The US should adopt a carbon tax

Even if we throw out my own argument on Climate change, we can still see there are other advantages and other good things that can come out of the Carbon Tax if enacted. My opponent has dropped my previous argument where I showed the comparison, even though this is a long term effect, it is still going to happen unless changes are made. He has also dropped my argument that showed that US Hegemony still exists and other nations will follow our lead, even China would be encouraged to do such an act meaning we will see a curtail in this production. The environment will take quite some time to return to normal, but that does not mean that we will prevent global catastrophe in the climate. Even with the Free Trade deals we can see a lot of these are starting to fall apart as the two main candidates are calling for the end of NAFTA and the TPP, which would begin to end free trade, once again, my opponent has missed my US heg argument that shows many nations will follow our example as they have done before and will continue to do. The US enactment of this will result in the rest of the world cleaning up their act. My opponent claims that the German jobs and power has escalated, but this isn't quite the truth. My opponent has dropped my entire economics argument from the first round and one of the arguments that I showed was that of economic innovation and this has happened in Germany as many coal plants have become economic friendly resulting in lower energy costs that help the average person [1]. My opponent has dropped innovation and under the status quo, innovation isn't encouraged, but the tax encourages it and now in Germany they are reaping the benefits. Sure some jobs were indeed lost as any economic change will result in loss and gain, but the fact is still there being a net gain even with the tax implemented and if my opponent's arguments were true then this wouldn't have happened. I've brought up plenty of solvency when this can happen as curtailing solves global warming. This was brought up several times and dropped as my opponent only attacked the impact. There were many times were the alternative energy will result in a great loss in emissions as one has even reported that it could result in a curtailment of 11% at certain prices that I have brought up earlier in round 1 [2]. I have brought up ample amounts of alternative energy alternative efficiency that help and are better options. All dropped by my opponent. I have already addressed the economic arguments and will continue to go more in-depth when I get to it. Keep in mind that my opponent has dropped my entire economic arguments from R1 showing all the benefits that would come from it showing that I would already win this example and hence, my opponent's impact in the debate which shows that there is no other option to vote than Pro. My opponent never actually acknowledged the rebuttals that I have made since all he did was an ad pop argument by simply stating that so-and-so said they were wrong and x many people agreed doesn't make it true. He never actually explains why they are false other than these people say they are which is not a valid argument. As a result, you have to extend the Ocean Acidification argument across the table. I did not drop job loss as he showed one instance and I showed how it still resulted in growth via the Germany example. I have also showed how it helps the middle class with a massive reduction in the income tax via the Australian example, which my opponent had brought up and seemed to hold so tentatively. He has failed to realize that there is also the rational individual and they would make rational market choices which would mitigate these issues that he has brought up in this debate, this was also dropped. I had previously brought up the argument on how nuclear waste ever produced can fill up a few stadiums while coal does way more harm. My opponent resorts back to his source, but it just states nuclear, not nex-gen. I have also brought up another article that showed that Nuclear was cheaper, this was dropped by my opponent. He also dropped all the advantages of Nuclear, so you have to extend that across the board and flow this argument to my side of the debate. My opponent claims that they would move elsewhere, but this isn't necessarily the truth as many laws to still apply to US companies and still ignores the Heg argument that shows other places will do the same. He has previously dropped another argument that shows the companies will innovate at home to create cheaper, more efficient ways to produce energy, as well as the subsidy argument where the government helps companies convert these costs to move to a different energy sources. My opponent has also dropped my argument as to why outsourcing is good as it helps further the reduction of prices of goods which helps the middle class. It is unlikely that we would see a large exodus in these companies, but for the ones who do, it would result in the decrease of prices at home. To conclude, in this debate we can see that my opponent has dropped an amplitude of arguments. His own impact in the debate on economics resulted in having my entire economic argument in Round 1 dropped. Not to mention that many of his own economic arguments were solved by his own arguments, so even if you do not buy my own environmental argument you can see that I have won my opponent's impact turning it into an advantage for me which means that my opponent no longer has an offensive argument and has lost an advantage of mine. He fails to address the economic subsidies that would help other energy sources that would help companies convert. He also drops the ability that clean energy has a higher and better efficiency than current energy sources. Many of my arguments were dropped which is why I urge a ballot in affirmation. With that I thank you and urge you to vote Pro! Sources 1. (. http://tinyurl.com...) 2. (. http://tinyurl.com...)