The Instigator
Texas14
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
jedieglet
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

The USFG should adopt a carbon tax.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 2/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 87365
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

Texas14

Con

The first round is acceptance. Round two is opening arguments. Round three is rebuttals. Round four is final rebuttals and voters/conclusion.

This debate is under NFL public forum rules, so no kritiks, counter plans or other obvious cx debate stuff. Framework and observations are fine, though.

Good luck!
jedieglet

Pro

I Accept.
Debate Round No. 1
Texas14

Con

Definitions:
Should: used in auxiliary function to express obligation, propriety, or expediency; the function must be correct as well as completely executable (Merriam-Webster)
Carbon tax: a tax based on businesses" greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) generated from burning fuels. (Ministry of Finance)

Observation 1: In order for the affirmative to win, they must show that on balance the USFG should adopt a carbon tax. In order for the negation to win, I must prove that on balance the USFG should not or cannot adopt a carbon tax. If the United States cannot perform a functional carbon tax, it cannot "on balance" be a good idea.

Contention 1: A carbon tax is not feasible.
The Institute for Energy Research simply says, "It is impossible to create an optimal carbon tax."
Sub-contention 1: Implementation
According to The Wall Street Journal, "Australia is the world's first developed nation to repeal carbon laws that priced greenhouse-gas emissions. It was repealed due to difficulty in implementing additional measures to actually reduce carbon emissions." Economist Jesse Jenkins said that Australian policy-makers failed to find "a price sufficient to fully internalize the social costs of CO2 emissions and substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Steven Cohen, Executive Director and Chief Operating Officer of Columbia University replied to first world carbon taxes in Canada saying, "The entire country of Canada hasn't implemented a carbon tax, so that says something. We could easily imagine a carbon tax gaining traction in say Oregon however it would be very complicated to pull off something similar in places as large or complex as the U.S." It is clear that a carbon tax in a developed country has proven to be impossible due to the infeasibility of finding proper implementation for a carbon tax. The International Energy Policy Journal said in regards to the US that Several political economy factors can severely constrain the implementation of carbon pricing policies, including opposition of industrial sectors with a concentration of assets that would lose considerable value under such policies; the collective action nature of climate mitigation efforts; principal agent failures; and low willingness-to-pay for climate mitigation by citizens."

Sub-contention 2: Execution
Cohen of Columbia University stated A carbon tax is completely unfeasible here in the U.S. This issue has made so little progress and has been met with such resistance that we're just spinning our wheels to pursue it." In short, businesses and consumers are in heavy opposition to a carbon tax.The University of Texas said "business groups have lobbied hard to keep such a policy from being enacted". The IER found this not plausible for businesses as it targets, attacks, and hurts 85 percent of America"s energy. According to the New York Times, "To be effective, the tax should also be applied to imported goods from countries that do not assess a similar levy on the use of fossil fuels." This is not under the jurisdiction of the USFG and is virtually impossible. The Economist also noted that consumers like cheap energy. A carbon tax makes energy too expensive for the market. A carbon tax is not feasible because it would be impossible to execute properly, therefore the USFG should not adopt a carbon tax.

Sub-contention 3: The USFG can"t solve global warming.
Even if done perfectly, a United States carbon tax does not solve global warming on a global scale; we would not reach the desired effect. The US is not the world"s greatest emitter of carbon, China is, and according to the Center for Global Development, China"s emissions have completely surpassed those of the United States in absolute term. A US carbon tax can"t stop China. Furthermore, NPR said that global warming is irreversible. "The damage will persist even when, and if, emissions are brought under control, says Susan Solomon, who is among the world's top climate scientists."

Contention 2: Adopting a carbon tax is detrimental to the economy.
Sub-contention 1: Outsourcing
The American Energy Alliance said, "It will increase the cost of oil, coal, and natural gas"the source of 80 percent of our energy. This will drive companies from the US leading to extreme brain drain and capital flight." This will evidently speed up the harms outsourcing poses on the American economy. According to Forbes "Outsourcing leads to the fragmentation and disintegration of the supply chain, destroying American industry, and undermining pricing power and profitability." This hurts minorities. Not everyone can be a white collar worker, this creates unemployment, and new recession. American workers are key to its economic strength. Carbon tax equals outsourcing, outsourcing equals crisis.

Sub-Contention 2: Carbon tax hurts businesses and in turn ruins America"s war on poverty.
The US is not ready for a carbon tax; it would hurt business and the lower class. Ph. D Calvin Beisner says "Fossil fuels are the best source for the abundant, affordable, reliable energy indispensable to any society's growing and staying out of poverty. Forcing the substitution of wind, solar and biofuels means raising the cost and reducing both the quantity and the reliability of energy available, which means slowing, stopping or reversing mankind's growth out of poverty."

For these reasons and more, I affirm the resolution and I await my opponent's arguments.
jedieglet

Pro

jedieglet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
jedieglet

Pro

jedieglet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Texas14

Con

Texas14 forfeited this round.
jedieglet

Pro

jedieglet forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Texas14 11 months ago
Texas14
Cap and trade is why I say no counter plans. But I'm con so that really applies to you more than me.
Posted by Hayd 11 months ago
Hayd
I can't debate this due to lack of time but I would enjoy voting on it.
Posted by EverlastingMoment 11 months ago
EverlastingMoment
I find that not allowing counter-policies is a little too much, especially since the carbon tax system is highly contested with the cap-and-trade system.
No votes have been placed for this debate.