It resulted in a tax, many things in government do. Americans have become so averse to the idea of taxation that we have forgotten that it is a powerful tool to accomplish beneficial ends.
CO2 is no different. If we're truly serious about reducing the amount of CO2 we produce, we need to give companies and individuals concrete reasons not to produce it. Left up to personal choice, some people might choose to reduce their CO2 output, but companies, power companies no different from others, focus on their bottom line first and their environmental impact second, if at all. If global warming and CO2 production are topics we think are truly serious, we need to put our money where our mouth is. Why we tax chemicals like SO2 which damage the environment, and not CO2 which does exactly the same is a mystery. There is no longer any academic disagreement over the human effect on global warming, all that remains is leaders finding the common sense and will to act.
A tax on carbon, even if initially unpopular, is the only way to truly harness the power of the free market to work to our advantage. Without true action, beyond just talk of "voluntary reduction" things will not change.
Learn more about this author, Bryan Jennings.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
For what? Who would pay for and actually feel the effects of another "tax"? Or better yet, who would benefit? All of the above are important questions that need to be addressed before an accurate and fair opinion can be reached concerning a carbon tax. The current White House Administration most definitely inherited a slowing economy; but over taxing, over regulating, and much larger government wanting even more control cannot be the best idea for improvement, especially for the hard working middle class.
Unintentionally so, I must answer the first of the above questions with a question. Why on earth does the United States government need to tax anything else? I mean how much more revenue do they need in order to fill their fat little belly's. Sure there are some who may think another tax may help encourage a more "green" America but in reality the only thing getting greener is the pockets of politicians and their friends who are receiving billions in "stimulating" bailouts. If you want to get the "green point" over effectively, do so! But lets not continue the hike in taxation to make a point, simply because that would open the door for greedy politicians to tax their point across on any given issue. Does Washington really need a door of opportunity such as this.. I don't think so. I mean isn't over taxation one of the reasons America became independent in the first place? Of coarse! Yet legislature is daily writing more taxes and regulatory mandates, politician defined today as: hypocrite, legless reptile in search of prey. The only way I personally would support any tax is if it were a "politician tax", how about passing that one Congress!
The middle class will be the definite loser if Congress were to pass such legislation. The economics of reality is that the cost of a tax on carbon or for that matter a tax on anything will ultimately be handed down to the everyday, hard working, over taxed middle class consumer. It is already hard enough to make ends meet in today's economy, why try to make it even harder by passing something else that will in return be passed to the American Citizen to pay for! Middle class America is wondering if this is "Freedom" or "Free- Doom" and it is the middle class that will not only pay for such legislation but feel the entire effect as well.
Who benefits from more taxation? "NOBODY" Not even the crooked elected officials who are squandering our tax dollars away on a daily basis. Increased taxation is a loose-loose scenario and should not even be contemplated no matter the purpose. To be free from over taxation and over regulation by government was the jest of the idea behind the Declaration of Independence. If we continue to elect politicians without moral values and without ethical foundations they will continue overtax us blind and take away the basic rights given in the Constitution. These politicians don't even realize the morbid future they are imposing on the future generations of this great nation or they just don't care.
Learn more about this author, Jason Reeves.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should all forms of smoking be illegal?
- Should Washington, DC, become the 51st state?
- Should the UK, France and Brazil force the release of strongly classified United States UFO/ET documents?
- Should the national drinking age be lowered to 18?
- Should Congress set limits on the compensation of corporate executives?
- Should the federal government bail out homeowners facing foreclosure?
