The US should adopt a carbon tax

== Intro == A carbon tax is a tax levied on the carbon content of fuels, which results in most carbon emissions -- emissions of carbon dioxide, which increases temperature, and occasionally carbon monoxide, which is toxic. The resolution says the United States should introduce a carbon tax. The government legislates pragmatically, based on what benefits and harms the people. The job of the State is to ensure that the people aren't harmed. Thus, government legislation ought to be based on John Stuart Mill's "harm principle," which holds that the only purpose for which control can be exercised over a person who doesn't consent to it is to prevent harm to non-consensual others. There are two reasons to accept this. First, the only reason people recognize the government's legitimacy is to prevent harm to themselves and to maximize benefit for themselves. If the government doesn't follow the harm principle, it is illegitimate. Second, the harm principle fits with normal conceptions of ethics in that it prevents harm. What are the burdens in this debate? The debate is a normative resolution, which means the burdens of persuasion are shared. The word "should" implies a debate of opinions, and, therefore, requires both sides to justify that opinion. My burden is to show that a carbon tax would be a net benefit to society. Con's burden is to show that it would be a net harm. == Climate change == Global warming is primarily human-caused and poses a fairly significant threat to humanity. Most scientists agree on that. The scientific consensus on climate change is that it's primarily human-caused. Human-emitted greenhouse gases trap insolation within the Earth, and increase its mean temperature. Carbon dioxide has a huge impact on temperature. Research by most scientists confirms so. Leading climatologist JD Annan uses a Bayesian statistical approach, which is "dominant in the literature," and finds that mean temperature would increase by 3 degrees Celsius per doubling of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. [1] That would mean carbon dioxide is responsible for around 70% of global warming. The effects of climate change on humans is severe. There's immense urgency as to the effect of climate change, and the problem is on a huge scale. If greenhouse emissions continue at the current rate, climate change will make the planet uninhabitable to humans. [2] A carbon tax would act to mitigate global warming. With a tax on carbon emissions, it will deter people from using carbon-content fuels at high levels, therefore reducing carbon emissions. Carbon taxation is not very costly, and has been proven to be effective at reducing emissions, therefore mitigating the threat of global warming. Research has shown that Norway's carbon tax has reduced carbon-based pollution by 20%. [3] == Nuclear power == Implementing a carbon tax will deter people from using carbon-based fuels. That much has been established by lots of research, and has been observed in Norway's carbon tax. Logically, it entails that people will look for alternatives. Most people agree that nuclear power will present significant competition to coal energy if a carbon tax is enacted. [4] Nuclear power poses a net benefit to society. Nuclear power further helps mitigate the threat of climate change. It's more efficient than many other forms of energy, and produces the most electricity in relation to it's minimal environmental impact. Nuclear power is helpful, because it has very little pollution and poses a viable power source. Therefore, it's a benefit to the plan. Climate change poses a harm to people. A carbon tax would mitigate that harm. The government's job is to prevent or reduce harm. For those reasons, vote Pro. [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com...