Essays On Carbon Tax Essay On Against Immigration
A recent report by the International Energy Agency suggests that with current climate policies, global mean temperature is likely to increase by between 3.6 and 5C, with most of that increase occurring this century.This is far outside the temperature range experienced in the history of humanity.1 A temperature increase of this magnitude would cause significant hardship, in the form of rising sea levels, reduced freshwater and food availability, increased disease spread, reduced biodiversity, increased conflict, reduced productivity, and other factors.2 The highly-cited Review of climate change economics by Nicholas Stern estimates that the costs of unchecked climate change could be as much as 20 percent of gross world product.3 Globally, annual emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas, reached 32 billion tonnes (gigatonnes, or Gt) in 2012, their highest level ever.
Comparing this to Figure 1 helps to illustrate the scope of the climate mitigation challenge.Among the places that have imposed or scheduled it are Canada, China, South Korea, the EU, and about a dozen U. Because the system harnesses the market to help the planet, it has garnered endorsements across the political spectrum.Its adherents include Greenpeace and Exxon Mobil, leftist Democrats and conservative Republicans, rich nations and poor nations, Silicon Valley and the Rust Belt.So other measures, such as an end to subsidies for the fossil fuel industry, must also be used. For decades, as the reality of climate change has set in, policymakers have pushed for an elegant solution: carbon pricing, a system that forces polluters to pay when they emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Much as a town charges people for every pound of trash tossed into its dump, these jurisdictions are charging polluters for every ton of carbon coughed into the global atmosphere, thus encouraging the dirty to go clean. It incentivizes a shift to low-carbon technologies and lets the market decide which ones will generate the biggest environmental bang for the buck.Even achieving less ambitious climate targets, such as seeking to limit temperature change to 3 , the scale of the challenge is evident.So far, the world has not effectively responded to this challenge.Because of the global nature of climate change, most countries have been reluctant to undertake significant effort to reduce emissions without a guarantee that others will do the same, perceiving that the majority of benefits from such an effort will accrue to other countries.The sentiment is expressed recently by Canada’s Environment Minister at a climate change conference in New York, where she stated: “we want a fair agreement that includes all emitters and all economies.It’s not up to one country to solve [global climate change].”6 The resulting stalemate hurts all countries, and is unlikely to change without a new approach.There is, however, some recent optimism around an (old) approach that turns the historic approach to climate change negotiations on its head: rather than waiting for a worldwide agreement before undertaking significant emission reductions at home, an alternative approach would use domestic climate policies as a springboard for coordinating international action.