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

Let's talk about your first point, that carbon emissions will depend on several factors, and new cost-effective technologies may cut our carbon emissions. However, I am confused on why you are asserting this, as it is a point that favors my argument. If companies are already creating cost-effective innovations and switching to renewable energies, such as wind or photovoltaic, then why is there the need for a carbon tax? As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the world"s total greenhouse gas emissions, which makes unilateral efforts" such as a domestic carbon tax"an ineffective way to influence climate. If the United States were to completely cease using fossil fuels, the increase from the rest of the world would replace U.S. emissions in less than eight years. If we reduced the carbon dioxide emissions from the transportation sector to zero, the rest of the world would replace those emissions in less than two years. Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions are driven by developing economies, not the United States. In fact, a carbon tax would lead to lower energy use and lower economic output because low-carbon replacement technologies simply do not exist. Carbon taxes effectively increase the cost of fossil fuels in an effort to make non-fossil fuels more economically attractive. But contrary to what my opponent stated, the technologies to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are decades away and extremely costly. Instead, the only real way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the short run is to reduce energy use and economic output. Consider automobile use and gas prices. People have begun to transition toward fuel-efficient cars, but the real impact of high gasoline prices in 2008 was to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Just as higher fuel prices led to less driving, higher energy prices will lead to reduced energy consumption. That will lead to a corresponding drop in our ability to make economic choices. My opponent also chose to ignore the plethora of repercussions that establishing a carbon tax would generate. While he is correct when he says that it will force U.S. companies to find new ways to utilize energy, what he completely disregarded is that a carbon tax disproportionately targets the low-income in our communities. This is because low-income communities rely on cheap fossil fuels, to heat their homes, power their cars, and live their lives. But when we establish a carbon tax, what we do is we pass that on to the consumers, and that directly increases the amount of money that low-income families have to spend on energy. According to U.C. S. B. Malin Milinger, "reforms to discourage climate pollution hurt low-income Americans." And that is exactly what we saw in Ireland when it passed a carbon tax. In fact, gas and heating bills went up 5 to 10 percent, and it directly affected the poor in Ireland. According to a study done by the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, households in the lowest income group pay as a percent of income more than twice what households in the 10% distribution pay. Hence, these low-income families who are already struggling to pay for cheap energy will be hit the hardest and left in the dust from a carbon tax. However, there is an alternative, and that alternative is dividends, where the money is recycled back into the government. But that is something that is not addressed in this tax. Second, I would like to explain again why outsourcing hurts the U.S. Now, you argued in your second rebuttal that if a large company were to remain in a country without a carbon tax, it would greatly benefit the consumers in these countries. But you fail to recognize that while this consumer in another country is reaping cheaper goods and services, our economy, as well as millions of jobs, would suffer and be lost. This is true because when fossil fuel companies have to pay higher taxes, they end up letting go many workers. While the clean energy industry creates many jobs, this is offset by the amount of unemployment that would be created during the transition to renewable energy sources. Stanford professor Mark Jacobson wrote a recent study that found of the 2.5 million jobs added by using 100% renewables, 3.9 million were lost. Clearly, while a new workforce would emerge, it would greatly impact current jobs in the United States. The business that can move to renewable energy will move to renewable energy, like you said, but will take years to build up to levels where they can hire thousands of people for new positions. Additionally, the economy would plummet due to the loss of jobs and the decreased competitiveness of America's global exports. Because a carbon tax leads to increases in prices for energy goods and services, it reduces demand, thus stultifying the economy. You requested some type of statistic to display how the economy would be affected, but a statistic is not necessary here when knowing that a carbon tax would reduce American jobs and decrease global competitiveness because that is going to smash our economy.