Establishing a $15 per ton carbon tax that increases by 3.5% each year until capped at $80 per ton

I affirm that establishing a carbon tax would be effective. To define: Effectiveness is defined as any consequence of the proposed legislation that would yield benefit to personal wellbeing, the economy, or world relations. Addressing the opposing arguments: Rebuttal 1: The Reduction of Climate Change Due to a Carbon Tax would be minimal Based on the opponent's statistics, this may be true. However, they fail to realize that carbon emission will depend on SEVERAL factors. Their belief that the global temperature will rise by only 0.2 degrees Celsius seems to be made on the assumption that no innovation or creation of cost-effective technologies will drastically cut our carbon emission. And if these new methods prove to be cost-effective, what would stop other countries from adopting these innovations too? My opponent states that no country will follow the U. S. 's lead in cutting carbon emission. However, this will happen indirectly due to the fact that companies will be forced to innovate in order to reduce the penalties they pay due to the carbon tax. My opponent may believe this is purely hypothetical and based on speculation. According to the New York Times, ". .. The levelized cost of onshore wind energy coming on stream in 2019 " a measure that includes everything from capital costs to operational outlays " could be as little as $71 per megawatt-hour measured in 2012 dollars, even without subsidies. This is $16 less than the lower cost projection four years ago for wind energy coming online in 2015. Similarly, projections for the levelized cost of energy from photovoltaic solar cells have tumbled by more than 40 percent, much faster than the cost projections of energy from coal or natural gas. " Thus, these methods of renewable energy are ALREADY emerging as soon as next year. Thus we can extrapolate that efforts to increase efficiency and cost-effectiveness will continue on a similar trend, possibly leveling out until we discover another radical change to the way energy is converted. The cost-effectiveness of these new technologies are definitely not to go unnoticed by large carbon emitters like India and China, who have also agreed to limit their carbon footprints. It should also be noted that the carbon footprint per capita in the United States is NINETEEN times that of India, according to a study done by The Guardian. While India produces a lot more carbon, it is more important for the United States to limit its carbon footprint first because its energy output relative to its size is drastically greater, although, as shown, the introduction of new technologies will be followed by its adoption by other countries. Rebuttal 2: Implementing a Carbon Tax would hurt American-made products First, I ask that my opponent provide statistics regarding his claim of the carbon tax on the economy as a whole (not just the change in gasoline prices). Then I would like to refute this argument on the basis of globalism. When analyzing this argument theoretically, we see, according to economics, that, yes, companies WILL move out of the United States to avoid the tax, as it is their economic nature to seek the profit-maximizing method of production. Then we view two cases when the companies move: 1. They move back as smaller businesses find cost-effective methods of converting energy. As shown before, this is a very real possibility. 2. They remain in a developing country. Assuming our government takes a globalist stance (Disregarding the current administration), the CONSUMER benefits greatly from this increase in globalization. Unless high tariffs are placed on imports, the consumer is enjoying a good or service that has come at a lower cost due to the price of labor in that country. Thus, under the definition of effectiveness, this move out of the United States is beneficial to the consumer. The domestic producers are disadvantaged but, on a global level, total utility has increased with the reduction of labor cost, the reduction of price, and the movement of jobs to a developing country like India with a large working population and little job availability. Not to mention, the companies that are unable to move are FORCED to find a new way to utilize energy. It can be reasoned that companies will slowly trickle back as innovation grows OR they will bring this innovation to the country in which they operate and thus allow countries like India and China to reduce their huge carbon footprints.