In this task, you're given an article and an answer. Your task is to generate the question for the answer based on the given article.
--------
Question: Article: When policy experts debate climate change solutions, they often talk about "a price on carbon." They are arguing about whether companies should pay when they put carbon pollution in the air. Proponents say that it's simple economics -- if it's free to pollute, you'll get a lot of pollution. Opponents claim it will raise the cost of energy that's produced from high carbon sources, like coal. But here's the secret that most people seem to be missing: There already is a price on carbon, and it's paid by the taxpayers. Carbon pollution, like every other form of pollution, has an impact on the environment. Throwing waste into a river will cause the fish to die and the people who drink the water to get sick. And when you produce carbon pollution, you get climate change -- sea level rise, stronger storms, severe droughts, damage to agriculture, and more. All of those impacts cost money. Insurance rates go up when storms get more destructive. Taxes increase when cities have to rebuild bridges and roads. Military budgets go up when droughts and population changes cause conflicts. Not to mention impacts on agriculture and health care costs. In other words, the price on carbon is what we all pay when there is no market force to limit the pollution that causes climate change. So the debate is really about who will pay that price -- the companies who are making a profit from the fossil fuels, or the taxpayers who pick up the cost now? Right now, we have private profit and public cost. It's just like if we allowed every business to throw its garbage in the street because it's too expensive to have it moved away properly. Does it add a little bit to your dinner check to require that restaurants dispose of their trash properly? Sure. But it would be more expensive for you if the city had to clean the streets of their garbage every day. So just like we put a "price on garbage" we need a "price on carbon pollution." Now, a "price on carbon pollution" can mean a lot of things. You could tax companies based on the amount of carbon pollution they produce, and return the money to taxpayers. You could put a limit on how much they can produce, thereby requiring them to invest in ways to conduct business in a less polluting way.
Answer: Whether the companies should pay for it.

Answer: What do the policy experts argue about carbon pollution?

Question: Article: A couple had a son eleven years after they married. They were a loving couple and the boy was _ . When the boy was around four years old, one day the father was very tired after work so he asked his wife to pick up their son. The mother, who was very busy in the kitchen, totally forgot about it. Later the boy lost his way on the street. When the son was found missing, the mother hurried to look for him, but she didn't find him. The mother felt very sad and didn't know how to face her husband. When the father went to the police station after hearing that the son was missing, he looked at his wife and said just four words. What do you think the four words were? The husband just said "I love you, darling." www.zxxk.com The son was missing. If she had picked him up earlier, this would not have happened. There is no point in blaming anyone. His wife had also lost her only child. What his wife needed at that moment was comfort and understanding from her husband. That is what the husband gave his wife. Several weeks later, with the help of the police, the couple finally found their lost son. The family's relationship became stronger over that time. Sometimes we spend lots of time asking who is to blame. We miss many chances to give each other support and let each other feel the warmth of human relationships. Get rid of all your unwillingness to forgive, selfishness, and fears and you will find the world is much more wonderful.
Answer: He was too tired to do it.

Answer: Why didn't the father pick the boy up himself?

Question: Article: The illegal ivory trade has been a major problem in Africa for decades. Poachers and hunters have killed off hundreds of thousands of elephants to obtain this precious material. Now, affected areas are taking action. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) announced on Wednesday that key states where poaching takes place have promised to stop the ivory trade and protect Africa's elephants. In the 1980s, as many as 1 million elephants across Africa were killed for their ivory tusks. This continued until 1989, when the Convention on International Trade in Species (CITES) voted to ban all trade in ivory. With trade , demand for ivory fell. Elephant populations slowly began to increase. However, this progress was short-lived. According to the IUCN, 2011 saw the highest levels of poaching and illegal ivory trading in at least 16 years. Around 25,000 elephants were killed in Africa that year. Preliminary data from the IUCN shows even higher levels of illegal trade may have been reached in 2013. "With about 22,000 elephants illegally killed in 2012, we continue to face a critical situation," said John E. Scanlon, CITES Secretary-General. "Current elephant poaching in Africa remains far too high, and could soon lead to local extinctions if the present killing rate continues." At the African Elephant Summit, key African states where elephants make their home agreed to develop a "zero-tolerance attitude" towards poaching. The deal calls for maximum sentences for poachers and hunters, and increased cooperation between affected states. Officials are determined to classifying wildlife trading as a serious crime -- and to making sure that the people who commit it are punished. All participants at the conference agreed to sign the deal. With these states coming together, there may yet be hope for elephants. (293 words)
Answer: New Hope for Elephants.

Answer:
What's the best title for this passage?