It is no secret that as humans, we have damaged the Earth. Our planet is dying, and as a result, human existence is nearing its end. While there is nothing we can do to manipulate how fast time goes by, we do have the power to take better care of the Earth and, in turn, ourselves. A number of ideas have been presented in hopes to reduce some of the bigger problems, such as rising sea levels and pollution, that contribute to the destruction of our planet. One of the proposed solutions is to institute a tax on carbon. A carbon tax would give the United States government the right to make those who emit carbon into the atmosphere pay for the damage that the greenhouse gas has on society. The core purpose of this tax is to lower the amount of harmful carbon emissions into our atmosphere. While it may sound like a good idea, instituting such a tax would be problematic for our country. Not only would it cost time and money to implement a carbon tax, it would not solve the underlying issue regarding carbon emissions, it would only slightly reduce the amount. It would be more beneficial to focus on technological advancements and potential non-carbon emitting methods of energy production to ultimately terminate carbon emissions.

The process of creating a carbon tax would not be easy. Convincing the lawmakers to approve the tax could be an issue given the population's negative reaction to the gas taxes implemented under President George H.W. Bush. A tax on carbon, like gas, would not go unnoticed. In addition, a number of Americans already disagree with the idea of a carbon tax. Another opposition of the carbon tax stems from the idea that allowing the government to put a tax on carbon would provide them with another foothold making it easier to tax more in the future. At first, the government would lower income taxes to make up for the new tax. This makes it appealing because the amount of tax dollars paid would not change for the consumer. The government would then slowly raise the income tax back up, ultimately charging consumers more. Some believe that our government would spend the money in a way that is not ideal for the citizens (IER). Even if the lobbyers of carbon taxes gained 100% support of a proposed tax price, there would still be a problem because it is practically impossible to calculate the ideal price to place on carbon and the resulting levels of carbon emission and environmental benefits (Totty). The effects would be dependent on how producers respond to the higher price. One company could significantly reduce their carbon emissions while another company could produce the same level as before if they do not see the extra costs to be impeding their profits enough to change their production level. If Congress takes the time and effort to set a price for the tax and it ends up being too low, they will have to reconvene, reevaluate, and gain support to pass the revised tax, which could still be too high or low due to many of the dynamic aspects of our society (Roberts). Spending all of this time on a carbon tax is awry because the "solution" itself and its revenue level is completely related to and dependent on the continuation of harmful carbon emissions. 

In addition, the United States is vitally dependent on energy sources that emit carbon. Estimates show that carbon taxes would impact around 85% of the energy in our country. Other types of energy such as nuclear, wind, solar and hydro, would not be effected by the tax, however, they only contribute about 15% of the United States energy production. It would be ideal if we could rely on these alternate sources for energy, but it is not possible given how minimally accessible they currently are in the United States. Right now, our country lacks the technology and available sites to expand these alternate energy sources. For example, the expansion of hydroelectricity is limited because there are few locations left where it is possible to build massive dams (IER). The growing population and economy can't survive on these alternate energy sources, and a carbon tax does nothing to help the much needed advancements of other means of energy and searches for more feasible methods. Instead, the tax only slightly reduces the amount of carbon emissions, which does not completely solve the problem. 

Even if a carbon tax were passed, it would negatively effect many Americans. A tax on carbon would be hard on poorer families or individuals. The bottom 20% of American household incomes would experience about a 1.5 to 4 times greater burden than the top 20%. For example, a proposed carbon tax in Congress that is a 15 dollar per ton tax would mean that families or individuals in the lower 20% would spend around an average of an extra 325 dollars a year. While this may not seem like much, when compared to their yearly incomes this is a notably larger percentage than the upper 20% would have to pay. Such a regressive tax also hits the bottom 20% harder on an individual basis because the top percentages of households average just over three members and the bottom 20% average slightly below two members. This is important because the real burden, in dollars, is spread out among fewer members that have the potential to generate income in lower earning households, in turn making individuals in poorer households be hit harder than those in wealthier households. 

In addition to the regressive nature of the tax, the effect on major carbon producing companies could be minimal and instead burden the rest of the population indirectly. If a company were to pay the tax of let's say two dollars, they could change the price of the goods and services they sell to consumers by two dollars, so that the actual tax is on the consumers and not the company. While this tax compensation adjustment by producers can vary, in many cases it is the producer, not the consumer, that will determine the best pricing to maximize their benefits. Economically speaking, the demand for carbon emitting sources of energy is also very inelastic to producing companies; this means that producers will continue emitting carbon at close to the same level, despite the increase in cost from the tax. The reason why the demand is inelastic is primarily because the producers are still making a large profit, but also because there are no viable alternate energy sources currently available (Pettinger). However, many producers could avoid the tax completely by simply emitting other types of greenhouse gasses (Salam). While carbon is the dominant greenhouse gas, methane, nitrous oxide and a number of other harmful types of gasses could become substitutes as a result of the carbon tax (Hassett). Companies could also avoid the tax by attempting to cover up their carbon emissions. An example of this occurred in 2014 at Volkswagen. The company instigated a "defeat device", which caused their car motors to enter a low carbon emission mode while being evaluated by the Environmental Protection Agency. This is just one company of many that is determined to continue emitting high levels of carbon (Hotten). It is unfortunately inevitable that even with the tax major firms would continue to harm the environment while the weight of their actions would be paid by the rest of the American citizens (Pettinger). The most popular method that these companies use to dodge the carbon tax is to move to another country that has less strict or no carbon tax at all. An estimated 20% of greenhouse gas producing organizations would simply move, making it one of the most damaging aspects of the carbon tax (Salam). Firms would not only continue to emit carbon at equally harmful levels somewhere else, but by moving they would critically damage our economy as many Americans would lose their jobs (IER). The departure of these companies would also hurt America's economic value because there are a number of other businesses that are beneficiaries of having those certain companies produce in our country. 

Given all of these negative effects, one might believe that there has to be a lot of good to come out of the carbon tax to make it worth it, this however, is not the case. A carbon tax in the United States would not accomplish near enough soon enough to make it a plan worthy of pursing. The earth has already passed into the established amount of carbon emissions known as the "danger level". Once we passed the 350 parts per million (ppm) amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide we entered the pollution zone, which many believe is where we start to experience catastrophic effects ("Carbon Dioxide Already in Danger Zone, Warns Study"). The global average of ppm was calculated to pass 400 ppm by 2016 (UNEP). At its current rate, carbon emissions are on track to cause a 3 C increase in global temperatures by the end of the century. Even hypothetically, the best case scenario for any of the proposed carbon taxes in the United States would cause the 3 C to lower to 2.8 C. This would not be anywhere close to removing the world from danger (Knappenberger). As we dive further into this disastrous zone, our time to do something continues to shorten along with the potential for pursuing any long-term plans. We need quicker acting solutions that solve the carbon emission problem by stopping greenhouse gas emissions, rather than just reducing the level. 

At this point, it is clear that we need to some how get rid of carbon emitting energy sources; the best approach would be to support the research for new technology that can counter pollution and provide carbon-free sources of energy. In the past, we have solved issues without implementing a tax. We have overcome lethal illnesses such as cholera as well as improved the safety of our roads, all due to funding that supported new technological discoveries. As shown throughout history, long-term carbon emissions have only been significantly reduced by recessions, depressions, and discoveries of advanced technology. Sweden did this by using nuclear energy as a cleaner energy source. After Germany reunited, they began to generate energy from coal production, which is much cleaner. In both examples government finance was key, just as it was in the discoveries of horizontal drilling, downhole motors, and more efficient gas turbines, all of which allowed gas to be more readily used as a cleaner substitute to coal (Totty). By investing more time and money into research that targets creating renewable energy sources at a cheaper cost or technologies that can counter the harmful effects of greenhouse gasses, we will have a significantly higher chance at solving the global problem of carbon emissions while simultaneously maintaining or increasing the daily lives of American citizens (Totty).

If carbon emissions were similar to other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide, and stayed around the area which it was emitted from, then our actions would improve the American environment noticeably. Unfortunately, carbon is a global pollutant in the sense that our country's pollution will affect other countries just as their pollution affects us (Trembath), so there is also the frantic need to have a large majority of countries agree on a plan. In regards to this, in December of 2016 there will be a United Nations climate conference. Over 190 representatives from different nations will be there to discuss solutions to greenhouse gas emissions. This conference in Paris is believed to be one of the final stages before multiple significant environmental policies are not only agreed upon, but executed. Some of the speculated agreements are that the European Union will reduce their pollution numbers 40% by 2030, and the United States will lower pollution around 27% by 2025. Another matter being discussed is how much funding some of the more developed countries will provide to the poorer nations in order to help advance their pursuit of carbon-free technology (Knappenberger). While the conference date somewhat nears, our future as humans on earth hangs in the balance as some of our world's most powerful and innovative environmentalists collaboratively work to find the perfect solution to save our threatening current environmental situation.

Many people, myself included, wonder where we should focus our efforts to attack the carbon pollution problem. Although there is no one solution yet, passing a tax on carbon is absolutely not the right way to deal with greenhouse gasses polluting our atmosphere. Unfortunately, we do not have time to try out several different possible solutions to this problem. But rather than pursue a course of action that would at best delay the inevitable, we should focus that same attention towards developing quicker solutions. Thankfully, over 200 countries are all making a collective effort to tackle this environmental issue. It is promising to see so many people proactively and optimistically pushing forward on the attack against pollution, clearly making technological advancement a top priority. By December 11, 2015, the scheduled end date of the conference, there is a very high chance that we will have found the right path to saving our species' existence on Earth. 

