1. The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
2. Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
1. Other clean-energy measures that could be used to significantly reduce CO emissions would be wind energy. According to this article by www.renewableenergyworld.com published almost four years ago, wind energy could reduce CO emissions by 1.5 billion tonnes and provide up to 30% of the world’s electricity by 2020. This would also provide over 350,000 “green collar jobs” around the world and by 2020 was predicted to increase to over 2 million.
ReplyDelete2. I feel that some would benefit more than others’ because the upper class has the money to pay for a big insurance policy or even just pay the medical bills without it hurting their wallet. However the lower and middle class at times have to think twice about going to the doctor because they don’t have insurance or the cost isn’t covered by their policy. The carbon tax would increase funds for Medicaid meaning that families that need financial assistance would get medical care at an even more affordable price.
Nice. Can you link to the article?
Delete1. To make a significant dent in the global warming problem, the US could take the money collected from the MIT proposed carbon tax and put it towards developing more efficient and cost effective wind power or solar energy. To raise more money for this cause, they could increase the cost per ton of carbon produced on businesses that have a annual revenue of one million dollars or more. They could also offer tax incentives to companies who obtain a certain amount of energy from renewable sources such as wind and hydroelectric power. This plan would not only benefit thriving businesses because of the tax incentives but it would allow for the market and creation of renewable energy to prosper because more companies would be looking in how to obtain clean energy.
ReplyDelete2. If the tax on large companies and people who are producing a lot of CO2 were to be raised if implemented, it would not hurt those who have immense wealth very much but the small portion of a lot of money that would be collected would have a dramatic effect of Medicare and Medicaid in which people who need the assistance and financial support are about to receive it. The government would not need to impose a high rate for carbon immersions on people unless they produce extensive amounts of CO2. There could be a small personal tax for carbon emission per person. Also, the tax would have to be split up on how the money was divided for example if all of the money went to advancing renewable technologies, we could not help people who need medical financial support but if all of the money went to people who needed financial support, no dramatic advancements would be made in renewable technology. Therefore there would have to be a division of the allocation of funds to benefit those who need it as well as advancing the technologies of renewable resources.
1. In order to make a significant dent in global warming the US has to rely on green energy, most importantly working on helping to build up ways to create energy through the elements, making a clean solution to the CO2 emissions coming from the energy plants. the US is already doing some progress with wind energy, but it's not enough to create that dent needed in global warming, the US needs to think of the other ways of creating green energy, using hydro energy, thermo energy, wind energy, and solar energy, including many other ways of creating green energy.
ReplyDelete2. It seems that the green line that shows the different income groups that would be affected in 2015, would be a little extreme but it would offer more benefit to lower-income families, while taking a little more from the wealthy seems like a double edged sword, that offers benefit to most people, not including the wealthy.
How is that a double edged sword? The wealthy already have lots of money. They would be affected by a smaller margin than the benefit for poor people.
Delete1. There are several steps that the US could take in order to make a significant effort toward tackling global warming. levying more and heavier taxes of corporations with high CO2 emissions is a place to start. another step that the US could take is offering government subsidies to companies and corporations that use or produce more environmentally sound methods of energy production, such as wind and solar power.
ReplyDelete2. according to graph one, low to middle class families would benefit more from a carbon tax than the wealthy. both would, theoretically, be affected, but with the wealthy taking the hardest hit.
Low classes would benefit more only if the money goes to aid programs such as Medicare and Medicaid, which are scheduled to be cut.
Delete1. The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
ReplyDelete- The U.S. Could reach the 80% decline (off of 1990 carbon levels) through the help of numerous present, and upcoming advancements in clean energy technology. For example, there are several electric cars on the market, but it is just the opening of the market, and advancements in efficiency and affordability are likely to be on the upcoming. By reducing taxes on companies willing to invest into cleaner energy, and practice environmentally friendly production, there would be a higher incentive to invest in research and development, and eventually produce products which would decrease the amount of emissions which consumers and corporations alike contribute to every year. This alone could help account for the majority of carbon emissions created today.
2. Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
- In the case of taxes going to public services and programs, the poorer percent of population would benefit more than the wealthy, simply because they would have an increase in resources. However, if taxes are taken without being used for public service, a large amount of Poorer peoples income would have to be spent on fuel. In this case, the wealthy are barley affected.
Not sure if it is the "majority" of carbon emissions. Transporatation, industry, and electricity are the biggest culprits. Efficiency would also help by reducing electrical needs.
Delete1. The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S could reduce taxes on clean energy uses that the U.S is already using, such as the Wind power, and water propelled energy. The U.S could invest in studies for new energy, like electric cars and solar powered technology in place of fossil fuel.
2. Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
The Cut on income and corporate would benefit the higher income Americans because they have more to spend on, assuming, the cleaner energy. While the cut on social welfare programs would benefit the lower income Americans, because the welfare would have the same amount to help the benefiting Americans. The last option, cut on payroll, would not benefit the lower income because they are using most of their income on fossil fuel, and it would do much damage to the higher income Americans either.
Electric cars are not a source of energy. They still may use a lot of energy if they are heavy SUVs that require a lot of energy to move.
Delete1. One action that would get the U.S. closer to its goal would be to first collect the money on the carbon tax and save enough over time to put it towards more efficient and earth-friendly solar power, hydroelectric power, etc. They could start with the big businesses that apparently use the most energy and are therefore paying large carbon taxes, to help pay them back and help them to pay less carbon taxes next time. Then they could move on to other businesses as they gathered more revenue. Although this play would cause a delay in starting the fight for global warming, one it was in action and more businesses were becoming ecofriendly, the whole country would start saving more money and energy and we would be closer to our goal.
ReplyDelete2. According to graph 1, if carbon taxes were used to fend off cuts to social welfare programs, lower-income households would significantly benefit while higher-income households would take a small hit. If the money was used to cut the corporate tax or personal income tax, higher-income households would benefit while lower-income households would benefit less, but still benefit. It it was used to cut payroll taxes, no one would benefit significantly. Some of these options would benefit one extreme over the other based on where the money is going to-for example, lower-income households would benefit the most from the money going to tax breaks on social welfare programs because the lower-income people are the people who are using the programs, as opposed to the higher-income people, who would have to pay for them, but would not be positively affected by the programs. On the other hand, if the money went to corporate tax cuts and personal income tax cuts, the higher-income households would benefit because they are the people in corporate positions and paying large mortgages and would therefore save money in either situation, whereas it would not affect lower-income households very much.
1. The MIT model has the right idea:taxes. Although a Carbon tax won't accomplish the goal fully, it a step to make the goal easier. So in addition the US government should give tax breaks to companies that are clean and efficient and tax breaks to local governments and homes who invest in clean energy. Similarly, the US government needs to invest in programs of renewable energy, such as biomass, wind turbine, solar energy, geothermal, and so on so forth. The idea of making companies and local governments who aren't environmentally friendly or supporting green alternative energy pay more in taxes is a very good philosophy with two substantial good effects. 1) they move to more alternative energy. 2) The US gets more funding.
ReplyDelete2. The big question with the carbon tax is where should the money transfer too. If it was used to lower the Payroll tax it would effect a completely different group then used towards social programs. Henceforth finding the most beneficial areas and fari place for the money. The issue with transferring to social programs and a lot of social programs are not regulated properly and the money ging towards them does not have a decent effect. However according the graph, this would help the lower income class by up to .8% which would be good, especially considering that the carbon tax will make resources that they use more expensive. The other three options for the money are more intertwined. The corporation and income receive tax cut would not have such a benefit on the american people over all, keeping it more at the same level or all americans as oppose to helping the poor out and hitting the rich a little. And then the final line really just articulates that the money would go to pay-roll tax and woud have no effect on social programs but would hit the rich about the same than if they money was going to social programs. Meaning if the rich was to be hit it should be because of social programs not payroll.
The US gets more funding? From where? The Eurozone? Raising taxes is one way to raise funding. Cutting defense spending would be another.
Delete1. Even though the tax proposed by MIT would reduce carbon emissions, several other things would need to be done in order to reach the US's goal. The money collected from the carbon tax could be used to create other clean energy measures. The US could also investigate new ways to produce energy without harming the environment such as bettering the efficience of solar power
ReplyDelete2. If the money from the carbon tax went to public programs such as medicare the lower class in the US would benefit because that would be one cost less for them, saving them quite a bit of money. If the money from the carbon tax went to cut corporate and income taxes the wealthy would be the ones who benefited instead.
1. Yes, this tax would cut some carbon emissions but not on that large scale that the US would want to I think that some of the money that was saved from this carbon tax could begin to get invested on clean sources of energy and ways to clean the environment.
ReplyDelete2.If the tax from the carbon was to cut corporate and income taxes it would greatly benefit the wealthy, while if the taxes were used for public programs like welfare it would be the lower classes that would benefit because they would get more benefits.
I wouldn't say "greatly benefit" the wealthy, but it would not harm them as much.
Delete1. The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteThe US could research new ways to produce energy. They could also give energy-efficient, clean corporations tax breaks to give incentive to other businesses to go green.
2. Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
Taxes could go two directions. First, carbon taxes could be spent in the public sector. There, they would benefit the lower classes in our society. This is because the upper classes don't use public services as much as the rest of us. Taxes could be spent elsewhere though, which the poorer parts of our society would not benefit from or gain anything from.
1. The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
ReplyDelete-The US could enact the carbon emissions tax, and then instead of spending the money as they get it, they could save it over a longer period of time and use it to invest in the other clean energy measures that the article said were necessary in order to reach the US's goal.
2. Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
-If the carbon tax was used towards preventing cuts from social welfare programs, then the lower income population would benefit the most because they are the ones that rely on those programs. If the money from the carbon tax was used for cutting corporate or personal income tax, the wealthy would get the greatest benefit because they have higher taxes, proportionally, and therefore a higher percent that could be cut. However, if the carbon tax were used to cut welfare tax, everyone would benefit mostly equally.
1. The U.S. can develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" by using the idea that MIT considered, which is carbon tax. This would make a significance in global warming by eventually lowering carbon emissions in 2006 by 14 percent and in 2050 by 20 percent. This would eventually cause climate change. Not only would it change temperature it also allows "Fossil-fuel use would go down, oil imports would shrink slightly, and U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions would decline."
ReplyDelete2. In graph 1, it demonstrated CT-Corp(carbon tax used to cut corporate tax rate), CT-Persinc( carbon tax used to cut income tax rate), CT-Payroll(carbon tax used to cut payroll taxes), and lastly, CT-Transfer(carbon tax used to bolster social welfare programs). With these four subjects on the graph, the graph basically demonstrated how lower income Americans will benefit significantly and higher income Americans will not benefit.
1. The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteOne way that the US could tackle its goals to help global warming is to invest in green technology, if the United States invests in green technology, it means more solar panels, less dependencies on carbon based fuels, and pollution will decrease sufficiently.
2. Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
It really just depends what would happen once the taxes are spent. As Hannah said, If the taxes go to the public sector, the less wealthy would benefit greatly, however if those same taxes go to the private sector, the wealthy would benefit.
1. The government could tackle global warming by giving Gaia a hug and then apologizing. Then, we, the American people, could make a huge mug or bowl of chicken soup for the earth. And then give it a bunch of ibuprofen and tell it to stop complaining. However, seeing as we are too selfish a people to do that, The US government could invest in green energy technologies like solar, wind, algae power. Or perhaps all of those at the same time, like a giant algae tank with m=windmill turbines at the top made of solar panels. An increase in green energy could help cut back fossil-fuel use and eventuall cut back green house gas emissions and maybe save the planet.
ReplyDelete2. The graph is extremely unhelpful as there is not a title for it, and the descriptions are vague at best. I refuse to regurgitate the information provided and instead will describe what i see. I see from the green line, that lower income tax bracket people will have a greater increase of ______ percentage and that higher incomes will have a negative increase of_________ percentage. perhaps if some explained properly what is going on, i could understand what this is. Instead i recommend points be taken from the asker of the question for lack of intellectual fiber.
The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteOne way that the US could develop other clean-energy measures that can make a significant dent in the global warning dilemma is through the research on electrical energy used for fueling cars. Today, there are different types of cars that are on the streets that can even go 500 miles per one gallon of gas because they use mostly electricity to fuel the car. With research like this, the global warming conflict is dented significantly and the carbon emission is minimal.
Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
The graph shows the different effects for the carbon tax. mainly, the bolstering of social welfare (such as Medicad) is the one that would have the greatest change, which would benefit the poor more and impact the wealthy with a small blow. Thus, the poor would favor this action over the wealthy.
1. Isn't a question, so I can't really give a good answer to that for sure. However, if it's asking for alternatives that could be used... Bio-diesel, wind power, ect.
ReplyDelete2. It's not a very good graph, it's pretty vague and only presents a general idea of the effects of the carbon tax. I think that the corporation targeted tax would be the most effective, since they would have the most influence on pioneering new energy sources, since they have the resources.
No matter what a tax achieves, which arguably would be nothing in a capitalist economy, it would still consume fossil fuels. Even if it decreased that consumption, it isn't a permanent solution. More permanent solutions will come from technologies such as solar, tidal, hydroelectroic and wind energy, as well as hydrogen cells.
ReplyDeleteIt's a pretty odd graph, but it seems to be intended to show that this tax also has benefits in closing the US's socioeconomic gap because it will apply more to wealthy americans than to less wealthy americans.
-Zach, not Ashley.
Delete1. The article says that this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Discuss ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. can develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" by using the idea that MIT considered, which is carbon tax. This would make a significance in global warming by eventually lowering carbon emissions in 2006 by 14 percent and in 2050 by 20 percent. This would eventually cause climate change. Not only would it change temperature it also allows "Fossil-fuel use would go down, oil imports would shrink slightly, and U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions would decline."
2. Discuss graph 1 and the four options presented. Why would some benefit one extreme over the other?
The Cut on income and corporate would benefit the higher income Americans because they have more to spend on, assuming, the cleaner energy. While the cut on social welfare programs would benefit the lower income Americans, because the welfare would have the same amount to help the benefiting Americans. The last option, cut on payroll, would not benefit the lower income because they are using most of their income on fossil fuel, and it would do much damage to the higher income Americans either.
1. We could invest more in green powers like hydro power, wind power, nuclear power, and solar power. These energies although not effective now, if we subsidized them the market would become of interest and thus would slowly become more efficient.
ReplyDelete2.It depends what would happen once the taxes are spent. If the taxes went to subsidize the green powers and create a private market then I think the taxes would be effective because the competition would solve the problem.
1.The tax alone is not enough to accomplish the goal. The US could invest in a lot more green technology which would be helpful in cutting down global warming and carbon emissions. It seems like it would be difficult to make a solution to fully conquer this problem but we could make steps towards a better Earth.
ReplyDelete2.The graph seems to show that in certain situations the tax would help wealthier individuals rather than help people with less money and in other situations the opposite would be true. Mostly it seems to depend on how the taxes would be spent once they are collected.
1. this tax would not be enough to cut carbon emissions in order to reach the US goal. Other ways the US could develop "other clean-energy measures in order to make a significant dent in tackling global warming" on a large scale could be using alternative energy and utilizing new technology like electric cars.
ReplyDelete2. Using the gas tax to supplement income tax is the easiest way for it to benefit all income brackets.
1. The U.S could invest money from the carbon tax on improving clean or renewable energy technology. Or give tax cuts to those using or developing these sorts of energy sources.
ReplyDelete2. The four options presented in graph 1 are
1) Continue same/similar level of funding for social welfare programs- Benefits lower income Americans
2) Cut corporate income tax- Benefits higher income Americans
3) Cut income tax- Benefits higher income Americans
4) Cut payroll taxes- Neutral
The first option benefits lower income Americans over higher income Americans because they are the ones who use these programs, I don't quite understand how this would be detrimental to wealthier citizens in any way. Options two and three benefit wealthier citizens because most citizens aren't corporations and if I understand this correctly, which I probably don't, income tax is calculated by percentage which means even if the cut is the same all around those who make little won't pay much less in income taxes, while those who make more will pay much less as we see it.
1. One way that the US could cut carbon emissions is take the idea that MIT had of the specific carbon tax as that would cause businesses to not do things that would produce as much carbon. We could also look into using alternative energy sources such as hydro power.
ReplyDelete2. This graph shows that only one of the options would really benefit lower class americans, but not really affect the upper class, however two of the other options would benefit the upper class and be a detriment to the lower class, and one would really have no significant effect on the US. One would benefit some over the others depending on what they're cutting, such as cutting welfare would hurt the lower class.
1) The carbon tax wouldn't work because companies would simply leave. this would impact the US goal, but leave us with out shirts on our backs. a more serious approach would be an Eco management technique. Reward business for cutting emissions with tax cuts and or other incentives. companies will not only fall head over heels to be green, but expand and help the nation as a whole.
ReplyDelete2)The Graph is incomplete and biased. It implies that punishment is the only option. we need to punish those filthy rich folk that pollute our air. This is crap. Now, the rich would just leave, as stated above. yes, in the short term, we may see more taxes, then companies will take jobs and their pollution over seas and do as they please there. No jobs effects everyone equally.