Everyone has heard about global warming and understands the serious threats that it presents to environments around the world. Although it is uncertain just how large these negative affects will be it is nearly certain they will occur and becoming increasingly necessary for nations to attempt to do something to combat the emission of greenhouse gases. The estimates for just how much global temperature will increase within the next century are troubling and according to a recent estimate from MIT, " the median forecast is for a climb of 9 degrees farenheit by the century's end.
One possible solution which is discussed in an article at www.newyorktimes.com is that, "According to estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a tax of $80 a metric ton on carbon dioxide — or a cap-and-trade system with similar charges — would stabilize temperatures by midcentury." The article goes on to conclude that given this price the cost of stablizing climate change is relatively small.
Do you believe that a tax such as this will truly be able to bring climate change under control in time to be effective?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/21/business/economy/21view.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am not sure, taxing people so we have money to pay for their polution seems difficult to do and make people accountable. I think we should just focus on transferring everything to conserving energy. In the early 1900s they invented electric cars and hybrids but they didn't continue with them because it was more expensive and people just wanted a car. So we have been ahead of the curve just decide not to due to financial reason. So they should have the government help transfer all over to energy conservative and also i think it will bring a lot more jobs.
ReplyDeleteI'm not positive that taxing on people is the most efficient way to control global warming, and I wonder how they get the data of $80. I think the key to this problem is to cut down the emission of greenhouse gases from the energy aspect with advanced technique.
ReplyDeleteA tax on pollution would be a great idea, in theory. However, I don't think that it would work at all in practice. Already the U.S. has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol (an agreement to reduce greenhouse gases), as has China. The refusal was based mostly on economics. While some countries may be inspired to encourage better environmental practices with a tax, countries that don't bother with the tax will gain an unfair advantage because they are not as limited.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that taxing people is a good way to limit pollution. I think the best way to do this is by having the government make rules and regulations on the use of energy. They should also find efficient ways to conserve energy, and also look to invest more in wind power and other alternative energies so that we can one day use energy without polluting the world in which we live in. Investing in alternative energies would also create jobs, which people in Michigan have already been able to take advantage of. I believe this is a better way of limiting pollution. (A)
ReplyDeleteI don't think that a tax will limit greenhouse gas levels, especially from automobiles. Gas prices soared over three dollars a few summers ago, and people still bought gasoline. In America in particular the demand for gasoline is so inelastic that a tax as such will not do much.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that taxing people will help prevent them from polluting. Yes they will become more concious about what they do regarding the subject, but charging them wouldn't be a great idea. I feel that educating people and helping make them feel accountable for the existence of our planet is a better way to go.
ReplyDeleteThis is just like clean air credits. The people who have the money and the financial incentive to pollute will pay the tax and keep on polluting. There needs to be an outright ban on polluting more than a certain amount.
ReplyDelete