The Best Way to Shrink Carbon Footprints is a High Carbon Tax with an Average Dividend

I will move quickly into my arguments. 1) Pro argues that the dividend is needed for economic reasons. However, economic effects are outside the scope of this debate. The only thing that matters is which plan is better at shrinking the carbon foot print. As such, this part can be effectively dismissed. 2) Pro argues that the dividend is also needed for the incentive to work, as it will create a "race to be under the average. " This is an inaccurate representation of incentives. Since the dividend is an average, that means that it is equal to everyone. Let's compare using actual numbers. Person A (referred to as PA) has a carbon tax of $100 and Person B (referred to as PB) has a carbon tax of $500. If there is a dividend of $300 per person, than PA makes $200 while PB is taxed $200. This is a $400 incentive difference. However, even without the dividend, we see it is still a $400 incentive difference. We can see the dividend does not create, nor alter the incentive, it only makes the tax easier to swallow. But again, it does not alter the incentive. 3) Pro also argues that for corporations must have permits rather than taxes. This is a clear example of how we can see that economic effect cannot be counted in, since with an open bidding process, as my opponent described, the largest companies would bid for all the permits, meaning that small and mid-sized companies would be forced to emit NO carbon at all (meaning they can't even deliver products to customers). The economic collapse from that would likely force a revolution that would publicly kill the green movement for generations. This is why cap and trade is usually used. The small companies have their "permits" to start and may choose to sell them, they don't have to bid against someone they can't beat to get them in the first place. I will now go into my arguments === Con's Case === As shown in point 1 in this round. The dividend does not effect the incentive for people to change. However, by taking the tax money and investing in green solutions (both long and short term), it creates jobs and furthers the development in green tech, thus making green tech more affordable faster. That means, that providing the dividend is ultimately, a slower option than taking the tax and investing it. Pro creates the permits for only large corporations (as explained in point 3 that applying it to all companies would be economic suicide). He clearly says "On the company level: For larger corporations. .. " and never presents anything for smaller corporations. This means so long as a company stays small or medium, that there are no regulations or requirements. As such, there is no incentive for any of them to change. This actually creates the incentive for large corporations to break apart and become medium companies. Given that the most CO2 emissions are coming from electricity generation and transportation [1], which are things that all companies do, big and small. A system that effects everyone at a fair rate would create incentive for all, not just the large companies, and would still generate a substantial amount of revenue to apply towards green investments. This clearly shows that my proposal would shrink our carbon foot prints faster than my opponents and so his proposal is not the fastest. I now pass this on to my opponent as we move into the final round. Thank you, [1] . http://www.whatsyourimpact.eu.org...