Global Warming And Its Effect On The Environment

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

Stephane Dion (2007) published a summary of the liberal party’s proposal intended to decrease the carbon emissions in Canada. The liberal party suggested making the carbon emissions reduction not only a governmental concern but also the businesses need to get involved. This proposal recommended having a targeted goal so that all the businesses can be on the same page. The industries that would respect these new regulations and reduce their carbon emissions would be recognized and those that do not would be penalized. The party believed that the long-term positive effects outweigh socially and economically the negative impacts. The liberal party was certain that this new plan took into account the human lives threaten by climate change. Reading this article, the question that arose is: would this plan affect the economy of the country if applied?

According to the case, the carbon-tax and a cap-and-trade system are the best economic tool to employ to reduce emissions. As we know, taxes are the most important expense for a company or firm, if they would emit much more carbon dioxide and other gases, they need to pay more taxes on using carbon recourses. It is stated (Bubna-Litic & Chalifour 2012) that ‘One of the defining features of carbon taxes is that they generate a relatively clear and predictable stream of revenue’. The revenue can be used in many different ways and a key issue is how

The year 2016 was the warmest year on average in NASA’s 136 year record. One main reason this occurred is the increase in greenhouse gases. To reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, the Canadian government has decided to implement a carbon tax as of 2018. (Canadian Press, 2017). A carbon tax is a “legal binding associated with harmful emissions charge.” (Maclean’s, 2016). Several provinces have already introduced a carbon tax, including British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. While British Columbia and Alberta have a carbon tax, Quebec uses a cap-and-trade system instead. The government believes it is important to avoid “economic damage caused by cross-country carbon price differentials.” (Maclean’s, 2016). That is why they are

The carbon tax addresses the environmental issue of climate change. When CO2 is burned it creates greenhouse gas emissions and these gases collect in the atmosphere and cause climate change (EPA.gov). Carbon dioxide is one of the leading greenhouse gas emissions produced by humans, and by taxing this it could decrease the effects of climate change (c2es.org).

Socolow and Stephen W. Pacala in their article, “A Plan to Keep Carbon In Check (2006)" suggests that “today’s notoriously inefficient energy system can be replaced if the world gives unprecedented attention to energy efficiency.” Taking steps to institute policies and be cost-efficient will entail structural change, but in the end will be in the best interest for countries to aid in the adaptation of lower carbon products and economic competitiveness. They further state that governments need “to stimulate the commercialization of low-carbon technologies” so there is less demand for fossil fuels thereby increasing “competitive options” for the future. (Socolow & Pacala, 2006) Consequently, the emissions of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is causing the rise of global temperatures. Utilizing technology specifically for carbon capture and storage is crucial so we can slowly begin our process of adapting to other energy resources. It is also important that all countries participate in policies that will reduce emissions in a cost-effective

Andrew Moylan, a conservative who advocates free market and limited government, has argued that carbon tax is the less complex and better guarantee solution to carbon reduction; however, the main purpose of this paper is to rebut his argument and to present why Cap-and-Trade is a better solution compare to other solution in controlling variables, ensuring social justice and last expanding global regulation on carbon dioxide. In which how cap and trade can reduce carbon emission and save the earth from climate change becomes the fundamental question. Consisting passion on the environment more than economy, I construct my point of view base on a belief that all human beings feel connected to the environment and take responsibilities in regulating themselves, thus this paper reflects a macro level perspective. My central assumptions are that first, that the government or agency have already figured out the target setting in which encourages emission reduction but stimulates technological innovation. Secondly, the trading systems between corporations are transparent and honest. Last, I am also assuming that there can only be one solution to carbon reduction. As a result of dumping unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into the atmosphere, we have exceed planetary boundary, thus the government should immediately regulate and monitor carbon emission in order to prevent growing consequences of climate change. Through concepts such as technological hubris and Jevon’s paradox, I will

In Chinese proverb, “It coming from its people, should absolutely benefit the people.” It means although with a high ratepayer taxes, the government is able to use the taxes on the people. The rest of carbon revenue should spend on investment. Farms have plenty of sunlight for solar and biomass for burning. Diesel engines can be made to run off of plant oils. It is efficiency to replacing coal with clean energy for reduce the greenhouse gas emission. It could build wind turbines replace coal. It is more safely and reliably use the intermittent flow of electricity that comes form wind turbines. It will reward from invested new technology, even have high cost

Having a carbon tax will encourage further research and development of more efficient alternatives. With the extra cost of using fossil fuels, companies will look into alternative sources like solar and wind for their power needs. This tax will also be a monetary incentive on a local level to push consumers to look for alternatives. In turn, this lowers emissions, saves them money, and has a positive impact to the environment. The revenue collected from the tax could be directed to funding for those alternative energy sources. More funding means more opportunity to develop effective alternative sources, because today, fossil fuels are simply more powerful, effective, and reliable. Having options to other equally efficient and effective energy is good because depending on different regions; one source may be more

Firstly, it can effectively decrease the total amount of carbon emission by changing the behavior of numbers of carbon-based industries, especially when the price on emission is high enough. For example, according to the result from the case study for the effectiveness of implementing carbon pricing in Australia, “more reasonable emission reduction can be observed at the carbon price of above $46. In fact, increasing the carbon price to double its 2012 rate would result in about four times improvement in carbon emission”(Behnam,et,al, 2013). Putting it in another way, it is not hard to understand that the industries with imposed carbon tax will automatically switch the conventional way of generating energy from the combustion of fossil fuels to a more environmental friendly way in which taking advantage of cleaner renewable resources like wind, solar can reduce the amount of carbon if the cost of emitting greater greenhouse gases into the atmosphere is higher than the benefit of doing that. In addition, the carbon price will promote the potential development of clean technologies. For example, “a carbon price will lead to growing US demand for green technologies to reduce CO2 emission, which will incentivize greater levels of global R&D into such technologies”(Meltzer, 2014). To demonstrate, it is a noteworthy fact that more and more scientists will develop an increasing number of clean technologies if the fund collected from the carbon tax is financially sufficient enough to support for their researches. In effect, Lawrence & Koshy (2000) found that, “carbon taxes therefore provide a double dividend-internalizing the cost of the environmental harm from CO2 emission and producing green technologies through induced innovation”. Beside that, in the cap and trade system, the exchange of permit for carbon emission is not

“The Climate Casino” book by William Nordhaus talks about the dangers of climate change, and the affects it has on our world. Nordhaus uses the comparison about dealing with these dangers of climate change by relating it to a climate casino. Understanding the future damages carbon dioxide does to our environment, that are increasing the negative externalities of global warming. Creates warmer temperatures, abnormal weather, and damaging our ecosystems. Particularly in chapter nineteen of the book Nordhaus emphasizes ways to effectively control the carbon emissions, and start pricing the emissions of carbon dioxide that people put into the air. Pricing people for their carbon emissions can have its complications, but it could also help people understand why they should be concerned about putting carbon dioxide into the air. Nordhaus provides data which shows the impacts on when there is a price on carbon emissions. Looking into it pricing carbon emissions could influence people to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide they are releasing, or increase effective ways to avoid releasing carbon dioxide into the air.

“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.

It will set up the economy for deeper cuts down the track, and can be easily boosted if global action increases. Just as for individuals, the cost for most businesses will be quite light, cushioned by compensation packages aimed at easing the initial pain. So it’s a gradual start, with a fixed carbon price from July 2012, then from July 2015 there’ll be a market – an emissions trading scheme with a floor and a ceiling price for carbon. This hybrid approach is a way of achieving long-term stability of the carbon price, encouraging investment in new technologies. This gradual start (due to industry and political opposition) means that the biggest short term impact should come through ambitious spending programs driven by revenue from the tax. A $2 billion a year Clean Energy Finance Corporation, run by an independent board of energy and investment experts, should kick-start investment in large scale clean technologies, and in improving our substandard industry energy efficiency and ‘clean’ goods manufacturing. Some revenue will be spent buying out and shutting down about 2000 megawatts of the dirtiest coal power, including Hazelwood or Yallourn power stations in the Latrobe Valley. A Climate Change Authority, run by former Reserve Bank chairman Bernie Fraser, will make annual recommendations on Australia’s greenhouse targets, based on assessment of what is happening

In copious parts of the world, there are an abundance of factors that add to the destruction of our Earth. These issues include air, water, and environmental problems that we contribute to everyday. These concerns create major impacts that pertains to much of the globe and the world in which we inhabit today, compared to the world we lived in 50 years ago. Frequent questions that contribute to global warming include the following: how and why does the community supply detrimental factors to the Earth to cause global warming, and how can the community contribute to the repair of our vanishing Earth? Both of these questions are constantly the idea behind many global organizations that aid in the improvement of our world. This topic needs to be addressed immediately in order to preserve what we have left of our Earth.

Therefore, the carbon tax dividend needs to be adjusted based on the relative carbon tax impact on different level groups to compensate different groups’ loss accordingly. In addition, the government also needs to consider a dividend in terms of different level of consumption of carbon-intensive energy. As we have seen in figure 3, the highest income level group consumes up to 4 times more energy than the lowest income level group. Also, there is no incentive for high-income individuals to reduce emissions because even high energy consumption is a small fraction compared to their high-income level. Therefore, it is critically important to differentiate carbon dividend depending upon the income level in the proper compensating perspective. In addition, there is also an alternative way for the government to take in terms of lowering the electricity consumption, which is consumed mostly by the high-income group as we discussed above. That is adopting non-linear pricing for electricity and gasoline. When the total energy consumption gets smaller, the total carbon emission level will decline since energy supply only exists to meet the demand. Thus, this new equilibrium of saving energy will eventually limit electricity price from soaring up and protect the low-income group from the additional burden.