BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
A Cap and Trade system is fairer to producers

Carbon emitting energy industries emerged long ago, before anyone thought about the environmental impact of this industry. It is wrong to suddenly consider all energy production that involves carbon emissions a social "harm", after decades of thinking to the contrary. Modern energy producers should not be punished for their participation in an industry whose emergence pre-dates concerns of global warming. Further, A cap-and-trade system is "fair" because it rewards "efficient"-polluters while punishing "non-efficient" polluters: Given the above argument, this is a more reasonable approach to rewarding and punishing an industry whose emergence pre-dates the environmental concerns surrounding carbon emissions.
Cap and Trade is Less Feasible Than a Carbon Tax

Carbon taxes are useful owing to the transparency behind them. It helps companies working for green causes gain a strong reputation and support among the public because they are seen to be paying for their pollution. A cap and trade system is significantly more difficult to understand and as such this means that there will likely be less public will behind the system and thus a lesser incentive for transparency. A cap-and-trade system demands that the government determine the emissions baselines for companies, the allocation of carbon credits, and the monitoring and enforcement of all of the above. This is a major administrative burden. A carbon tax would be simpler and require less oversight, and would cost domestic tax payers less. The complexity of a cap-and-trade system would make it easier for companies to cheat. This is largely because the enforcement of this system would be difficult and open to manipulation by skilled lawyers, accountants and consultancy firms. Further, Governments have the incentive to establish conditions favourable to the performance of their own national companies. They can do so by, for example, offering more carbon credits than they should to the companies of their country. The EU's emissions trading system is the primary example of this occurring.[1]   [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009 http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/
Carbon Taxes Are More Progressive both Politically and Economically than Cap and Trade

Carbon taxes are progressive and help economically marginalised communities to a much greater extent than cap and trade. Currently, affluent businesses, individuals and legal persons usually emit a much larger amount of carbon than poor people. A flat tax on emissions causes a significant amount of money to be redistributed from the rich to the poor. Moreover, the poorest in society are often the first and worst affected by environmental damage. They lack the capital necessary to move out of areas affected by problems such as smog and water pollution. A carbon tax is a particularly useful system of redistributive justice, because money made from taxing firms can then be reinvested into finding greener energy solutions. Specifically this money can be invested in green energy companies that have already shown progress in producing goods that reduce carbon consumption. As such, a carbon tax not only reduces carbon consumption directly, but can also do so indirectly by investing in technology to prevent carbon consumption in the future.[1]   [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009 http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/
Cap and Trade will Harm Energy Consumers

Carbon trading would harm smaller and start-up business to a significant extent. It is easier for wealthy companies to reduce their carbon consumption as they have a greater level of wealth and thus a greater ability to do so.  As such under a market mechanism they would have more credits. Poorer businesses would have to buy carbon credits from the richer ones, compromising competitiveness; in addition, small business parks and areas attractive to start-ups would potentially become sinkholes for pollution under the proposition. The resolution could undermine the efficiency and profitability of small but agile engineering and manufacturing firms, such as the mittelstand businesses that have recently flourished in Germany. The volatility of cap and trade markets means that firms would have to insure against the markets turning against them. In practical terms, this means that following the implementation of a cap and trade scheme firms would have to significantly increase fuel prices in order to hedge against the possibility of the market turning against them and harming their company. As such even if cap and trade is a more “efficient” system it still harms consumers significantly.
Cap and Trade is Better at reducing carbon emissions than a carbon tax.

A tax on carbon by comparison to a cap and trade system provides a much more powerful message regarding the importance of carbon policy. Whilst a trade system seems to the general public and to an extent to firms, like simply another product to manage, a tax carries very strong connotations owing the severity of other taxes levied by governments. As such it provides a stronger incentive for firms to change their attitudes toward carbon. Further, a cap and trade system is flawed because often polluters will pollute heavily before the system begins. As the only way to implement cap and trade is to do so based on past emissions (or risk being incredibly unfair), this means that many companies will emit as much as possible so that their baseline emissions will be set highly enough to give them a measure of leeway. Further, a carbon tax system is much easier to change based on the effects of the policy on climate change in the future. Whereas a cap and trade system must deal with changes to the market of cap and trade itself as well, as changes to the overall market. A cap and trade system is more complicated than a centrally imposed tax. Therefore, it will be harder to predict and adjust the behaviour of the credit market in the future. A carbon tax also allows for the redistribution of the taxed money into researching green causes. It leads to a better overall result because money can be focused on companies that have shown progress in this area and taken from those companies that have no intention of changing the field.[1]   [1] Shapiro, Robert. “Vs. Cap-Trade.” Carbon Tax Centre. 04/2009 http://www.carbontax.org/issues/carbon-taxes-vs-cap-and-trade/
Cap and Trade is More Economical Than a Carbon Tax

The costs of establishing and administering a cap-and-trade system could be substantial. It demands that a cap be set, monitored, and enforced. This is a highly complicated process, given the size of the energy market, and would demand substantial administrative oversight. Further, should the monitoring not be perfect, given the size and power of the firms involved, it is likely that they will be able to find loopholes in order to deal with the problem. A carbon tax is predictable, as are most simple tax systems. A cap-and-trade system, on the other hand, is subject to market fluctuations, speculation, and volatility. This could have a bad effect on energy prices. Specifically, if the market becomes subject to speculative attack, it would be likely that energy companies would have to offset the risks in the market by raising energy prices. Further, such market volatility could lead to certain energy companies being unduly punished for changes in the market that they simply could not have predicted.[1]   [1] “Carbon Markets Create a Muddle.” Financial Times. 26/04/2007 http://www.ft.com/cms/s/4b80ee18-f393-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html
A Cap and Trade system is fairer to producers

A carbon tax essentially considers all carbon emissions harmful to the environment, and warranting of equal punishment so is therefore fairer. A cap-and-trade system only punishes carbon emissions above a certain level, treating only certain kinds of emissions as "bad". A carbon tax, therefore, sends a strong message to polluters that all their emissions are harmful, that they should be phased out, and that they should invest in environmentally-friendly sources of energy. This dramatic message may be particularly important if we view global warming to be a serious crisis. Companies are even willing to pay a premium for the stability provided by this system[I1] ; the premium being the tax itself, and the lack of the potential for profit through the trading of carbon credits. Further as a system that is easy to understand it is easier for directors to allow their firms to ease in to the system.[1]   [1] Ugur Akinci, “Carbon Tax Versus Cap And Trade Approaches to Global Warming – Part 1.” Doubletaxes.com 2007 http://doubletaxes.com/category/free-tax-forms/carbon-tax-rebate-forms-through-small-business-ministry.html  [I1]Examples and case studies required.
Cap and Trade is Less Feasible Than a Carbon Tax

The basic problem is that a carbon tax would be seen as a new tax. New taxes are typically unpopular. This makes it hard for politicians to support a carbon tax, as they are beholden to their constituents, and their likely desires to avoid such a tax. This in itself makes it unlikely a Carbon Tax would ever be implemented. Further, a carbon tax would require complicated enforcement mechanisms. These mechanisms would impose an administrative burden on the state more severe than that created by a cap-and-trade system. In a carbon tax, emitters would pay a tax for every tonne of carbon emitted. This requires that the government know precisely how much carbon is being emitted by energy producers. This is not easy to determine, and requires that a government put in place monitoring mechanisms. Deploying these mechanisms universally would be very complicated, expensive, and require much administration. Then, ensuring that all these monitoring devices operate properly and that all energy producers comply with the tax would also involve a substantial administrative overhead. This would be equally as complicated as a cap-and-trade system, which requires much the same administration, but also encourages other companies to keep tabs on their competitors and their emissions. Credit trading spreads the administrative costs of carbon taxation over a number of companies, all of whom will be acting to protect their carbon credit investments and the stability of the market they are traded on.
Reporting on violent crimes compromises the integrity and fairness of law

Judges and juries have to be neutral when they preside in court, and no bias can enter the court’s discourse and deliberation if justice is to be done. This is especially true of violent crime, for two reasons. First, in such cases, the court is dealing with people’s lives, as violent crime convictions yield high sentences, and the court’s decisions often have a lasting effect on the physical wellbeing of both victims and perpetrators of such crimes. Second, the visceral nature of violent crime naturally causes an emotive response from people hearing about it, which can cause them to act less rationally.[1] Opinion is thus more easily colored in deliberations over violent crime than with any other kind. In light of these facts it is necessary to analyze the behavior of the media when it reports on violent crimes. The media is a commercial enterprise. It prioritizes sales over truth, and always wants to sell the good story and to get the scoop. For this reason the media relishes the opportunity to sell the “blood and guts” of violent crime to its audience. Furthermore, the race to get stories first causes reporters and media outlets to jump to conclusions, which can result in the vilification of suspects who are in fact innocent. The media sensationalizes the extent of crime through its extreme emphasis on the violence; it builds its stories on moving imagery, emotive language, and by focusing on victims and their families. At the same time the media seeks to portray itself as being of the highest journalistic quality.[2] This behavior on the part of the media is tremendously bad for the legal process. The media circus surrounding violent crime necessarily affects potential jurors, judges, lawyers, and the general public. This has been observed on many occasions; for example, after the OJ Simpson trial some jurors admitted that the pressure generated by the media added significantly to the difficulties of deliberation. The inescapable consequence of the media reporting on violent crimes is that people cannot help internalizing the public opinion when it stands against a person on trial. Thus court judgments in the presence of a media circus must be held suspect. By restricting reporting on violent crime, however, the pressure can be relieved and the legal process can function justly. [1] Tyagi, Himanshu. “Emotional Responses Usually Take Over Rational Responses in Decision-Making”. RxPG News. 16 February 2007, http://www.rxpgnews.com/cognitivescience/Emotional-responses-usually-tak... [2] Lee, Martin and Norman Solomon. Unreliable Sources. New York: Lyle Stuart. 1990.
Reporting generates a constant iteration of fear in the public, and precipitates a ratchet effect toward crime

Constant reporting on violent crime makes people more fearful. This not a deliberate effort on the part of the media to keep people afraid, but rather is a corrosive negative externality; violence sells, so media provides, resulting in the scaring of audiences. The result of the media’s reporting on violent crimes is a constant iteration of fear, which makes people wary of each other, and of the world.[1] Furthermore, such reporting creates a feeling in people of other individuals and groups most often reported as committing crimes as being “other” from themselves. For example, reporting on extensive crimes in inner-city areas in the United States has caused middle class suburbanites to develop wariness toward African-Americans, who are constantly reported in the media as criminals. This is socially destructive in the extreme. The heightened senses of insecurity people feel leads to vigilance in excess. This is bad for people’s rationality. All these problems yield very negative social consequences. The constant reporting on violence leads to people demanding immediate law enforcement, and politicians quick to oblige, which leads to a ratchet effect, a precipitous increase in punishments for crimes. This results in a severe misallocation of resources; first in terms of irrationally high spending on extra policing, and second in terms of the excessive allocation of resources and authority to the state to solve the problems of crime through force. This is observed, for example, in the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, which was acclaimed in a state of fear after 9/11, and which gave extensive, even draconian powers to the state in the name of security. The media fuels this hysteria. Without its influence, cooler heads can prevail. The end result of all this is a treating of symptoms rather than the cause. Putting more police on the streets, and getting tough on crime fail to address underlying issues, which are often poverty and the social ills arising from it.[2] Citizens and governments should instead face the actual problem instead of choosing flashy option. [1] Rogers, Tom. “Towards an Analytical Framework on Fear of Crime and its Relationship to Print Media Reportage”. University of Sheffield. http://www.shef.ac.uk/content/1/c6/10/39/11/8rogers.pdf [2] Amy, Douglas J. “More Government Does Not Mean Less Freedom”. Government is Good. 2007, http://governmentisgood.com/articles.php?aid=18&print=1
The state owes a duty of protection to victims, victims’ families, and those accused of committing crimes

Victims of violent crimes and their families face an emotional and vulnerable time in the wake of such crimes. People need time to recover, or mourn. The media’s fixation on violent crimes subjects these vulnerable people to the assault of reporters. In fact, there exists a perverse incentive for the media to badger families until they break down, as tears sell.  Such exploitation must be stopped, and the best way to do that is to deny the media the ability to report on such things. The media does not care about hurting feelings, and bad behavior on the part of reporters never hurts readership of media outlets, as is indicative of such tabloids as the National Enquirer. Outlets can always deflect any backlash that might occur for their excesses by cutting loose “rogue reporters”. Furthermore, families and victims usually do not want the media's, and the nation’s eyes upon them. Rather they tend to seek support from family and community, not the faceless masses.[1] People generally want to mourn in their own way. They may not want to become part of a media-driven narrative, and certainly not to become symbols for a new social crusade to reform communities. Removing violent reporting removes these perverse incentives to irritate victims and families, and instead leads to more respectful and considerate treatment. As for those accused of crimes, it can be hard for someone acquitted after a trial or accusation to get on with life. Some people may find themselves roundly accused by the media and public, even portrayed as monster, making it very hard to move on, even when their names are officially cleared. This is completely contrary to how the legal system should function, where acquittal is meant to deliver absolution. Allowing the media to construct narratives of guilt in the absence of evidence undermines the very fabric of justice. The media’s incessant coverage of violent crimes and its alacrity to make accusations and jump to conclusions can destroy someone’s life, more than even having to stand trial does. Justice must prevail and be fair to those to whom it judges in court, and this can only be done by not allowing the media to turn the mob against people even after their names are cleared. [1] Canadian Resource Centre for Victims of Crime. “Victims and the Media”. 2011, http://www.crcvc.ca/en/media-guide/part-1/victims-and-media/
The contagion effect of reporting on violence leads to increased impetus for terrorist attacks and serial killings

The media has been consistently demonstrated through empirical evidence to aid in the exacerbation of premeditated violence. There is an observable contagion effect, as the media serves to spread the virus of violence. Studies have shown that the greater the level of media coverage, the shorter the lag time between initial crime and emulations of them. In the case of terrorism, there is a demonstrable clustering effect. The 1970s embassy takeovers in Middle East, for example, show how media coverage can encourage terrorists to emulate past actions that gained attention in the past.[1] People see success of certain kinds of attacks and seek to repeat them. For example, the successes of Fatah in Israel led to the formation of the German Red Army Faction that would be responsible for many terrorist activities. In the case of serial killers and mass murders, the media generates the “hot death story” of the moment, leading to an observable clustering effect, much as occurs with terrorism. For example, the Virginia Tech shooter cited the Columbine shooters as his inspiration. Serials killers are often attention-seeking individuals who crave media attention, which they are obligingly given. An example of this is the Unabomber, who ramped up his parcel-bombing campaign as a result of the media attention given to Timothy McVeigh’s mass murder in Oklahoma City. The media not reporting on violent crimes means eliminating the problem of emulation, and stops feeding killers’ pathologies. [1] Nacos, Brigitte. “Revisiting the Contagion Hypothesis: Terrorism, News Coverage, and Copycat Attacks”. Perspectives on Terrorism 3(3). 2009.
It is necessary for people to understand the extent of criminal activity in order for them to coordinate an effective response

People have a right to know, for the sake of their own safety, about violent crimes being committed. Otherwise they will be unable to prepare themselves adequately for the possibility of being attacked. However people cannot make rational decisions about how to react and respond to violence in society if they do not have an accurate picture of not only the frequency of crime, but also their nature. Everyone should take necessary precautions to prevent themselves being victims of crime, as part of this they should know what areas are for example safe to walk through at night. If there is little or no reporting of where and when crime occurs the public will not have this necessary knowledge to keep themselves safe. Local groups will also be less able to protect their neighborhoods. For example in Pimlico, London, local groups have set up patrols in order to deal with an increase in muggings, if these muggings were not reported such local action would not have been possible.[1] [1] Davenport, Justin, and Moore-Bridger, Benedict, ‘Vigilante patrols set up to beat Pimlico prowlers’, London Evening Standard, 8 December 2011, http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-24019324-vigilante-patrol...
To not promote the truth of events is contrary to the duty, and to the right of free speech, of a responsible media

The media has two jobs; first, it has a duty to report on what people care about, and second, it has a duty to report on things that seriously influence society. Muzzling the media’s ability to disseminate information by preventing reporting on violent crimes can only do harm to society. The media has a fundamental duty to report on anything that may influence the lives of the citizens it reaches. This is particularly true of the state-run media, which is meant to be free of political influence and is not as dependent upon ad revenues and thus not as prone to sensationalist reporting. Beyond its duty to inform, the media, like all bodies and individuals in society have a right to freedom of speech. This must extend to the right to report on things that are ugly and that frighten people. It is better that people be informed of the truth by a free media and be terrified than to leave people without knowledge of the real seriousness of criminality. Fundamentally, the right to freedom of speech and of expression must be protected. If the media should give way on the issue of violent crimes it loses all credibility as a genuine font of truth.[1] To protect the basic rights of citizens, the right of the media to report on violent crimes must be upheld. [1] PUCL Bulletin. “Freedom of the Press”. People’s Union for Civil Liberties. July 1982. http://www.pucl.org/from-archives/Media/freedom-press.htm
The media’s reporting and investigating acts as a check on the behavior of the justice system

The state often does not want to deal with serious social issues in politically disenfranchised areas, where crime rates tend to be higher and the populations poorer This is because such areas cannot be counted on for electoral support as they often have low turnout rates and can be too complicated to be worth dealing with from a political perspective. Without the media, no one will report on criminal activity in these areas, meaning there will be no political will to reform them. This gives the police the opportunity to abrogate their responsibility to these communities. In the absence of media reporting, authorities would also be able to hide the true extent of crime in misleading statistics. For example, police in parts of the United States have been caught publishing deliberately false crime statistics, often understating levels of violent crime in poorer communities.[1] The media has served to uncover the truth of these police abuses of the facts. Only with a free media can people truly be informed about what is happening in society, and that extends to information about violent crimes. [1] Thompson, Steve and Tanya Eiserer. “Experts: Dallas Undercount of Assaults Builds ‘Artificial Image’”. Dallas Morning News. 15 December 2009. http://www.dallasnews.com/news/community-news/dallas/headlines/20091214-...