Personal Position:
My position on the topic is that the US should commit more resources to the global warming issue and include a carbon tax in its energy policy. I would review my position statement with appropriate reflection on the economic aspects of the issue. Climate change is one of the most detrimental threats to the world at the present and the predictions of an increase in global temperatures by a margin of 3.5-7.4 degrees Celsius in less than a hundred years validate the threat appropriately (Collomb, 2014). One of the prominent highlights to be observed in the denial of climate change in the US is largely based on the ideological differences without focusing on the long-term threats and economic disadvantages posed by global warming.
The conservative aspects of the movement reflect the commitment of free enterprises and small governments as ideological ends without focusing on environmental or economic common sense. Especially from the small-government perspective, it can be observed that actions for national and international climate change have been neglected.
Furthermore, it is essential to notice that the conventional commitment of the American way of life to the expansion of consumption and economic prosperity also acts as a major barrier to the implementation of countermeasures against global warming (Economicshelp.org, 2018). Therefore, it is imperative that the contribution of additional resources to counter global warming and including a carbon tax in the energy policy would be accountable for economic as well as environmental benefits.
Economic arguments against position:
First of all, it is essential to focus on the costs associated with the commitment of resources to global warming and the inclusion of reforms in policies. According to estimates by the World Bank, the costs for addressing climate change outcomes are predicted to be in the range of $70-$100 billion on annual basis (Economicshelp.org, 2018).
Residual damages are not considered which could remain even after the implementation of climate change control. This would lead to a higher cost of impact as compared to that of adaptation. Furthermore, it is essential to focus on the difficulties in evaluating the cost of impacts in terms of monetization and value. Some of the impacts include examples of biodiversity loss, loss of identity or culture, and loss of human lives.
Reflection on the Stern Review also suggests that a lack of short-term limitations on emissions would lead to detrimental consequences of climate change outcomes on the GDP. The loss in GDP is estimated in the range of 5-20% annually thereby creating concerns about the commitment of resources to global warming (Economicshelp.org, 2018).
The US government could also reflect on the inferences derived from the assessment conducted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to derive economic arguments against my position (ECIU, 2018). The assessment reflected on minimal focus on tipping points, catastrophic changes as well as an assortment of other factors. The incomplete estimates of annual economic losses are found within 0.2-2.0% of income which creates ambiguities.
The inclusion of carbon tax in the energy policy of the US is also characterized by economic disadvantages. First of all, production could be shifted to countries that do not have an emphasis on carbon taxes. Concerns of tax evasion could be observed with the higher taxes providing opportunities to conceal carbon emissions. The dissent of customers for new taxes as well as the costs of administration of the carbon tax could lead to inefficiency.
Economic arguments favoring my position:
The first argument supporting the US commitment to global warming could be presented in the form of the available solutions that can provide economic benefits. The utilization of existing as well as emerging technologies for addressing global warming could be aligned with conservative paradigms related to new technologies and changes in lifestyle (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018).
It is imperative to observe that a program for an economy-wide emissions reduction program could be supported with comprehensive use of energy efficiency measures to accomplish a reduction of overall costs. The program could also promote the stimulation of the economy through the creation of new business opportunities, provision of health and environmental benefits as well as increasing investments in low-carbon technologies.
According to the IPCC report presented in 2007, the costs for stabilization of emissions for obtaining a favorable reduction in global warming levels would be responsible for a minimal reduction of 0.12% in the growth rate of average annual global domestic product by 2050 (ECIU, 2018). It has been estimated that the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S.3036) would be responsible for a reduction of emissions in the range of 12-23% below 2000 levels as of 2020 and the long-term targets are estimated at 55-66% below2000 levels as of 2050 (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018). These factors contributing to public health improvements supported by the growth of the clean technology industry are considered feasible instruments for offsetting costs.
The costs of inaction should also be accounted for as mandatory economic arguments for favoring the investment of resources by the US for addressing global warming. The US economy could face considerable losses amounting to more than 3.6% of the GDP every year by 2100 which can be estimated at $3.8 trillion (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2018).
The costs of other damages such as water costs amounting to $950 billion, real estate losses at $360 billion, hurricane damages estimated at $422 billion, and increase in energy costs estimated at $141 billion can be accounted as explicit reasons for promoting the investment of resources to cater global warming (Economicshelp.org, 2018).
The inclusion of a carbon tax in the US energy policy could be favored on the grounds of the implications of a carbon tax internalizing the negative externalities of carbon emissions. This would imply that consumers, as well as producers, would also be liable to pay the social cost of consumption thereby leading to socially efficient levels of consumption. The revenue obtained from a carbon tax could be used to promote subsidies for green alternatives alongside implying the possibilities for the reduction of other taxes.
Conclusion:
In my concluding statement, I would like to draw inferences from the arguments favoring my position and state that the US should take formidable measures for allocating resources to address global warming alongside supporting the inclusion of carbon tax in energy policy. I believe my position is the correct one as it is evident that the costs of inaction would be potentially higher than the costs of implementing remedial measures for global warming. Furthermore, I believe the inclusion of a carbon tax in the energy policy would be responsible for a transformation in the ideological paradigms associated with climate change.
References
Collomb, J.D., 2014. The ideology of climate change denial in the United States. European Journal of American studies, 9(9-1).
Economicshelp.org. 2018. Carbon Tax- Advantages and Disadvantages. [Online] Available at: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/glossary/carbon-tax/ [Accessed 21 Mar. 2018].
Economicshelp.org. 2018. Carbon Tax – Pros and Cons. [online] Available at: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/2207/economics/carbon-tax-pros-and-cons/ [Accessed 21 Mar. 2018].
ECIU. 2018. Climate economics – costs and benefits. [Online] Available at: http://eciu.net/briefings/climate-impacts/climate-economics [Accessed 21 Mar. 2018].
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2018. Economic Facts Support United States Action to Curb Global Warming. [Online] Available at: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/solutions/reduce-emissions/economics-climate-factsheet.html#.WrIyVWpubIU [Accessed 21 Mar. 2018].
