For Writing Project 4, you?ll present your own argument about why there is still hope when it comes to a sustainability issue of your choosing. We?ll be bringing together many of the skills we?ve learned throughout the semester. Invention and arrangement will be especially important as you think about how to present your ?problem? and communicate why there is still hope. You?ll need to support your argument with relevant research, examples, and/or your personal experience and observation. Finally, we?ll be discussing style, tone, and concise writing as a means to make your problem as vivid and your solution as convincing as possible for your audience.
You can find the full requirement in the attachment.
The topic I decided to choose is to explore is When it comes to the problem of global warming, whether a carbon tax can be the hope to solve that issue. (paper only focused on the United States) You can talk about how the carbon tax has been added by the United States to normal people and businesses. (especially corporations!!!!) The conter arguments can be these corrupted companies that use fake data or other way to avoid high amount of carbon tax charges! Just some advice!
I will need the first draft by 4/17.
please find useful sources from pear reviewed journals or articles!! need at lease 6!!!! and analyze deep
I have put some of the writing regarding carbon tax (warm-up activity) I wrote in the attachment. When it comes to this particular sustainability issue, why is there still hope?
The carbon tax is a levy imposed on carbon emanations in order to yield products and services. They are envisioned to mold the ?hidden? collective price of carbon copy releases visible. Carbon taxes are premeditated to lessen carbon dioxide emanations by fluctuating charges of the nonrenewable energy that release them when charred. This equally declines demands for such products plus services that yield great emanations as well as incentive energies, thus helping to make them less carbon-concentration. Basically, a carbon copy levy conceals only carbon dioxide emanations. Though, they can also conceal glasshouse airs, nitrous oxide or methane, by levying this emission grounded on their carbon dioxide correspondent global climate change perspective. Most countries still hold on to the hope of carbon taxation because it will assist countries and communities faced with climate change with global reach and revenues that will be a benefit to them. As a result, action will be accelerated to reduce the carbon emissions, increase mitigations and catalyze greater innovation.
The carbon tax is still effective in terms of getting a solution to global warming. Increasing carbon prices is the most powerful way to curb global warming. Although most people argue that raising the carbon tax would lead to high energy bills; economists still insist that levitating the prices of burning fossil petroleum like oil, gas, plus coal is the best way to moderate climate alteration and that income raised from the levy can be refunded to the end-user over refunds and shares. The revenues collected from the taxation should be reinvested in those countries most affected by climate change. Also, they can be directed towards generating and sustaining ecosystem services such as habitations?that care about a range of thriftily and environmentally valued resources?and clean air. Tax systems and fiscal policies can be reshaped in order to discourage carbon emissions (Bai, 2020). The government will keep the emitters on their toes by setting a price they must pay for each ton of greenhouse emission. This will lead to corporations and end-users taking a step in switching fuels or adapting to new technologies to avoid paying of taxes. Over forty countries universally have executed a form of carbon pricing; it can either be through an undeviating levy on fossil manufacturers or cap and trade curriculums. It is estimated that a seventy-five dollar carbon duty will result in the total of emanations scientists guesstimate will relate to two degrees Celsius of warming. On the other side, coal charges will increase by more than 200 % above standard levels in 2030. All this will discourage the usage of fossil fuels, which will prevent any effect on global warming. Global temperatures are estimated to rise by about 4 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels by 2100(Steenkamp, 2021).
Carbon taxation has received a lot of support from the jurisdiction, thus the assurance that there will be fewer cases in terms of corruption. Many known leaders have come out to support the carbon taxation; Obama, the Former President of the United States, once acknowledged that the only way to curb emissions and drive emissions is to put a price on the carbon(Beiser-McGrath,2019). By having a high person supporting the idea of this taxation, it enabled it to be accepted into the system. A study carried out in 2017 estimated a tax of 49 dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide could be capable of raising 2.2 trillion dollars in net revenue within ten years (Steenkamp, 2021). Therefore, carbon taxation will be effective in solving global warming since people will avoid taxation, which will be costly to them. The corrupt market made it easy for corruption deeds to take place at diverse points of the planning cycle. During the application process, corrupt actions can emasculate the veracity of the policymaking and integrity process. During the implementation, there would be underreporting of emissions, tax evasions, and embezzlement of tax revenue. However, there is a possibility of regulating the carbon market since there are two markets that exist; the regulatory compliance and voluntary markets. The regulatory compliance is the maximum allowed amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases arising from home heating, hot water use, permanent lighting, and ventilation systems. This helps ensure that human health and welfare are not at risk.
The voluntary markets enables?private investors, administrations, non-governmental establishments, and companies to obtain carbon at or below a specific target willingly. This often can be a specific sustainability target agreed upon by a group of companies (Alegoz, 2021). Although, it gives room for easy bribery to take place and tax avoidance. They are therefore allowed to emit one ton of carbon dioxide. More so, it helps companies through the carbon credits to act on the climate change, although they are not allowed to be auxiliary of a company?s own emanation. Also, having these regulations set, one can be assured that there will be less corruption, and once a person pays for a specific service, he is assured of delivery. Therefore, there is the hope of regulation of the corrupt market.
References
Alegoz, M., Kaya, O., & Bayindir, Z. P. (2021). A comparison of pure manufacturing and hybrid manufacturing?remanufacturing systems under carbon tax policy.?European Journal of Operational Research,?294(1), 161-173.
Bai, Q., Xu, J., & Chauhan, S. S. (2020). Effects of sustainability investment and risk aversion on a two-stage supply chain coordination under a carbon tax policy.?Computers & Industrial Engineering,?142, 106324.
Beiser-McGrath, L. F., & Bernauer, T. (2019). Could revenue recycling make effective carbon taxation politically feasible?.?Science advances,?5(9), eaax3323.
Dou, G., Guo, H., Zhang, Q., & Li, X. (2019). A two-period carbon tax regulation for manufacturing and remanufacturing production planning.?Computers & Industrial Engineering,?128, 502-513.
Steenkamp, L. A. (2021). A classification framework for carbon tax revenue use.?Climate Policy,?21(7), 897-911.
