Carbon Tax Brief

Champion Briefs
February 2016
Public Forum Brief
Resolved: The United

States federal
government should
adopt a carbon tax.
Copyright 2016 by Champion Briefs, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by an information storage or retrieval system, without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner and the publisher.
Interpretation, Original Oratory, Extemp,

Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congressional Debate
ChampionBriefsInstitute.com
The Evidence Standard

February 2016

The Evidence Standard

Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.
We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources that
uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,
managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.
2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,
even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the
community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit deception.
4. We will never support or distribute studies, news articles, or other materials that use
inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of
information distributed by ourselves or by any third-party.
6. We will actively contribute to students understanding of the world by using evidence
from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve the
goals and vision of this activity.

These seven statements, while seemingly simple, represent the complex notion of what it means
to advance students understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.
Champion Briefs
Table of Contents
February 2016
Table of Contents
The Evidence Standard ............................................................................. 4

Topic Analyses ............................................................................................. 8

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella ................................................................................................. 9
Topic Analysis by Beln Mella ................................................................................................... 18
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda .................................................................................................... 26

General Information ............................................................................... 34

Frameworks .............................................................................................. 44

Pro Arguments with Con Responses ................................................. 51

US has a Moral Obligation to Combat Climate Change ...................................................... 52
A2 US has a Moral Obligation to Combat Climate Change .................................... 58
A Carbon Tax Would Increase Economic Revenue ............................................................ 61
A2 A Carbon Tax Would Increase Economic Revenue .......................................... 67
A carbon tax allows for green initiatives .............................................................................. 71
A2 A carbon tax allows for green initiatives ............................................................ 77
A Carbon Tax Would Decrease Carbon Emissions ............................................................. 81
A2 A Carbon Tax Would Decrease Carbon Emission ............................................. 86
A carbon tax will spur investment in carbon-capture tech ............................................. 89
A2 A carbon tax will spur investment in carbon-capture tech. .......................... 95
A Carbon Tax Would be Easy for Consumers to Adopt ..................................................... 99
A2 A Carbon Tax Would be Easy for Consumers to Adopt ................................. 104
Oil Companies Support a Carbon Tax ................................................................................... 107
A2 Oil Companies Support a Carbon Tax ................................................................. 113

Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

February 2016
Lowered Dependency on Foreign Fuels .............................................................................. 117

A2 Lowered Dependency on Foreign Fuels ............................................................ 123
Levels Playing Field, Unlike Cap-and-Trade ...................................................................... 126
A2 Levels Playing Field, Unlike Cap-and-Trade .................................................... 132
Carbon Tax saves lives through emission reduction ...................................................... 135
A2 Carbon Tax saves lives through emission reduction .................................... 140
A Carbon Tax has the Political Capital to Pass Now ......................................................... 143
A2 A Carbon Tax has the Political Capital to Pass Now ....................................... 148
A Carbon Tax Wont Increase Energy Prices ...................................................................... 152
A2 A Carbon Tax Wont Increase Energy Prices .................................................... 157
US can be a global leader in climate change initiatives. ................................................. 159
A2 US can be a global leader in climate change initiatives. ............................... 163
A Carbon Tax Could Pave the Way for US Tech Leadership .......................................... 166
A2 A Carbon Tax Could Pave the Way for US Tech Leadership ........................ 172
A Carbon Tax can be revenue neutral .................................................................................. 176
A2 A Carbon Tax can be revenue neutral ................................................................ 181

Con Arguments with Pro Responses ............................................... 185
Carbon Taxes Use Valuable Political Capital ...................................................................... 186
A2 Carbon Taxes use Valuable Political Capital .................................................... 190
Unilateral Carbon Taxes Would Be Ineffective ................................................................. 192
A2 Unilateral Carbon Taxes Would Be Ineffective ............................................... 199
Carbon Taxes are not Effective ............................................................................................... 206
A2 Carbon Taxes are Not Effective ............................................................................. 209
Social Cost of Carbon Impossible to Determine ................................................................ 212
A2 Social Cost of Carbon Impossible to Determine .............................................. 217
Cap and Trade is better than a Carbon Tax ........................................................................ 221
A2 Cap and Trade is better than a Carbon Tax Answer: ..................................... 224

Champion Briefs
Table of Contents

February 2016
Carbon Taxes are not Popular ................................................................................................ 227

A2 Carbon Taxes are Not Popular .............................................................................. 230
A Carbon Tax is Impractical ..................................................................................................... 233
A2 A Carbon Tax is Impractical ................................................................................... 239
A Carbon Tax Would Increase Energy Prices ..................................................................... 242
A2 A carbon tax would increase energy prices ..................................................... 249
Carbon Taxes will move industry overseas ........................................................................ 252
A2 Carbon Taxes will move businesses over seas ................................................ 256
Carbon Taxes hurt the poor ..................................................................................................... 260
A2 Carbon Taxes hurt the poor ................................................................................... 263
Carbon Taxes Create Harmful Market Distortions .......................................................... 266
A2 Carbon Taxes Create Harmful Market Distortion .......................................... 274
Carbon Taxes Reduce Economic Growth ............................................................................. 284
A2 Carbon Taxes Reduce Economic Growth ........................................................... 287
A Carbon Tax Hurts the Agricultural Sector ....................................................................... 290
A2 A Carbon Tax Hurts the Agricultural Sector ..................................................... 295
Green Energy is not a good alternative ................................................................................ 298
A2 Green Energy is not a good alternative .............................................................. 301
A Carbon Tax Would Hurt Local Economies ....................................................................... 304
A2 A Carbon Tax Would Hurt Local Economies ..................................................... 308
Champion Briefs
Champion Briefs
February 2016
Public Forum Brief
Topic Analyses
Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

February 2016

Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a carbon tax.

Background
For the first time this year, the NSDA topic committee has gifted the Public Forum
community with a clear and straightforward US policy resolution. That is, the United States
Federal Government should adopt a certain policya tax on carbon. Although there is room for
debate about implementation, competitors are given a relatively clear and accessible policy
option and asked whether the U.S. should do it. To be successful, debaters need to think about
what considerations the US should make when deciding on matters of policy, how important
each consideration is, and how the considerations balance out for this particular policy. The two
primary considerations for this topic are the environment and the economy, which can be broken
down into many sub-considerations, as we will later discuss.
At the end of the day, this topic is refreshingly direct because the winning team must
prove or disprove that the United States should actually commit to this policy. Abstract
arguments about what is moral or beneficial for the world will only be relevant if debaters can
successfully link them back to how the U.S. should craft domestic policy.
Tournament and Judge Considerations
February is an extremely competitive month for PF debate. At the national level, there are
three major tournaments: Harvard, Berkeley, and the University of Pennsylvania. If youre going
to Harvard, get ready for the biggest regular season tournament of the year. The fields in both
junior varsity and varsity PF usually have around 300 teams each, from all over the country. The
Champion Briefs
February 2016

competition is undeniably huge, and debaters come very well prepared for the Harvard
tournament. As for judging, Harvard has a lot of coaches and alumni debaters, though it also has
a decent amount of parents who come to chaperone the trip, and some Harvard students as well.
The judges are rated based on their experience, and more experienced judges are placed in higher
level roundsthe better you perform, the better your judges will be.
The Berkeley tournament is the bay areas biggest tournament, so they spend all year
gearing up for it. The best competitors from the West coast will be there, and some teams from
the East coast fly out as well. Teams will be well prepared and competition will be fierce, with
around 200 teams in varsity PF and 100 teams in junior varsity PF. Expect lots of coaches
judging through out rounds and some parents judging in preliminary rounds as well.
The University of Pennsylvania Tournament is smaller, with usually a bit over 100 teams
in open public forum and a quarterfinals TOC bid. The competition is usually a mix of a few
powerhouse debaters trying to win the tournament, others getting a feel for the national circuit,
and some in between. The judging is generally comprised of parents and coaches.
Breaking Down the Resolution
The first phrase in the topic is The United States Federal Government, hereafter
abbreviated as USFG. Whenever PF topics include the phrase USFG, a considerable amount of
debaters think they have outsmarted the resolution by deciding to run a states counterplanthat
state governments should do this policy instead of the federal government. Dont do this. First of
all, you will frustrate many judges by avoiding the point of the resolution, and thus predisposing
them to not want to vote for you. Second of all, it isnt a sound strategy from a purely
argumentative standpoint. For example, even if it were a good idea for states to enact carbon
Champion Briefs
10
February 2016

taxes, that argument is irrelevant in the round unless you prove that it is also a bad idea for the
federal government to do so. And at that point, just focus on the latter question because the states
question would be superfluous.
Moreover, the con team doesnt get fiat* power for the states to enact carbon taxes 1. The
only way the con team could access the benefits of states passing carbon taxes is by showing that
states are likely to pass carbon taxes. Proving that will be a long, uphill battle that no one really
wants to have. Additionally, it will be quite difficult to show that it would be preferable for
states to do it instead of the USFG. Almost all of the problems of a carbon tax are worsened if
states are given the taskfor example, state taxes are often designed more regressively (hurting
the poor) than federal taxes, and states see themselves as incredibly insignificant contributors to
global warming, so their carbon taxes would likely be extremely low impact for global
warming2. For these reasons and more, I strongly caution against states-based counterplans,
especially for this topic.
The more practical usage of the phrase The United States Federal Government is
deciding what implementation of a carbon tax by the federal government would look like. Of
course, pro teams will want to advocate for the best-case scenario implementation, and con teams
will want to discredit optimistic pro outlooks. Both teams should keep in mind, however, that
whatever implementation advocacy they take has to be realistic. While pro has fiat power for a

1
* Fiat power in a debate round refers to a teams right to assume that a policy could happen.
Think of it like waving a magic wand so that we live in a world where the policy in question is
able to get passed by the proper political channels. Fiat power is the reason we discuss the
substance of a topic, rather than its political feasibility.
Fiat power is given to the pro team for enacting the policy the resolution asks about, whereas the
con team is not granted fiat power, since counterplans are not allowed in public forum.
2
Cohen, Patricia. "Study Finds Local Taxes Hit Lower Wage Earners Harder." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/business/local-taxes-hit-lower-wage-earnersharder-study-finds.html?_r=0>.
Champion Briefs
11
February 2016

carbon tax to be passed, they dont have fiat power for a perfect carbon tax with no
implementation difficulties whatsoever to be passed. By the same token, it would be

disingenuous for con teams to argue that the implementation will be as bad as it possibly could
be.
Rather, teams should think about what a feasible carbon tax would look like, and base
their strategies on that model. For example, some scholars contend that it would be beneficial to
use the revenue from a carbon tax to invest in green energy, while others argue that the revenue
should be spent towards providing subsidies to low-income households as compensation for their
rising energy bills. The latter seems to be overwhelmingly preferred in political consensus, and
thus is more likely to be part of a federal carbon tax design. Therefore, pro teams may ultimately
be more likely to win arguments that low-income households will be somewhat protected from
rising energy costs, than arguments that the government will substantially invest in green energy.
Another popular implementation controversy with which you should familiarize yourself
is whether the carbon tax will be revenue-neutralthat is, it would not raise any net revenue, but
instead would replace other taxes. Popular models of this include reducing taxes on labor (the
payroll tax) and capital (the corporate income tax), or returning the revenue to households3.
Contended benefits for these models include the promotion of economic growth by encouraging
hard work and increased investment, and mitigating the economic harms accrued to average
Americans. However, the feasibility of a revenue neutral model is very much up for debate. The

3
Bailey, Ronald. "Can a Carbon Tax Solve Man-Made Global Warming?" Reason.Com. Reason
Magazine, 16 Jan. 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
<https://reason.com/archives/2013/01/16/should-the-us-adopt-a-carbon-tax-to-cont>.
Champion Briefs
12
February 2016

historical track record of creating revenue-neutral taxes when intended is poor, and the
mechanics of doing so pose a host of implementation difficulties4.
The final implementation question is one of who will be paying the tax. Most scholars
suggest that a federal carbon tax would be aimed at companies, in order to incentivize them to
limit their greenhouse gas pollution and to invest in greener modes of production. This basic
model stands in opposition to the less popular model of direct taxes on gasoline and diesel,
which will target individuals directly. However, even a corporate model will undoubtedly affect
energy prices for citizens, as companies pass on the costs to consumers. The debate over the
revenue model is thus important, because these harms can be mitigated if revenue is redirected to
households who would otherwise incur greatly increased costs.
You dont have to come up with an elaborate plan for how a carbon tax will be
implemented. But you should decide on an advocacy that addresses these basic points, or else
you will have trouble linking into many impacts.
The next phrase of note in the resolution is should. The particular use of this word, as
opposed to its counterpart ought, may have important implications for the round. While
technically there is little to no distinction between the definitions of should and ought, there are
differences in the way they have evolved in usage. Ought carries more of a sense of moral
obligation or appropriateness than should.5 Accordingly, debates with ought are relatively more
centered on questions of morality, and should debates are relatively more centered on questions
of practicality. By no means should this linguistic difference discourage you from making moral

4
10 Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax - American Energy Alliance. "American Energy Alliance.
N.p., 04 Nov. 2015. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://americanenergyalliance.org/2015/11/04/10-reasons-to-oppose-a-carbon-tax/>.
5
Soanes, Catherine. "Must, Should, or Ought To? | OxfordWords Blog." OxfordWords Blog.
Oxford Dictionaries, 03 Mar. 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2014/03/must-should-ought/>.
Champion Briefs
13
February 2016

arguments for this topic, but you will need to do work to explain why policymakers should care
about your particular moral framework, and you must also be prepared to justify your side of the
resolution on practical terms.
Potential Arguments
If you ask any layperson why the government would want to pass a carbon tax, they will
tell you something like to fight global warming or to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Many of your judges will be expecting these arguments, and will give them a lot of weight in
their decisions, since they see these sorts of arguments as the justification for a carbon tax. You
cannot be successful on this topic if you are not prepared for the inevitable argumentation about
impacts to the environment.
Global warming can be combatted in two major ways: mitigation and adaptation.
Mitigation refers to preventing further accumulation of climate change inducing greenhouse
gases, which seeks preventing further climate change; Adaptation refers to the prevention of
human suffering resulting from the damage of climate change. A carbon tax is a form of climate
change mitigation, as it aims to reduce the amount of a prominent greenhouse gas emitted into
the atmosphere. This fact lends itself to significant controversy for this topic. Many scholars
contend that the United States will have a near zero impact on the mitigation of climate change
when acting unilaterally. Therefore, they argue, a carbon tax is not worth the substantial costs
imposed.
Such a line of argumentation can be very persuasive when executed well, but fear not,
pro teams, you have many compelling ways to respond. For example, consider looking at a
carbon tax not in a vacuum of just what the United States can do, but rather of what US action
means in an interconnected international arena. When the United States demonstrates willingness
Champion Briefs
14
February 2016

to cut emissions, other nations may have increased difficulty excusing their own inaction, and
may thus be incentivized at the margin to increase mitigation efforts. Perhaps, then, we are
taking a step in the right direction.
Next, consider arguing that this policy will lead to increased innovation and investment in
green energy. Some demand for carbon intensive fuels will inevitably be transferred to demand
for less carbon intensive fuels or other greener energy approaches. Increased innovation and
investment in the market for green energy may have long lasting benefits as we become more
equipped to create a sustainable future. As a debater, make sure to parse through the research of
how much investment in green energy will increase, in order to garner or mitigate impacts from
this argument. Also, a tradeoff in carbon intensive energy and green energy may also mean a
trade off in jobs. While jobs in carbon intensive industries may be lost as production costs rise,
they may increase in the green energy field as a result of a market shift. Parse through this
research as well, in order to determine what the net effect on employment will be.
Finally, remember that global warming is not a yes or no question, but rather how much.
Of course, this policy will not solve global warming on its own. But the more we slow down or
lessen the severity of global warming, the less devastating the impacts of it may be.
Another important dimension to the environmental debate is leakage, which goes hand in
hand with the economics debate. When pollution-intensive activities become more expensive in
the United States, firms become increasingly incentivized to move those activities abroad, to
nations that dont impose heavy taxes on carbon. The more that this leakage phenomenon
occurs, the less effective a carbon tax policy is at mitigating climate change.
Additionally, for a carbon tax to benefit the environment, companies have to decide to
actually limit their CO2 production. Part of the inherent uncertainty of a carbon tax (as opposed
Champion Briefs
15
February 2016

to a cap and trade system) is that policymakers do not know by how much, or if, firms will
change their polluting behavior. If firms decide it is worth the cost to continue emitting CO2 at
high levels, then direct reductions will not occur, and pro teams will have to hope for a more
indirect way that this policy will decrease emissions, such as using the revenue to fund cleaner
energy. Both sides should be prepared to argue how firms will respond to a carbon tax, which is
intrinsically linked to the implementation question of how much the carbon tax will be.
Finally, part of the environmental debate is a moral debate. Perhaps the United States
should try to mitigate harms to the environment even if doing so would be economically costly,
or just a drop in the bucket for a very serious global problem. Here lies a host of interesting
arguments. For example, while it is true that the developing world is presently responsible for a
disproportionately large amount of global pollution, this is because they are just now
industrializing like developed nations such as the United States have already done in the past.
Essentially, developing nations should have their turn to grow economically, because it would be
unfair to grant that opportunity to some nations and not others merely on the basis of when in
history they have needed to pollute.
Moreover, pollution is a negative externality on several levelsmeaning those who
pollute do not pay the full cost of their pollution, but rather end up harming others who had no
say in the decision to pollute. Pollution tends to harm low-income individuals and nations the
most severely, as they are unable to pay the costs of adaptation strategies. Climate change also
disproportionately harms future populations, who are unable to defend themselves from the
harms of global warming, since they have not been born yet. Con teams should thus be prepared
to contend with the potential moral harms of displacing the negative effects of pollution onto
highly vulnerable populations such as those of low income and posterity.
Champion Briefs
16

February 2016
Conclusion
This month, competitors will have to be well versed in environmental, economic, and
moral argumentation. With extremely competitive tournaments on the horizon, be prepared for
an intense month of research. I may be at the Berkeley Tournament, so I look forward to seeing
some of you debate, and say hi if you see me!
Good luck!
Maria LaBella
About Maria LaBella

Maria LaBella is a 2014 graduate of North Allegheny High School, where she competed
in public forum debate. In PF, she cleared at nearly every national tournament that she attended,
appeared in late elimination rounds at Wake, Yale, Laird Lewis, CFL Nationals, NDCA
Nationals, and NSDA Nationals, and placed 2nd and 3rd at George Mason, and the National
Public Forum Challenge, respectively. She also accumulated numerous speaker awards, and
coached the 2014 national champion in extemporaneous debate.
She is now a sophomore at George Washington Universitys Honors College, pursuing a
major in Political Science. She continues to debate in the American Parliamentary Debate
Association, where she was recognized as one of the top ten first-year college debaters in 2015.
Thus far on APDA, she has earned 19 speaker awards, and advanced at 18 tournaments
championing 5. She is also an active member of the APDA Womens Initiative, and an equity
officer for the league. She currently coaches Public Forum Debate for Cypress Woods High
School.
Champion Briefs
17
Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

February 2016

Introduction
Welcome to the month of February! The topic this month is Resolved: The United States
federal government should adopt a carbon tax. This resolution, while more straightforward than
ones in the past, still provides an excellent opportunity to explore issues related to the
environment, the economy, and the interesting world of politics.
Debaters should always question their evidence. On a topic that involves energy and
environmental reform, areas of major political and economic significance, this is especially
important. When companies and organizations have a stake in the debate, they pour resources
into producing research that advances their agenda. This is true to both sides, but a particular
example comes to mind. When I first began to research the topic, I came across an explanatory
video from The Institute for Energy Research. According to Source Watch6, the IER is funded by
Charles G. Koch (of the Koch brothers) and run by Robert L. Bradley, Jr. (formerly of Enron Oil
& Gas). This casts doubt on The Institute for Energy Research, although debaters can certainly
make the case that their findings are still valid, or that critics (like Source Watch itself) have their
own agenda. While evidence disputes should never consume the round, they add an important
dimension to the debate.

6
"Institute for Energy Research". Source Watch. Web. 1-2-2016.
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Energy_Research>
Champion Briefs
18

February 2016
Breaking Down the Resolution

The United States federal government is the actor in the resolution. While debaters can
certainly look to evidence about other entities (like the European Union, specific states, or
private groups), evidence specific to the U.S. federal government is stronger. This part of the
resolution is pretty straightforward, but it has some important implications. For example, since
the federal government most likely involves Congress, debaters might make arguments about
the political feasibility and political tradeoffs of a carbon tax. Additionally, the fact that the tax is
U.S. specific is particularly relevant in the context of climate change, since it is a global issue.
Teams will be running arguments about how the United States cant attempt to solve the problem
alone, although there is plenty of evidence attesting to the popularity of carbon taxing.
According to the Oxford Dictionary, the phrase should refers to duty or correctness. I
doubt that many teams will focus on it in round. That said, someone might respond to arguments
like carbon taxes are politically unfeasible or impossible to implement by suggesting that the
resolution is merely of question of what we should do. Teams can then turn around and say that
if we went through with a carbon tax, it would come at a high political cost or would not be
effective, reaffirming that we should not.
This brings us to the core of the resolution: carbon tax. It is crucial that you understand
how a carbon tax works and can explain it to your judge. It has to do with economics, where
supply and demand intersect to determine the quantity of something that a market will produce.
The problem is, supply and demand dont take into account externalities, or the costs and
benefits that affect an unrelated third party that was not part of the transaction. As a result,
negative externalities are costs that are unaccounted for when the market sets an equilibrium. A
carbon tax aims to correct that negative externality, by setting a price on the societal cost of
Champion Briefs
19
February 2016

carbon. Larry West7 explains that a carbon tax is an environmental fee levied by governments
on the production, distribution or use of fossil fuels such as oil, coal and natural gas. The amount
of the tax depends on how much carbon dioxide each type of fuel emits when it is used to run
factories or power plants, provide heat and electricity to homes and businesses, drive vehicles
and so on. In other words, the more you pollute, the more you pay. In theory, this incentivizes
companies to reduce the amount they pollute. Opponents of carbon taxing argue that instead,
companies will simply pass the costs on to their consumers. If it doesnt make sense yet, stop and
search for a Youtube video that can explain carbon taxing in a more visual way! It is also worth
noting that there is quite a bit of consensus about the effectiveness of carbon taxing. Citing a
survey conducted by the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of
Law, the Guardian8 reports that 81% of expert economists said a market-based system (such as a
carbon tax or cap and trade system9) would be the most economically efficient method of
reducing carbon pollution.
So how will this topic break down? If we recognize that the purpose of carbon taxing is to
diminish carbon emissions and help the environment, the first question we should ask is whether
it will work. Affirmative teams must defend that it does; Negative teams can either argue that it
does not, or attempt to outweigh with non-environmental arguments. The question of whether
carbon taxing works is more complicated than it initially seems. This is because even if it works

7
Larry West. "What Is a Carbon Tax?". About. Web. 1-4-2016.
<http://environment.about.com/od/carbontaxfaq/f/what-is-a-carbon-tax.htm>
8
Dana Nuccitelli. "95% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution". Guardian, 12-292015. Web. 1-11-2016. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution>
9
Cap and trade is another term that will probably come up in your research. It is another
market based solution to limit carbon emissions. As opposed to setting a price on carbon
pollution, it sets a limit (or cap) on emissions. Each entity has a certain allowance of how
much they can pollute, like a pollution permit. Then, a market for carbon emissions is formed so
that each company can trade their pollution permits.
Champion Briefs
20
February 2016

at reducing carbon emissions domestically, we need some indication that it will help the global
issue of climate change, an argument I address later in this Topic Analysis.
The second question is whether it is worth it. Any policy has trade-offs. Many believe that
carbon taxing would come at a huge cost to the economy, because rather than diminish carbon
emissions, companies would just pass the cost of the tax on to their consumers. This argument is
a double whammy, because it disproves the idea that carbon taxing reduces carbon emissions and
argues that it will have a detrimental outcome.
The Negative team can also opt for climate related strategies. One is to deny climate
change, but please dont (although you should be prepared to respond to this). Another is to cite
reports10 that say that the effects of climate change are already inevitable and irreversible. While
grim, this would support the idea that we should prioritize other concerns (like the economy).
That said, the authors of these same reports would probably advocate for environmental
regulation, if anything to slow down or mitigate the effects of climate change.
Arguments
Lets start with the Negative argument that a carbon tax would hurt the economy. One of
the main warrants here is that businesses would pass the cost on to consumers. According to the
Heritage Foundation11 in 2013, a carbon tax adopted at the time would cut the income of a
family of four by $1,900 per year in 2016 and lead to average losses of $1,400 per year through

10
Zo Schlanger. "Leaked U.N. Report Warns of Irrevocable Climate Change". Newsweek, 826-2014. Web. 1-11-2016. <http://www.newsweek.com/leaked-un-report-climatechange-impacts-already-inevitable-may-soon-be-266860>
11
David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D. and Nicolas Loris. "Carbon Tax Would Raise Unemployment, Not
Swap Revenue". Heritage Foundation, 1-8-2013. Web. 1-11-2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/carbon-tax-would-raiseunemployment-not-revenue>
Champion Briefs
21
February 2016

2035. Additionally, it would lead to an aggregate loss of more than 1 million jobs by 2016
alone. I encourage debaters to scrutinize the methodology of these sources. That said, they
demonstrate some whopping economic impacts. Moreover, they can make for a compelling case
narrative. The Heritage Foundation furthers, Since an overwhelming majority of America's
energy needs are met by carbon-emitting fossil fuels, regulations of these fuels directly raise the
cost of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and home heating oil. Since low-income families spend a
larger proportion of their income on energy, a tax that increases energy prices would
disproportionately affect the budgets of the poorest American families.
How does the Affirmative team take on this economic argument? Economics can help.
Companies under a carbon tax are faced with either passing the cost on to consumers, absorbing
the cost, or reducing the amount they pollute. Remember that a companys foremost interest is
generating profit. Companies that pass the cost on to consumers will be less competitive than
those that can keep their low prices. Additionally, if they can reduce the amount they pollute at a
lower cost than just paying for the carbon tax, they will. For example, Nature of the International
Weekly Journal of Science12 reports that carbon taxing could stimulate the development and use
of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, which removes CO2 from the emissions of
factories and power plants and sequesters it deep underground. Something else that Affirmative
teams should keep in mind when responding to arguments about the economy is that
environmental damage comes with economic repercussions of its own13.

12
Mason Inman. Natural gas stands to get a boost from carbon tax". Nature News & Comment,
6-5-2015. Web. 1-11-2016. <http://www.nature.com/news/natural-gas-stands-to-get-aboost-from-carbon-tax-1.17705>
13
Dana Nuccitelli. "95% consensus of expert economists: cut carbon pollution". Guardian, 1229-2015. Web. 1-11-2016. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climateconsensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution>
Champion Briefs
22

February 2016
Affirmative teams can also argue that a carbon tax would drive the transition to
renewable energy resources. The cost of renewable resources like wind and solar is already
falling. Experts believe that if this trend is paired with a hike in the cost of carbon, renewables
would see a major increase. Nature corroborates that a moderate carbon price starting at $12
per tonne of emissions in 2020, and rising by 10% a year would boost renewables and push
out coal. Including an argument like this will strengthen your case for the effectiveness of a
carbon tax. Moreover, it will allow your judge to visualize the post carbon tax world, by bringing
to light the alternatives.
Another major criticism of implementing a carbon tax in the United States is that carbon
emissions are a global problem. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency14, the
United States accounts for 16% of global carbon emissions. As developing nations increasingly
turn towards industry, their share of carbon emissions increases. Negative teams can argue that
even if carbon taxes work to reduce domestic carbon emissions, it will barely mitigate global
climate change. Thus, a carbon tax would fail at its intended goal of helping the environment,
and come at whatever additional costs the Neg team choses to defend. This is a solid argument
that can mitigate Affirmative impacts.
That said, there are several responses the Affirmative team can make. One is that the
United States would not be going at it alone. In fact, the World Bank15 has a detailed list of at
least fifteen other countries and jurisdictions that have implemented a carbon tax, including the
year it was adopted, an overview of how it works, and the tax rate in that particular country.

14
US EPA, Climate Change Division. "Global Emissions. Web. 1-5-2016.
<http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html>
15
"Putting a Price on Carbon with a Tax." Background. World Bank, n.d. Web.
<http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/SDN/backgroundnote_carbon-tax.pdf>
Champion Briefs
23
February 2016

Teams should be familiar with how carbon taxing has affected these other countries. Past
examples can be extremely compelling against theoretical and hypothetical arguments.
Another response teams can make is that the United States should implement a carbon tax
even if most other countries have not. I can think of at least a couple of reasons why this is true.
One is that if the United States does it, it might encourage other countries to follow suit.
Moreover, if the United States adopted a carbon tax, it would encourage research and
development into renewable energy sources. Newer, cheaper forms of producing energy could
emerge as a result, and these could be exported around the world. Another reason is that the
United States has been a major polluter for a long time, and unlike the developing nations that
now account for more emissions, we have the resources to implement a carbon tax without a
major hit to our economic progress and development. In fact, current seniors might remember
having debated the topic developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate the effects of
climate change.
Conclusion
This should be an excellent resolution to debate. Its not quite as broad as some of the other
ones we have seen this year, but there are still plenty of interesting impacts to explore. Of course,
teams must win the links before they can access the impacts, and this is where the topic
becomes challenging. Debaters must understand the underlying economic arguments for and
against a carbon tax. Moreover, they must explain these arguments in a way that is both clean
and compelling.
That brings me to the tournaments in February. Around this time, many districts begin
qualifiers for the State and National tournaments. In my experience, these are usually judged by
Champion Briefs
24
February 2016

parents. Dont underestimate mom and dad! They have been paying taxes and watching the news
since before you were born. Slow down, explain your arguments, write believable contentions,
and you will be well on your way to picking up their ballot.
February is also the month of the Harvard Tournament. Though I never attended, I have
heard it has one of the largest and most competitive fields. I wish you luck in your debates!
Good Luck!
Beln Mella
About Beln Mella

Beln Mella competed in Public Forum for Miami Beach Senior High. As a senior, she
championed the Emory Barkley Forum and the Florida State Championship. Additionally, Beln
reached finals at the National Catholic Forensic League Tournament, semifinals at Florida Blue
Key, and quarterfinals at Glenbrooks, Nova Titan, and the Tournament of Champions. She was
ranked fourth in the country and reached late out rounds at the 2014 NSDA Nationals. Belen is
currently a freshman at Harvard University where she is studying economics and government.
Champion Briefs
25
Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

February 2016

Introduction
The February topic is often a race to the top, with many teams pulling out all the stops for
some of the biggest tournaments of the season. The topic is politically relevant, and occupies an
important intersection, for debate and for life, between the environment, the economy, and
political discourse. It also has the advantage of being a hyper contentious policy proposal, which
creates a wealth of research on both sides by firms and special interests that have vested stakes in
the real world outcome of a carbon tax. Understanding environmental regulation and how firms
respond to incentives is important for building human capital in debate, and as future leaders, so
definitely think of this topic as important both in round and out.
Tournament Considerations
The big February tournament that I have experience with is the Harvard Invitational.
Harvard is insanely competitive with a national pull. Some things to consider when going in:
First, Harvard will have many different debaters that are stylistically different, but the judging
pool is considered among the more technical, or flow. Being able to have a case that has many
diverse links into fewer, non-tunable impacts is helpful here, because Harvard judges are more
likely to accept strategic drops as long as one of your warrants is extended. Second, Harvard has
historically released the bracket after the second day, so people in double octofinals know who
they will be hitting in later rounds. This gives an advantage to schools that have the ability to
Champion Briefs
26
February 2016

generate new cases for the third day, and to stay up Saturday night to prep out the competition,
which often gets very intense. Best of luck to everyone.
Strategy Considerations
Understanding the how different impacts function in relation to the actor and to each
other is one of the most important parts of any debate but especially so here. It would seem as
though there are two primary fields of impacts: Environmental and Economic. Each can be
weighed differently, and each present different challenges with respect to the priorities of the US
Federal Government. Environmental arguments can be cursorily broken down into two topic
areas: climate change and emissions.
Climate change is seen as a growing problem, threatening plant and animal species,
creating heat waves, and submerging low lying coastal areas16. CO2 is seen as the culprit, and
many developed nations are working to curb emissions before irreparable damage is done.
Carbon Taxes are seen by some groups as a means to incentivize a reduction in emissions by
discouraging the use of dirty energy17. Climate change as an impact has the advantage of being
high magnitude: millions of dollars in damages, long term issues with flooding, total loss of
productive land. However, it has the disadvantage of being hard to solve for. In order to draw an
impact, a team would have to show how much carbon would be curbed, how much the globe
would be cooled, and how much less damage would be incurred.

16
"Global Warming Impacts." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warmingimpacts>.
17
Porter, Eduardo. "A Carbon Tax Could Bolster Green Energy." The New York Times. The New
York Times, 18 Nov. 2014. Web.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/business/economy/a-carbon-tax-could-bolsterwobbly-progress-in-renewable-energy.html?_r=0>.
Champion Briefs
27

February 2016
The Second area for analysis in terms of the environment is the series of negative effects
that dirty energy and dirty industry, coal oil natural gas and the like, produces. Carbon intensive
factories and energy generation facilities as an externality of carbon production. This is
problematic because it leads to smog, acid rain, toxic asthma inducing pollution, and a whole
host of other problems that hurt Americans every day18. Carbon taxes are seen by many as a
means of providing a disincentive on the use of dirty industry and fossil fuels and thereby
reducing the harmful externalities involved. There are some advantages and drawbacks of this
impact as well. The impact can have a high magnitude, as air pollution and other dirty industry
externalities are responsible for a litany of hazards that hurt the American people and the
economy. In addition, there is no shortage on material analyzing the effect of carbon taxes on a
firms likelihood to invest in dirty versus renewable energy. On the other hand, green energy is
arguably not a viable large scale alternative yet, and firms may just pass the additional costs
accrued through carbon taxes on to consumers19, 20. These impacts are salient in terms of their
immediate effects on American citizens and can be interacted with the economic costs of
pollution, our ability to compete in emerging green markets in the long term, and the direct
environmental impact itself.
The second area of analysis is economic. The economic area of analysis can be broken
down into the impacts on business and on lower income Americans. First on the economic

18
"Coal Power: Air Pollution." Union of Concerned Scientists. N.p., n.d. Web.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02c.html#.Voq2i0qAOko>.
19
"Green Energy: Why We're Still Not Using It | Investopedia." Investopedia. N.p., 18 Aug.
2010. Web. <http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0810/green-energy-why-werestill-not-using-it.aspx>.
20
Lewis, Steve. "Carbon Tax Raises Costs, Cuts Jobs, Australian Chamber of Commerce and
Industry Audit Reveals." News.com.au. News, 28 July 2013. Web.
<http://www.news.com.au/national/carbon-tax-raises-costs-cuts-jobs-australian-chamberof-commerce-and-industry-audit-reveals/story-fnho52ip-1226687143830>.
Champion Briefs
28
February 2016

impacts on businesses. Intuitively, a carbon tax is bad for fossil fuel producers because it adds a
premium on what they make. This can be significant. In recent years, the United States has
invested dramatically in the production of offshore drilling technology, increased oil production,
and hydraulic natural gas fracturing in the Appalachian and Midwestern regions of our country.
The fossil fuel industry employs thousands and generates millions in aggregate economic activity
every year, and skeptics warn that a carbon tax may force drillers overseas, depriving America
of this activity. This impact is interesting to look at, because it interacts with the actor analysis of
the US Federal Government. Whether or not the government ought to prioritize environmental
protection to the immediate material welfare of its citizens is an open question, and one many
debates will hinge on. There is certainly a relationship between our nations rate of economic
growth and its ability to fund and invest in cleaner more efficient technology in the long term.
The last area of impact analysis I want to touch upon is the consideration of distributive
justice. There are many theories of how a just government should take into consideration the
needs of its citizens, and one of the more intuitive/simple ones that is not a simple cost benefit
analysis is the idea that we have a responsibility to look after the interests of the least well off
before the rest of society. There are a myriad of arguments that link into impacts to the less
fortunate (which will be explored later in the arguments section), but as an impact, distributive
justice is very multifaceted. For one, a team can make the case that even if the opposing side has
a larger magnitude impact in terms of scope of people affected, qualitatively, the poor are hurt
most by job loss or natural hazards and other such impacts. There is also a compelling case for
preferring distributive justice impacts because the US government has moral/contractual
obligation to make sure that its citizens meet a certain basic standard of living, as opposed to just
the general welfare. A society where the government simply provided for the maximum
Champion Briefs
29
February 2016

aggregate benefit without looking to the socioeconomic status of its recipients could be very
problematic, and many judges will be receptive to teams that argue that we should prefer impacts
that protect the most marginalized in society, those that need help the most.
Affirmative Arguments
There are angles that I would like to consider when starting preparation on this topic:
hurting fossil fuel producers and supporting green initiatives.
Fossil fuels, a general term for buried combustible geologic deposits of organic materials,
formed from decayed plants and animals that have been converted to crude oil, coal, natural
gas21, and their associated industries are a hot subject of debate in terms of their contribution to
the economy and the environment. Arguably, development in these industries is very harmful to
the good and welfare of Americas future. For starters, fossil fuels trade off with green energy, a
high-tech high-growth sector that prioritizes skilled labor and industry to the relatively unskilled
labor needed for coal mining and oil drilling. Secondly, fossil fuels are key contributors to
climate change, the impacts of which are severe. Thirdly, they contribute to air and water
pollution as independent externalities of their carbon production. There is substantial evidence
that carbon taxes create a negative incentive for the use of fossil fuel industries. One common
response to this point is the idea that instead of decreasing overall usage, these industries will
merely move overseas to friendlier business climates. This response can be responded to in
several ways. First, if the US enacts a carbon tax, it can be a precedent for other nations, which
may follow suit and enact restrictions of their own. This could lead to an overall reduction in
CO2 because there are only so many nations carbon can leak to. Second, fossil fuel industries

21
"Fossil Fuel." ScienceDaily. N.p., n.d. Web.
<http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/fossil_fuel.htm>.
Champion Briefs
30
February 2016

merely leaving American soil can be a major boon; it would likely put an end to toxic air
pollution and runoff in many parts of the country and pave the way for domestic firms that are
cleaner to fill the demand left behind. Many critics decry carbon taxes because by hurting fossil
fuels and dirty industry, the price of many of their associated cheap goods and energy services
would rise. However, many proposals for carbon taxes today are revenue neutral, would be
balanced out by associated tax cuts, which arguably could be targeted to helping marginalized
elements in American society, or targeted to increase economic growth in important high growth
sectors.
Green Initiatives also benefit from carbon taxes. There are a couple of angles we can look
at this from. First, carbon taxes incentivize firms to look away from fossil fuels, thereby forcing
them to look to alternatives, which have become comparatively more competitive. Next, the
revenue from a carbon tax can be used to subsidize green initiatives, which have historically
been able to succeed because of asymmetric government funding compared to dirty energy.
Next, we consider the long term ramifications of raising net energy prices, which would likely be
a short term effect of carbon taxes. This could force prolonged research and development of
green technology in an effort to curb energy costs and find a long term sustainable solution to the
problem of fossil fuels. Green energy is an interesting impact, because it can be used on several
levels. First, it can impact to the climate change and air pollution impacts that were discussed
earlier. However, green initiatives are also an important part of our economys high-tech, highgrowth sector, and may play an important part in being energy independent and creating long
term jobs in the future.
Champion Briefs
31

February 2016
Negative Arguments
The negative fields that I want to spend some time exploring are general economic effects
and then impacts on the poor.
First, on the effects of effects of a carbon tax on overall macroeconomic growth. In short,
the simplest effect of carbon taxes is its adverse impact on dirty industry. Higher energy prices,
pushed on by the movement of fossil fuels passing on the costs to consumers, or the
comparatively more expensive green energy they would have to turn to pushes up the cost of
goods, because energy is used in most steps of the production process. This is significant because
higher prices mean less spending, less production, and less growth. The direct costs of carbon
taxes alone are expected to slow the growth of the energy sector by billions22. Economic growth
is one of the most important components in poverty reduction23; a fast growing economy creates
more jobs and opportunities for everyone, and it raises wages, which provide a benefit for
everyone in society, not just the low income individuals. Growth is also an important part in
decreasing emissions24. High economic growth provides the tools and opportunities economies
need to invest in more sustainable technology and empower the middle class to seek
environmental reforms. In this way, growth can interact with both sides of the story, economic
and environmental.

22
Murphy, Robert P. "Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax." Institute
for Energy Research. June 2008. Web. <http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wpcontent/uploads/2008/06/2008-06_rolling_the_dice_murphy.pdf>.
23
Bowman, Sam. "Does Economic Growth Reduce Poverty? ." Adam Smith Institute. N.p., 19
Apr. 2011. Web. <http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/welfare-pensions/does-economicgrowth-reduce-poverty/>.
24
Stern, David I. "The Environmental Kuznets Curve." Internet Encyclopaedia of Ecological
Economics. International Society for Ecological Economics, June 2003. Web.
<http://isecoeco.org/pdf/stern.pdf>.
Champion Briefs
32

February 2016
The story of how carbon taxes affect the poor is similar but distinct. The idea follows that
because each dollar is a greater share of a low income persons wealth than a high income
persons, carbon taxes, like all taxes on consumption, will impact them to a far greater extent
than the rich. This is in direct energy costs, of which the poor allocate more of their income to
than the rich, and in passed on costs from goods and services that are force to increase prices to
cope with increased energy costs. This is an interesting argument because it weighs differently
than the others discussed. This argument makes the claim that despite affecting fewer people, a
government has a primary obligation to the least well off, even if it is at the expense of more
middle class people. It is important for debaters to understand the many layers that impacts can
function on in this topic, political, economic, and environmental, and know how to interact and
weigh between them.
Good Luck!
Jakob Urda
About Jakob Urda
Jakob Urda attended and competed for Stuyvesant High School. As a senior, Jakob
captained the Stuyvesant High School debate team. This year, Jakob has championed the NCFL
Grandnational Championship, GMU, Blake, Columbia, Ridge, Malcolm A. Bump memorial, and
Scarsdale tournaments. He has also co-championed the Crestian Round Robin, been awarded
first speaker at the Crestian, Scarsdale, Golden Desert, and Columbia tournaments, as well as
second speaker at Bronx. Jakob has been ranked 1st in the nation bydebaterankings.com and
debatehelper.com, and accrued 12 bids to the Tournament of Champions his senior year.
Champion Briefs
33
Champion Briefs
February 2016
Public Forum Brief
General
Information
General Information
February 2016
General Information


Current Carbon Taxes
According to Regional Sustainability Manager Jonathan Koehn, Boulder, CO gets 70% of its
electricity from the burning of coal. Unsatisfied with this fact, the City has adopted one of the
more aggressive Climate Action Plans in the nation to mitigate carbon emissions, and created a
dedicated funding stream for its implementation through a pioneering financing policy. In 2006,
Boulder instituted a carbon tax on the use of electricity generated from fossil fuels - the first
policy of its kind in the U.S. Many communities have climate action plans that lay out the ways
they are going to reduce their emissions, but they are left in this void of understanding, How do
we pay for these things, Koehn says. The carbon tax is Boulders answer, at least in part, to this
question. The carbon tax is levied on residential, commercial, and industrial energy accounts.
The surcharge is not exceedingly high, but it enables energy consumers to see how increasing or
decreasing their overall usage or switching to renewable sources could reduce their bill. The
average annual tax paid is $21 by homeowners and $94 by commercial owners. The average
annual bill from industrial energy users comes to $9,600. Those who use less energy, pay less.
Renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are exempt from the tax. The carbon tax has
generated up to $1.8 million a year according to Koehn, and these funds go toward implementing
the Boulder Climate Action Plan. Funds support public education, investments in public transit,
energy audits to help residents and business owners identify energy inefficiencies, and rebates
for who investment in energy efficiency improvements at home and at work. (Bhatt and Ryan)
But the idea is catching on. Washington requires citizens initiatives to raise 246,372 signatures
via petition to qualify for the ballot. So far, Carbon Washington has raised 304,000 signatures,
according to Bauman, and is hoping to reach 330,00 before it submits the petition at the end of
the year to have a buffer of about 25 percent of the needed number of signers. Once we qualify,
it goes to the legislature in January, and the legislature essentially has two choices, Bauman
said. Pass it and it goes to law, or it goes on the ballot in 2016. Washington state isnt the only
Champion Briefs
35
General Information
February 2016

one. Citizens and legislators in a handful of other states around the country, including
Massachusetts, Vermont, Rhode Island and Oregon, are in various stages of introducing similar
proposals to their own state legislatures. Many are inspired by British Columbias carbon tax,
which was introduced in 2008 and is widely considered by economists a prime example of a
successful carbon pricing scheme. Currently the only carbon tax in North America, the tax
which is revenue neutral, meaning funds are returned to the public rather than kept as revenue by
the state (in this case, in the form of other tax breaks) charges $30 per ton of carbon dioxide
equivalent emissions and has so far reduced fuel consumption by more than 16 percent without
harming the Canadian provinces economy. (Chelsea Harvey, 2015)
PARIS, Sept 21 A carbon tax to be introduced in France next year will generate 4 billion euros
($5.4 billion) in receipts by 2016 to help fund sweeping energy-efficiency goals, Prime Minister
Jean-Marc Ayrault said on Saturday. The measure, to be levied on all fossils fuels in proportion
to the emissions they generate, would yield 2.5 billion euros in 2015, Ayrault said, outlining the
impact of the tax announced by President Francois Hollande on Friday. He did not give a figure
for 2014, but said there would be no impact on households next year from road and heating fuel,
in keeping with a pledge not to raise further the tax burden. The Socialist government is
attempting a delicate balancing act in satisfying demands for tougher environmental targets from
its Green Party allies and resentment among households and businesses over rising taxes. In
addition to the carbon tax, the government will impose a levy on profits from France's large
nuclear power network, Ayrault said, without detailing its value. "Fossil and nuclear energy will
thus be mobilised to allow us to meet our energy transition objectives," Ayrault told a conference
in Paris. The carbon tax would let France invest an extra 1 billion euros in its so-called energy
transition from 2016, on top of nearly 4 billion euros already spent annually on renewable
energies and 1 billion on household renovation, he said. (Reuters, 2013)
Champion Briefs
36
General Information

February 2016
Effects of Global Climate Change

Chapter 1 showed that the power and industry sectors combined dominate current global CO2
emissions, accounting for about 60% of total CO2 emissions (see Section 1.2.2). Future
projections indicate that the share of these sectoral emissions will decline to around 50% of
global CO2 emissions by 2050 (IEA, 2002). The CO2 emissions in these sectors are generated
by boilers and furnaces burning fossil fuels and are typically emitted from large exhaust stacks.
These stacks can be described as large stationary sources, to distinguish them from mobile
sources such as those in the transport sector and from smaller stationary sources such as small
heating boilers used in the residential sector. The large stationary sources represent potential
opportunities for the addition of CO2 capture plants. The volumes produced from these sources
are usually large and the plants can be equipped with a capture plant to produce a source of highpurity CO2 for subsequent storage. Of course, not all power generation and industrial sites
produce their emissions from a single point source. At large industrial complexes like refineries
there will be multiple exhaust stacks, which present an additional technical challenge in terms of
integrating an exhaust-gas gathering system in an already congested complex, undoubtedly
adding to capture costs (Simmonds et al., 2003). (Gale, 2005)
The United States is already experiencing the effects of climate change, and these effects will
be much worse without action to sharply curtail our global warming emissions. Average U.S.
temperatures have already risen by 2F over the past 50 years, and are projected to rise another
711F by the end of this century under a high-emissions scenario, and 46.5F under a lowemissions scenario (see Figure 1). Recognizing the urgency of global warming, policy makers
are beginning to pursue solutions to help us avoid the worst effects of climate change, while
transitioning the nation to a clean energy economy. However, the debate over comprehensive
climate and energy policy often focuses on the costs of climate action, rather than on the serious
economic and environmental consequences if we fail to act. One study shows that if global
warming emissions continue to grow unabateda high-emissions scenariothe annual
economic impact of more severe hurricanes, residential real-estate losses to sea-level rise, and
growing water and energy costs could reach 1.4 percent of GDP by 2025, and 1.9 percent by
2100 (Ackerman and Stanton 2008). (Stanton and Ackerman, 2009)
Champion Briefs
37
General Information
February 2016
Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have
shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and
trees are flowering sooner. Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from
global climate change are now occurring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer,
more intense heat waves. Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue
to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gases produced by human activities. The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists
from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees
Fahrenheit over the next century. According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on
individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental
systems to mitigate or adapt to change. The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean
temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels
will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will
increase over time as global temperatures increase. "Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the
range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be
significant and to increase over time. (NASA, 2016)
Carbon Politics
Political action committees, lobbyists and executives do not give money to politicians or
parties out of an altruistic support of the principles of democracy," says Tyson Slocum, director
of Public Citizen's Energy Program. "They are savvy investors expecting a return on their
investments. Politicians routinely deliver on campaign contributions that are provided to them...
[by] giving goodies to the industry." And the size of those contributions matters. In comparison,
environmental groups and alternative energy production and supply companies, which didn't see
similar benefits come out of the Republican Congress's legislation, have made paltry
contributions. Environmental groups, such as the Sierra Club, League of Conservation Voters
and the Nature Conservancy, which often push for policy that is punitive to Big Oil, have given
nearly 11 times less than the oil industry since 2001. The disparity is not a strategic difference,
but the financial reality for these smaller competing interests. Exxon Mobil, for example,
Champion Briefs
38
General Information
February 2016

reported the largest annual profit on record for a U.S. corporation in 2006, bringing in $39.5
billion. Comparatively, the nonprofit Sierra Club Foundationwhich funds organizations in

addition to the Sierra Clubreported income in 2006 of $29 million. With members of Congress
paying special attention to Big Oil, the policy that elected representatives have developed does
not reflect the interest of the public, which wants "affordable, reliable, clean sources of energy,"
Slocum says. A 2006 survey by the Pew Research Center found a majority of Americans across
the political spectrum want an energy policy that emphasizes renewable and alternative sources
of energy. "Energy companies have a right to have a say in energy policy. Do they have a right to
dictate energy policy, to be the only people at the table? Absolutely not. That was the main
problem with the Cheney task force[the industry] was the only one at the table," says Slocum.
To keep its prominent seat, the industry spends big sums of money on hiring the top lobbyists in
Washington to push its agenda on a variety of issues, not just related to energy but on issues
ranging from education to real estate. After a few years of declining lobbying expenditures, the
industry spent $63.3 million in 2005, most of which was probably related to the energy bill.
(Lobbying reports don't require lobbyists to itemize their spending related to specific bills or
amendments). In 2007, with a new energy bill in the pipeline, the industry's lobbying
expenditures are on track to exceed last year's total of $73 million. Big Oil has spent seven times
more than environmental groups on lobbying since President Bush took office. (Mayer, 2008)
Climate-change legislation is partly hostage to Congress farm bloc because this group has
maneuvered strategically to position its members on influential committees and subcommittees,
and they now control several key choke points in the legislative process. As a result, they can
often shape the agenda even on many matters such as climate change that are not
traditionally associated with agrarian interests. This group might be dubbed the Congressional
Agri-crats: they are moderate-to-conservative Democrats from farm states who often put the
needs of agriculture ahead of party loyalty. This group finds it politically painful to follow the
lead of President Obama at the risk of weakening their own political base at home. In the Senate,
the Midwestern corn belt and Great Plains is a Democratic bastion, but on the powerful House
Agriculture Committee, half of the 28 Democrats on the committee are people who managed to
get themselves elected (or re-elected) in 2008 from districts carried by Obamas rival,
Republican Senator John McCain in the presidential election that year. So these Agricrats know
Champion Briefs
39
General Information
February 2016

that there are no Obama coat-tails for them to ride in their districts: instead, they need to court
their constituents, not simply follow the President. Thus, 13 of the 28 Democratic members of
the House Agricultural Committee voted against the climate-change legislation. The bill carried
there, but the outcome was foreboding about the difficulties to come in the Senate. These stiff
political odds against President Obama on the climate issue in his own party offer a bleak picture
for the White House initiative. But meaningful legislation may still be possible as Congressional
advocates seek to craft a bill that will win at least the grudging support of the Agricrats while
also advancing the cause of reducing greenhouse gases. Agriculture has already won major
concessions from Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency. These include, most
notably, a guarantee of nearly total exemption from any requirement to limit emissions of
greenhouse gases. These come from such things as carbon dioxide (released when ground is
plowed); nitrous oxide (a side effect of nitrogen-based fertilizers); and methane (from the
stomachs of animals confined in feed-lots for herds of stationary animals, from dairies and from
hog-feeding buildings). (Morgan, 2009)
LE BOURGET, France With the sudden bang of a gavel Saturday night, representatives of
195 nations reached a landmark accord that will, for the first time, commit nearly every country
to lowering planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions to help stave off the most drastic effects
of climate change. The deal, which was met with an eruption of cheers and ovations from
thousands of delegates gathered from around the world, represents a historic breakthrough on an
issue that has foiled decades of international efforts to address climate change. Traditionally,
such pacts have required developed economies like the United States to take action to lower
greenhouse gas emissions, but they have exempted developing countries like China and India
from such obligations. The accord, which United Nations diplomats have been working toward
for nine years, changes that dynamic by requiring action in some form from every country, rich
or poor. This is truly a historic moment, the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon,
said in an interview. For the first time, we have a truly universal agreement on climate change,
one of the most crucial problems on earth. (Davenport, 2015)
Champion Briefs
40
General Information
February 2016

MOST books about the environment take the West as their starting point. This is
understandable. For decades America was the worlds biggest polluter, contributing more to the
problem than any other country, whereas Europeat least in its politicians mindshas model
environmental laws and holds plenty of righteous talks to negotiate new solutions. But Europe
and America are becoming supporting actors in the worlds climate-change drama. The lead
players are China and India. China is the worlds largest emitter, contributing nearly a quarter of
current global emissions. With India it accounted for 83% of the worldwide increase in carbon
emissions in 2000-11. Though global warming began with industrialised countries it must end
if it is to endthrough actions in developing ones. All the more reason to welcome
Greenprint, the first book on climate change to concentrate on this growing part of the
problem. Written by Aaditya Mattoo, an economist at the World Bank, and Arvind Subramanian,
a senior fellow at the Centre for Global Development, the book offers an unflinching look at
what one might realistically expect emerging markets to do. From an environmentalists point of
view, India and China elicit despair. They are obsessed with growth. To fuel it, they are building
ever more coal-fired power stations, a filthy form of energy. Their cities fume. Their rivers catch
fire. There is not much anyone can do about it. (Economist, 2013)
Carbon Tax and Industry
As the debate on reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs) has progressed, increasing concern has
been raised about how a U.S. reduction program would interact with those of other countries. In
a global context where currently some countries have legally binding policies to reduce
greenhouse gas emission and other countries do noti.e., differentiated global carbon policies
the potential exists that countries imposing carbon control policies will find themselves at a
competitive disadvantage vis--vis countries without comparable policies. The risks
accompanying establishment of carbon control policies, in the absence of similar policies among
competing nations, have been central to debates on whether the United States should enact
greenhouse gas legislation. Specifically, concerns have been raised that if the United States
adopts a carbon control policy, industries that must control their emissions or that find their
feedstock or energy bills rising because of costs passed-through by suppliers may be less
competitive and may lose global market share (and jobs) to competitors in countries lacking
Champion Briefs
41
General Information
February 2016

comparable carbon policies. In addition, this potential shift in production could result in some of
the U.S. carbon reductions being counteracted by increased production in less regulated countries
(commonly known as carbon leakage). (Parker and Blodgett, 2008)
To optimize the tradeoff across taxing as much GHG emissions as possible and minimizing the
administrative burden, it makes sense to levy this tax on carbon and other GHGs at the upstream
choke point in their distribution. The price signal will pass through to retail prices just as if the
tax were collected from consumers. The Congressional Research Service (CRS; 2012b) estimates
that 80 percent of U.S. GHG emissions could be taxed via payments from only 2,300 upstream
entities. In this approach, the tax would fall on petroleum at refineries, on natural gas at the
wellheads or processing plants, and on coal at the mine mouth. The tax base should also include
CO2 emissions from nonenergy industrial processes such as cement. manufacturing, as well as
identifiable point sources of non-CO2 GHG emissions, such as methane emissions from landfills
and coal mines. The tax also would fall on the carbon content of imported fossil fuels at the
border. Carbon in fossil fuels that is not emittedfor example because it is securely sequestered
underground or used in feedstocks for plasticsshould receive a tax credit or rebate.4 Likewise,
biofuels and other renewable energy would not be taxed, but their costs of production could rise
with the price of any taxed fossil fuels inputs.5 To avoid significantly disadvantaging American
energyintensive trade-exposed industriesindustries like metals, chemicals, glass, pulp and
paper, and cementrelative to their counterparts in economies with less-ambitious climate
policy, the tax should also include narrowly tailored and temporary border carbon adjustments
that impose tariffs on imports of the most intensely energy-intensive trade-exposed goods (such
as aluminum) in proportion to differences in climate policy across countries.6 (Morris, 2013)
Champion Briefs
42
General Information

February 2016
Works Cited
Ackerman, Frank and Stanton, Elizabeth A. Climate Change in the United States The
Prohibitive Costs of Inaction. Union of Concerned Scientists. Aug 2009. Web. 4 Jan
2015.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/global_warming/clim
ate-costs-of-inaction.pdf>.
Bhatt, Neha and Ryan, Michael. Carbon Energy Tax. Smart Growth America. Web. 6 Jan
2015. <http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/Boulder-Carbon-Tax.pdf>.
Davenport, Coral. Nations Approve Landmark Climate Accord in Paris. NYTimes. 12 Dec
2015. Web. 2 Jan 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/13/world/europe/climatechange-accord-paris.html>.
Take the Lead. Economist. 2 Feb 2013. Web. 7 Jan 2015.
<http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21571109-emerging-markets-are-bigpart-problem-they-are-essential-any-solution-take>.
French carbon tax to yield 4 bln euros in 2016.Reuters. 21 Sept 2013. Web. 7 Jan 2016.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/france-energy-idUSL5N0HH04K20130921>.
Gale, John. Sources of CO2. IPCC. 2005. Web. 6 Jan 2015. <https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/specialreports/srccs/srccs_chapter2.pdf>.
Harvey, Chelsea. These could be the first U.S. states to tax carbon and give their residents a
nice paycheck. New York Times. 10 Nov 2015. Web. 7 Jan 2015.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/10/thesecould-be-the-first-u-s-states-to-tax-carbon-and-give-their-residents-a-nice-paycheck/>.
Mayer, Lindsey Renick. Big Oil, Big Influence. PBS. 1 Aug 2008. Web. 6 Jan 2016.
<http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html>.
Morgan, Dan. Landmine for U.S. Climate Policy -- Farm Lobby Weighs on any Global Pact.
European Institute. 2009. Web. 6 Jan 2015.
<http://www.europeaninstitute.org/index.php/89-european-affairs/fallwinter-2009-vol10-no-3/916-landmine-for-us-climate-policy>.
Morris, Adele C. Proposal 11: The Many Benefits of a Carbon Tax. Hamilton Project.
February 2013. Web. 7 Jan 2015.
<http://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/THP_15Ways
FedBudget_Prop11.pdf>.
Parker, Larry, and John Blodgett. Carbon Leakage and Trade: Issues and Approaches. CRS. 19
Dec 2008. Web. 7 Jan 2015. <https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40100.pdf>.
The consequences of climate change. NASA. 6 Jan 2016. Web. 6 Jan 2015.
<http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/>.
Champion Briefs
43
Champion Briefs
February 2016
Public Forum Brief
Frameworks
Frameworks
February 2016
Frameworks


Neutral

1. Because the resolution addresses US policy, impacts that affect the citizens of the United
States should prioritized over impacts that affect people of other nations. This is because
the United States is specifically created to protect its own citizens.
a. Explanation: This argument is relatively straightforward in that it addresses the
debate from the perspective of the actor in the resolution, the United States federal
government. This doesnt necessarily advantage either side, because a carbon tax
would have both negative and positive effects on different groups of people in
different. It simply creates a simpler way to weigh arguments at the end of the
round in a relatively intuitive way.

b. Answer: It can be argued that the issues that a global carbon tax is trying to
address are global climate change. This is obvious in the fact that if they just
wanted to increase revenues, there are multiple other financial mechanisms that
could be used, such as alternative taxes, lower subsidies, or lowered spending.
Therefore, its important to take a global perspective and taking into account
global impacts because the issue of climate change is a global problem. This can
also be supported by the multiple international conventions that have taken place
in order to address the issues of climate change.

Champion Briefs
45
Frameworks
February 2016
2. In the past, the federal government has looked to states in order to create policy.
Therefore, when debating todays resolution, we should evaluate federal carbon taxes
based on previous, state level taxes.
a. Explanation: This resolution is fairly neutral in that it doesnt skew the debate to
one side or the other. It simply helps to clarify the resolution in terms of what
kind of arguments and evidence should carry more weight. It also implicitly
endorses greater weight to be placed on empirical evidence and evidence from
countries that are more similar to the United States. It provides a clearer way to
evaluate evidence and weigh in the final focus.
b. Answer: This could be refuted in a few ways. First off, there are many policies
that the government is able to implement that states are not able to; examples of
this would be defense and healthcare, because states as individual entities lack
either the capability or resources to deal with this argument. This could be applied
to this issue, since emissions heavy industries can cross state borders, meaning the
effects of a carbon tax on a national level would be different from a state level
policy. This implies that theoretical evidence and evidence from outside of the
United States should have greater weigh overall.

Champion Briefs
46
Frameworks

February 2016
Affirmative

1. Todays resolution only asks us to debate the costs and benefits of a potential federal
carbon tax, not the feasibility of actually passing a carbon tax; it assumes that a tax is
already in place. Therefore, todays debate should exclude arguments regarding political
and practical feasibility.
a. Explanation: This framework is relatively simple, and deprives the con of a
relatively effective argument in terms of arguing feasibility. This is especially
important considering that there are powerful arguments that oil interests are a
powerful political force that would be effective in shutting down a federal carbon
tax. It forces your opponent to debate you on an impact level debate. Essentially,
the pro doesnt have to prove that a carbon tax would be passed in Congress.
b. Answer: This framework can be answered by arguing that first, there is no real
distinction between feasibility and cost. In order for anything, ever, to happen,
theres always some kind of cost. Second, it can be argued that the resolution says
should, and that does not necessarily imply that the event has an occurred. An
example might help clear this up with a lay judge; for example, if you say you
should save everyone in the world, is a meaningless debate without examining
practicality.

Champion Briefs
47
Frameworks
February 2016
2. The resolution only asks us to evaluate the costs and benefits of a federal carbon, not
whether or not this is the best possible policy. Therefore, alternative policies such as cap
and trade or state level taxes should not be evaluated in todays round.
a. Explanation: This framework basically limits the cons ability to argue that
alternative policies would be more effective than implementing federal taxes. This
is derived from a basic reading of the resolution since nowhere does it ask you to
compare federal taxes to any other kind of argument. This benefits the affirmative
because it limits the ability of the con to capture the benefits of the pro while
reducing the harms, and reduces the number of arguments that the pro has to
potentially respond to in the round.
b. Answer: There are two ways of responding to this argument. The first is to argue
that the implementation of federal taxes will prevent other policies from
happening. For example, since the government passed healthcare reform, it means
that states are unlikely to pass other reforms because this issue has already been
dealt with. Second, its also possible to argue that every policy has a cost in terms
of resources, therefore, any policy that is less than optimal means that there is
always a relative cost. Thus, its impossible to evaluate carbon taxes in a vacuum
without comparing it to other policies.

Champion Briefs
48
Frameworks

February 2016
Negative

1. This resolution asks us to evaluate the effects of a federal carbon tax on the status quo.
Therefore, short term impacts ought to be prioritized over long term impacts.
a. Explanation: This framework seems to be relatively neutral at first sight, but in
reality, it most likely favors the con. This is because the economic shock of a
carbon tax is likely to be most impactful in the short term. In this timeframe, jobs
will be lost, prices will increase to be relatively higher than otherwise. Many of
the impacts that the pro can advocate for such as transportation, environmental,
and economic benefits that may take shape are more likely to occur in the long
term. This gives the negative an advantage when weighing arguments in the final
focus.
b. Answer: The most effective way of arguing against is that is arguing that the
magnitude of the harms that the cons show are outweighed by the benefits of the
pro. Things like environmental protection, reduction of greenhouse gasses, and
the increase in tax revenues will arguably have a larger effect on the status and
quality of life of the poor than the short term shock effects. You can outweigh this
argument on probability and magnitude of the problems that the pro can solve.

Champion Briefs
49
Frameworks

February 2016
2. When evaluating impacts, impacts to lower and middle income people should be
evaluated more than impacts on the wealthy. This is because relatively small changes in
the lives of poor and middle class people have a higher effect on their livelihoods. For
example, a loss of $100 per month due to carbon taxes would have a tremendous effect
on the poor, but a relatively small one on the rich.
a. Explanation: This framework advantages the con because many of the short and
possibly long term negative effects that taxes have will be on lower paying jobs,
and increased commuting costs, which will have a relatively higher impact on the
poor. This framework allows you to tailor your case to specific demographics and
focus your case, and win the perceptual battle. It provides a way to weigh impacts
and evidence in the final focus, by arguing things that might benefit the poor in
the long term like a better environment, dont matter if they cant support their
own livelihood.
b. Answer: There are a few ways to argue against this. First, you could argue that
the global poor are more important to prioritize than the United States poor, so
contributing to fixing a global problem like global warming outweighs short term
harms that may affect the poor in the United States. Second, you can argue that in
the long term, this kind of spending can be reinvested in the form of infrastructure,
subsidies, or other kinds of transfer programs that benefit the poor overall.

Champion Briefs
50
Champion Briefs
February 2016
Public Forum Brief
Pro Arguments with

Con Responses
Pro Arguments with Con Responses

February 2016
PRO US has a Moral Obligation to Combat Climate Change

Argument: The US has a moral obligation to combat climate change and a carbon tax is one of
most efficient and effective tools the US can use in the fight.
Warrant: Climate change threatens to cause droughts, famine, and displace populations of
people. Its our moral responsibility to help combat climate change.
Salamon, Margaret Klein, Phd is co-founder and director of Climate Mobilization. Klein
earned her doctorate in clinical psychology from Adelphi University and also
holds a BA in Social Anthropology from Harvard. "What Climate Change Asks of
Us: Moral Obligation, Mobilization and Crisis Communication." Common
Dreams. N.p., 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/12/19/what-climate-change-asksus-moral-obligation-mobilization-and-crisis-communication>.
Climate change is a crisis, and crises alter morality. Climate change is on track to
cause the extinction of half the species on earth and, through a combination of
droughts, famines, displaced people, and failed states and pandemics, the collapse of
civilization within this century. If this horrific destructive force is to be abated, it will
be due to the efforts of people who are currently alive. The future of humanity falls to
us. This is an unprecedented moral responsibility, and we are by and large failing to
meet it.
Champion Briefs
52
February 2016

Warrant: While individuals who witness disasters are more likely to help, entire groups of
people are more likely to stand idly by. Social scientist Dr. Robert Cialdini argues this is because
of pluralistic ignorance.
Understanding the gap: The role of pluralistic ignorance. How can this be? How are
we missing the crisis that will determine the future of our civilization and species?
Dr. Robert Cialdini, social psychologist and author of Influence, describes the
phenomena of pluralistic ignorance, which offers tremendous insight into this
questionand into how we can beat the trance of denial and passivity. In the following
passage, Dr. Cialdini is not discussing climate change, but rather, the phenomena of
emergencies (heart attacks, physical assaults, etc.) that are sometimes witnessedand
ignored by dozens of people, especially in urban settings. These tragic instances
are often ascribed to apathythe hardening of city dwellers hearts toward each
other. But scientific research shows something very different. Research shows that if
one person witnesses an emergency, they will help in nearly 100% of instances. It is
only in crowdsand in situations of uncertaintythat we have the capacity, even
the tendency, to ignore an emergency.
Champion Briefs
53
February 2016

Warrant: Pluralistic ignorance is the concept that in a dangerous situation, each person decides
that since nobody is concerned, nothing is wrong. Meanwhile, the danger of the situation mounts
to the point where a single individual would react. This reaction is common in conversations
about climate change. Since we dont see those around us openly concerned, we remain
ignorantly calm and ignore the effects of climate change.
Very often an emergency is not obviously an emergency. Is the man lying in the alley
a heart-attack victim or a drunk sleeping one off? Are the sharp sounds from th street
gunshots or truck backfires? Is the commotion next door an assault requiring the police or
an especially loud marital spat where intervention would be inappropriate and
unwelcome? What is going on? In times of such uncertainty, the natural tendency is
to look around at the actions of others for clues. We can learn, from the way the
other witnesses are reacting, whether the event is or is not an emergency. What is
easy to forget, though, is that everybody else observing the event is likely to be looking
for social evidence, too. And because we all prefer to appear poised and unflustered
among others, we are likely to search for that evidence placidly, with brief,
camouflaged glances at those around us. Therefore everyone is likely to see everyone
else looking unruffled and failing to act. As a result, and by the principle of social
proof, the event will be roundly interpreted as a nonemergency. This, according to [social
psychology researchers] Latan and Darley, is the state of pluralistic ignorance in
which each person decides that since nobody is concerned, nothing is wrong.
Meanwhile, the danger may be mounting to the point where a single individual,
uninfluenced by the seeming calm of others, would react. These paragraphs vividly
Champion Briefs
54

February 2016
illustrate how denial of the climate crisis is co-created through the effect of
pluralistic ignorance. We look around us and see people living their lives as normal.
Our friends, coworkers, and family members are all going about their days as they
always have. They are planning for the future. They are calm. They are not
discussing climate change. So surely there is no emergency. Surely civilization is not
in danger. Calm down, we tell ourselves, I must be the only one who is afraid.
Warrant: We have a moral obligation to respond to climate change, but pluralistic ignorance
prevents us from doing so.
This situation creates an intense amount of social pressure to act calm and not
appear hysterical or crazy. We all want to fit in, to be well liked and to be
considered normal. As of today, that means remaining silent on the effects of
climate change, or responding with minimization, cynicism, or humor. It is taboo to
discuss it as the crisis it is, a crisis that threatens all of us, and that we each have a
moral obligation to respond to. Of course, this pluralistic ignorance of the climate
emergency is reinforced and bolstered through misinformation campaigns funded by
fossil-fuel companies and the hostility of the few. Better not bring up the climate crisis,
we tell ourselves, Its a controversial topic. Someone might really lose their temper.
However, the responsibility for pluralistic ignorance is widely shared. The vast
majority of usincluding those of us who believe in climate science and are terrified
by climate changeare still, unwittingly, contributing to pluralistic ignorance.
Champion Briefs
55
February 2016

Warrant: The moral obligation of the US is different from that of China; because the US emits
the most carbon on a per-capita basis, we should be proponents of a carbon tax. Moreover, the
US has contributed more to the emissions than nations like China.
Sunstein, Cass R. "The Political Economy Of Health In The United States." Annual
Review of Political Science Annual. Rev. Polit. Sci. 6.1 (2003): 1697-698.
University of Chicago Law School and Department of Political Science. UCLA
Law Review. Web. <http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/55-6-5.pdf>.
To be sure, the analysis of the moral obligations of the United States is different
from the corresponding analysis for China. First, the United States has contributed
far more to the existing stock of greenhouse gases.102 Even if its contributions will
be lower than those of China in the future, the significant American contribution to
the stock must be taken into account. Second, the United States is much richer than
China, and its ability to pay is surely relevant to the overall assessment. Third, the
United States has by far the highest per capita emissions rate, and it is plausible to
think that this per capita rate is relevant to a nations moral obligations. China may
be the largest emitter of any nation, but its per capita emissions rate ranks it much lower.
For these reasons, it is particularly clear that the United States is obliged either to
scale back its emissions or to provide financial assistance to those nations that are at
risk because of what the United States has done.
Analysis: This argument may seem a little confusing, but I think its interesting. Essentially, the
United States has a moral obligation to combat climate change because not only can climate
change increase the likelihood of drought, famine, and population displacement, but it can also
harm the development of generations to come. Moreover, the US has contributed more than any
other country to the greenhouse gas emission, and we emit more on a per-capita basis. Those are
all reasons as to why we have a moral obligation as a nation to respond. Add a few cards about
how a carbon tax is the best and more efficient way to decrease carbon emissions and youve got
a winning argument. The pluralist ignorance cards explain why the United States ignores these
issues. However, the cards are very specific that the cycle of pluralist ignorance has to be
Champion Briefs
56
February 2016

broken in order to deal with crises like climate change. A move from the US government to
adopt a carbon tax could be the first step to overcoming pluralist ignorance. You can impact this
out to say the pro can ultimately solve for more global or country-wide disasters since the
adoption of the carbon tax and collective action from the government would have already started
to erode the deeply engrained pluralistic ignorance in society.
Champion Briefs
57

February 2016
A2 US has a Moral Obligation to Combat Climate Change

Answer: The US does not have a moral obligation to combat climate change.
Warrant: Arguing over who has a greater moral obligation is pointless and unproductive. The
story of a moral obligation can be swung and pinned on any country based on how you examine
their carbon emissions. Theres no single country with a moral obligation to address climate
change.
Liu, Shusen. "Do Developed Countries Have Greater Moral or Economical Obligation
than Developing Countries to Mitigate the Effects of Climate Change and Global
Warming, given That China and India Have Higher Carbon Emission than
America and the EU? Why or Why Not?" Quora. N.p., 10 Dec. 2015. Web. 05
Jan. 2016. <https://www.quora.com/Do-developed-countries-have-greater-moralor-economical-obligation-than-developing-countries-to-mitigate-the-effects-ofclimate-change-and-global-warming-given-that-China-and-India-have-highercarbon-emission-than-America-and-the-EU-Why-or-why-not>.
Arguing who has more obligation is pointless. It's like when there is a hole in the boat
and people sharing the boat are arguing who should plug it. What people (in both
developed and developing world) should realize is that the current consumption
based lifestyle in some developed countries (north american particularly) is simply
unsustainable. Per-capita number is the key to understand what really happening (List of
countries by carbon dioxide emissions). Based on the data from Wikipedia, US has a percapita carbon emission (16.5t) 9 times higher that India's per-capita number (1.8t). There
is a direct correlation between the level of development and the amount of carbon
emission. If we look at per-capita carbon foot print based on what people consume,
developed world will have an even higher figure than the current estimation. For
example, China produced a lot goods for export which are mostly consumed in the
developed world, but the carbon emission for producing these goods will not be
count into the per-capita carbon emission in the consumers' countries.
Champion Briefs
58
February 2016

Warrant: Everyone has a moral obligation to act, not just the United States.
Roberts, David. "The Unsophisticated Reply to the 'sophisticated Objection'" Grist. N.p.,
29 Jan. 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2016. <http://grist.org/climate-energy/theunsophisticated-reply-to-the-sophisticated-objection/>.
So thats the response to the sophisticated objection: The U.S. must act because
all people have a moral obligation to act. We have no guarantee that if we act, others
will act; we have no guarantee that if everyone acts, it will be enough. But inaction is not
a choice. If the danger were an invading army from another planet or a raging global
pandemic, we wouldnt be having these arguments. The need for everyone to act would
be obvious. Quibbles over who acts first, or who benefits most from the planet not being
invaded, or how to avoid spending too much to avoid being annihilated would rightly
be seen as verging on sociopathic. Everyone would be eager to act, despite having no
certainty of success, because the alternative is simply unacceptable. Thats the root of it:
The results of inaction are morally unacceptable. They are also economically
unacceptable, worse than virtually anything we might inflict on ourselves through toovigorous pursuit of clean energy, regenerative agriculture, reforestation, resourceefficient land use, and resilient infrastructure. But ultimately it is a moral argument. We
know we are on track for unthinkable human suffering and we know how to avoid it.
Even if we cant make a dime by saving millions of future children in Africa and Asia,
we ought to save them. Even if were not certain of our success, we have to try. Its a
matter of human decency. There was a time, not that long ago, when America took pride
in leading the world against such dangers. Where is that pride now?
Analysis: These last two cards may seem a bit confusing, but stay with me. I think itll be really
hard in a round to claim that the US doesnt have a moral obligation at all. These cards help you
get around the why behind the moral obligation. The first card answers some of the warrants as
to why people say the US has a moral obligation to address climate change per capita
emissions, historic emissions levels, etc. If the Pro team is using because the US emits more per
capita as a reason they have a moral obligation, you can answer with the first card and explain
Champion Briefs
59
February 2016

its all about how you swing statistics. Technically China emits the most on a per-capita basis, if
you estimate the consumption of their goods produced abroad. The last card talks about how
every single person has a moral obligation to act. Essentially, every single person in every single
country has an obligation. This means you can say the pro argument is non-unique. Everyone has
a moral obligation.

Champion Briefs
60

February 2016
PRO A Carbon Tax Would Increase Economic Revenue

Argument: A carbon tax in the US would increase economic revenue
Warrant: A $15 per ton CO2 tax would raise $80 billion a year in revenue for the government,
which would total $440 billion for the first ten-year period.
"Carbon Tax Center FAQ." Carbon Tax Center. N.p., 1 Sept. 2015. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.carbontax.org/faqs/>.
How much revenue will carbon taxes generate? A lot, if taxes on carbon pollution
rise briskly enough to have the needed climate impacts. Rep. Larsons bill would
start modestly at $15 per ton of CO2. That $15 per ton CO2 tax would bring in $80
billion of revenue, which equates to around $250 per U.S. resident, or $1,000 for a
family of four. (Thus, if carbon revenue were distributed as per capita dividends, that
family would receive $1,000. If that family used less fossil fuel energy than average,
their increased costs would be less than $1,000, so theyd come out ahead.)
Successive annual carbon tax increments adding $12.50 per ton would add to the
annual revenue stream, though at a declining rate as CO2 emissions fell each year in
response to the rising CO2 price. By the end of the tenth year, the annual revenue
would be on the order of $440 billion. We estimate that this brisk rise in the cost of
CO2 pollution will reduce U.S. emissions dramatically, by about 1/3.

Champion Briefs
61
February 2016

Warrant: Most experts suggest a tax of around $25 per ton of CO2, which would raise
approximately $125 billion annually
Aldy, Joseph E., Timothy J. Brennan, Dallas Burtraw, Carolyn Fischer, Raymond J.
Kopp, Molly K. Macauley, Richard D. Morgenstern, Karen L. Palmer, Anthony
Paul, Nathan Richardson, and Robertson C. Williams III. "Considering a Carbon
Tax: Frequently Asked Questions." Considering a Carbon Tax: Frequently Asked
Questions. Resources for the Future, 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.rff.org/blog/2012/considering-carbon-tax-frequently-askedquestions>.
The amount of revenue raised depends on the level of the tax, how broadly it is applied,
and other factors. Most experts suggest a tax of around $25 per ton of CO2, which
would raise approximately $125 billion annually. To put this in context with current
considerations on other issues[1]: Eliminating the home mortgage interest deduction
would raise an average of $120 billion annually from 2013 to 2017. Eliminating the
tax deduction for employer payments for health insurance would raise an average of
$337 billion annually from 2013 to 2017. Foregoing a fix to the Alternative
Minimum Tax would save an average of $239 billion from 2013 to 2021. The Budget
Control Act of 2011 imposes automatic cuts (sequestration) of $55 billion annually
in defense spending and $36 billion in discretionary domestic spending from 2013 to
2021. Financing the current 2 percent reduction in payroll taxes paid by workers
requires about $110 billion annually.
Champion Briefs
62
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax could greatly contribute to economic growth if the revenues are used
correctly. A $25/ton carbon tax could cut the federal deficit by $1.25 trillion.
Aldy, Joseph E., Timothy J. Brennan, Dallas Burtraw, Carolyn Fischer, Raymond J.
Kopp, Molly K. Macauley, Richard D. Morgenstern, Karen L. Palmer, Anthony

Paul, Nathan Richardson, and Robertson C. Williams III. "Considering a Carbon
Tax: Frequently Asked Questions." Considering a Carbon Tax: Frequently Asked
Questions. Resources for the Future, 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
A carbon tax could lead to overall economic growth, if the tax revenues are used in a
way that promotes economic growth, such as cutting other taxes or reducing the
deficit. Reducing personal and corporate income taxes would promote growth because
these taxes distort employment, savings, and investment. The $125 billion in annual
revenues from a $25/ton carbon tax could allow federal personal income tax
reductions of about 15 percent or corporate income tax reductions of about 70
percent, if all carbon tax revenues were used to replace current tax revenues.
Alternatively, the federal deficit could be reduced by approximately $1.25 trillion
over 10 yearsabout the same reduction that the 2011 Joint Select Committee on
Deficit Reduction would have had to agree on to avoid mandatory spending cuts. Other
ways that the revenue could be used to promote growth include funding essential
infrastructure, basic research, or investments in human capital. Any of these uses
funding tax cuts, deficit reduction, or productive government spendingcould
promote growth. However, if revenue is not recycled in an efficient way, the annual
costs of a $25/ton carbon tax would be substantially higher and could approach $50
billion, or about $90 per ton of CO2 reduced.
Champion Briefs
63
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax of $25/ton could raise $40 trillion in tax revenue from energy
companies.
Palmer, Karen L., and Anthony Paul. "The Variability of Potential Revenue from a Tax
on Carbon." The Variability of Potential Revenue from a Tax on Carbon.
Resources for the Future, 1 May 2012. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.rff.org/research/publications/variability-potential-revenue-taxcarbon>.
Under a carbon tax of $25 per ton in 2020, for example, revenues from the
electricity sector can vary by roughly 18 percent and total carbon tax revenues can
vary by up to 7 percent. With the higher $40 tax trajectory, tax revenues vary by as
much as $25 billion per year, which is equal to roughly 30 percent of total annual
tax revenue in the electricity sector. These variations are important to keep in mind as
analysts and policymakers consider deficit reduction and revenue raising goals. Finally,
the political economy of a carbon tax proposal will depend importantly on what happens
to electricity prices locally. Palmer, Paul, and Woermans analysis suggests that some of
the regions that have low electricity prices currently will tend to be the hardest hit, in part
because of their heavy reliance on coal. Nonetheless, for moderate carbon tax rates, these
regions will continue to have low electricity prices, and existing price differences will be
reduced across regions.
Champion Briefs
64
February 2016

Warrant: Implementing a carbon tax in the United States could help reduce the large and
growing federal budget deficit as well as emissions of carbon dioxide.
Palmer, Karen L., and Anthony Paul. "The Variability of Potential Revenue from a Tax
on Carbon." The Variability of Potential Revenue from a Tax on Carbon.
Resources for the Future, 1 May 2012. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.rff.org/research/publications/variability-potential-revenue-taxcarbon>.
Implementing a carbon tax in the United States could help reduce the large and
growing federal budget deficit as well as emissions of carbon dioxide. As the federal
government looks for ways to address the fiscal challenges posed by large and
growing federal deficits, discussions about a carbon tax have quietly emerged to
identify a potentially important source of new revenue. The role a carbon tax could
play in fiscal policy efforts will depend on how much revenue such a tax is likely to
producewhich, in turn, depends on the level of the tax and how it is designed, including
which sectors are covered. The electricity sector (which currently produces around 40
percent of domestic carbon dioxide emissions) would almost certainly be covered by the
tax in some fashion, and would therefore account for a significant portion of revenues
raised.
Champion Briefs
65
February 2016

Warrant: A well designed carbon tax could increase GDP in the US by 1 percent.
Gale, William G. "The Tax Favored By Most Economists." The Brookings Institution.
The Brookings Institution, 12 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/03/12-taxing-carbon-gale>.
Although a carbon tax would be a new policy for the federal government, it has been
implemented in several other countries (though not always in the manner advocated by
economists), including the Scandinavian nations, the Netherlands, Germany, the United
Kingdom, and Australia. The Canadian provinces of Alberta and Quebec adopted carbon
taxes in 2007, followed by British Columbia in 2008. Meanwhile, California, the
9th largest economy in the world, has recently initiated a cap-and-trade system, which
auctions carbon permits to companies. Estimates suggest that a well-designed tax in
the United States could raise amounts ranging up to 1 percent of GDP, revenue that
could and should be used to reform other taxes or address the countrys substantial
and unsustainable medium- and long-term budget deficits.
Analysis: This argument explains that a carbon tax in the United States would increase
governmental revenue. Several of the card give estimates regarding how much it would increase,
but they all agree, the money can be used to supplement something in the federal budget,
whether thats deficit payments or infrastructure development. This argument lets you impact the
revenue saved to whatever sector you want. Make it your own and have fun.
Champion Briefs
66

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax Would Increase Economic Revenue

Answer: A carbon tax will not increase economic revenue; in fact, a carbon tax will decrease
government profits.
Warrant: The tax revenues received are often paid right back to consumers and producers to
make up for the price distortions in the market; this means a carbon tax wont raise any
economic revenue.
Kreutzer, David W., Ph.D. Senior Research Fellow, Energy Economics and Climate
Change Center for Data Analysis. "Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US
Economy." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/testimony/2014/11/the-impacts-of-carbontaxes-on-the-us-economy>.
Taxes have two general categories of costs. The first is the tax revenue, called the
direct burden in economic jargon. The second is the cost imposed by the taxs price
distortions, called the excess burden in economic jargon. A simple (if extreme)
example will illustrate these different impacts. Suppose there is a $3,000,000 per
gallon tax imposed on dairy products and with this tax in place a single gallon of ice
cream is purchased each year. The tax revenue (direct burden) is $3,000,000. The
excess burden is the value lost by destroying the dairy industryfarmers,
processors, vendors, etc.minus any gains by those who produce and sell whatever
substitutes replace a portion of the lost dairy products. In addition the excess
burden would include the lost value to consumers who give up ice cream, milk,
cheese, etc. for less appealing alternatives. The economic impacts outline above (and
discussed further below) include only the excess burden. At least in the Heritage
analysis, the tax revenue is rebated immediately and directly to taxpayers. What
remains is the damage done to the economy.
Champion Briefs
67
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax of $20/ton in the US could result in GDP loss of $146 billion over the
next two decades, a sharp drop in family income, over 400,000 jobs lost, and the rapid extinction
of the coal industry and the subsequent economic impacts.
In 2013 Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed a
carbon tax in their Climate Security Act of 2013.[1] The tax started at $20 per metric
ton and would rise by 5.6 percent per year, reaching $50 per metric ton by 2030 (the
endpoint for the Heritage analysis). Using the Heritage Energy Model (HEM), a
derivative of the Energy Information Administrations National Energy Modeling
System (NEMS), Heritage projected what the economic impacts would have been
had the bill become law.[2] The impacts would have included (dollar values are adjusted
for inflation): GDP loss of $146 billion in 2030, A family of four losing more than
$1,000 of income per year, Over 400,000 lost jobs by 2016, Coal production
dropping by 60 percent and coal employment dropping by more than 40 percent by
2030, Gasoline prices rising $0.20 by 2016 and $0.30 before 2030, and Electricity
prices rising 20 percent by 2017 and more than 30 percent by 2030.
Champion Briefs
68
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax of $25/ton would result in the decrease in family income by nearly
$2,000/year in 2016, average losses of nearly $1,500 per year through 2035, and increase energy
bill prices by more than $500.
In early 2013, a Heritage paper looked at the economic impacts of a carbon tax that
was included as a side case in the EIAs Annual Energy Outlook 2012.[3] That
analysis noted the following impacts of a $25 per ton tax on carbon dioxide: Cut the
income of a family of four by $1,900 per year in 2016 and lead to average losses of
$1,400 per year through 2035; Raise the family-of-four energy bill by more than
$500 per year (not counting the cost of gasoline); Cause gasoline prices to increase
by up to $0.50 gallon, or by 10 percent on an average gallon price; and Lead to an
aggregate loss of more than 1 million jobs by 2016 alone. Again, it should be noted
that the NEMS and the HEM both include the changes in behavior and investment in
energy-saving technology that firms and households will undertake to adjust to higher
prices. So, the projected income and job losses are over and above any offsetting gains
found in industries and services that provide low-carbon and no-carbon alternatives.
Champion Briefs
69
February 2016

Analysis: The above cards can answer back for any argument about a carbon tax producing
economic revenue. The first card may seem confusing but it sets up an example of what happens
when a tax like a carbon tax is placed on a good. The price distortion that occurs has to be paid
for somewhere by someone. Under the scenario laid out, the tax is rebated and given back to the
consumers immediately. In other words, a flat carbon tax doesnt raise any revenue because of
the subsequent price distortion it causes. The next two cards include calculations the Heritage
Foundation used and references carbon taxes proposed by different legislators. These cards can
give you some cold hard numbers as to the economic effects of a carbon tax. You can use these
to argue that even if there is some revenue generated by the carbon tax for the government,
consumers end up paying more for electricity, GDP decreases, and we lose hundreds of
thousands of jobs. You basically explain that the harms are worse than the benefits.
Champion Briefs
70

February 2016
PRO A carbon tax allows for green initiatives

Argument: One major benefit from a carbon tax is the massive amount of revenue it can bring
in there is no denying that America uses a lot of carbon and fossil fuels and taxing it would be
lucrative. This money can go to a variety of places that could be very beneficial to the countrys
populace. One such industry is in green energy and green programs. Ranging from solar plant
construction to new research, there is a lot to do in the green sector that would provide vast
opportunities for jobs and global leadership. The other means under which a carbon tax can
benefit green programs is that the increased cost of fossil fuels steer investment into now
comparably cheaper renewable energies.
Warrant: A carbon tax would bring in a substantial amount of revenue.
"U.S. Carbon Tax Could Halve Deficit in 10 Years: Report." Reuters. Thomson Reuters,
26 Sept. 2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-carbonidUSBRE88P0DV20120926>.
Imposing a $20 per metric ton carbon tax in the U.S. could reduce the country's budget
deficit by 50 percent over the next 10 years, a report by the Congressional Research
Service said on Tuesday. Such a tax would generate approximately $88 billion in
2012, rising to $144 billion by 2020, the report said, slashing U.S. debt by between 12
and 50 percent within a decade, depending on how high the deficit climbs.
Champion Briefs
71

Warrant: A carbon tax can steer investment into clean energies.
February 2016
Bauman, Yoram, and Shi-ling Hsu. "The Most Sensible Tax of All." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 04 July 2012. Web. 30 Nov. 2015.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/opinion/a-carbon-tax-sensible-forall.html>.
Revenue from a carbon tax would most likely decline over time as Americans reduce
their carbon emissions, but for many years to come it could pay for big reductions in
existing taxes. It would also promote energy conservation and steer investment into
clean technology and other productive economic activities.
Warrant: Funding green programs along with implementing the tax is more effective in
combatting climate problems than the tax alone.
Caperton, Richard. "A Progressive Carbon Tax Will Fight Climate Change and Stimulate
the Economy." American Progress. N.p., 6 Dec. 2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2012/12/06/47052/aprogressive-carbon-tax-will-fight-climate-change-and-stimulate-the-economy/>.
A carbon tax is not the only thing thats needed to win the fight against climate
change. The tax will be much more effective if paired with additional investments in
clean energy infrastructure both domestically and abroad. Using the revenues
accrued from the carbon tax could allow us to make those additional investments.
The Center for American Progress has previously estimated that in order to address the
climate crisis, we need to spend about $20 billion annually on researching, developing,
and deploying clean energy technologies, reducing emissions in challenging sectors such
as forestry, and meeting our international climate commitments to assist developing
nations with their pollution reductions.
Champion Briefs
72
February 2016

Warrant: Using the revenue to fund these programs is one of the best ways to drive economic
growth.
The exact mix of investments should evolve over time to reflect the impacts of the
carbon tax and ongoing developments in clean energy technologies. Generally, though,
the spending should be a mix of direct grants, tax incentives, and credit support for
deployment of renewable energy technologies, all of which can be cost-effectively
targeted to meet specific needs. This spending should be adjusted annually to recognize
the impact of an increasing carbon tax on the competitiveness of clean alternatives and
the interactions with other policies, such as state renewable portfolio standards or a
federal clean energy standard. There is also a great need to repair and replace critical
transportation and water infrastructure that helps communities deal with the
impacts of climate change. Some portion of the revenues from the carbon tax could
be directed toward these sectors. These investments have the benefit of being good
for the economy. Research shows that infrastructure investments are one of the
most effective ways to spend public money to drive growth. In this case, the
infrastructure investments would put people to work in labor-intensive sectors such
as renewable energy and energy efficiency.
Champion Briefs
73
February 2016

Warrant: Monetary incentives like a carbon tax would drive clean investments.
Porter, Eduardo. "A Carbon Tax Could Bolster Green Energy." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 18 Nov. 2014. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/business/economy/a-carbon-tax-couldbolster-wobbly-progress-in-renewable-energy.html>.
If a carbon tax were to be imposed next year, starting at $25 and rising by 5 percent a
year, the Energy Information Administration estimates, carbon dioxide emissions from
American power plants would fall to only 419 million tons by 2040, about one-fifth of
where they are today. Total carbon dioxide emissions from energy in the United States
would fall to 3.6 billion tons 1.8 billion tons less than today. By providing a
monetary incentive, economists say, such a tax would offer by far the most effective
way to encourage business and individuals to reduce their use of fossil fuels and
invest in alternatives.
Warrant: The demand for green technologies will go up significantly.
Meltzer, Joshua. "A Carbon Tax As A Driver Of Green Technology Innovation And The
Implications For International Trade." Energy Bar Association. Foundation of the
Energy Law Journal, 13 May 2014. Web. 7 Jan. 2016.
The adoption by the United States of a carbon tax will create an incentive for both
U.S. and overseas firms to innovate and develop green technologies. As outlined
above, a carbon tax can induce innovation by incentivizing U.S. firms to innovate
and produce green technologies that reduce the impact of the tax. Not all firms will
be innovators, and many will instead turn to the market to obtain the latest green
technologies to reduce their CO2 emissions. This demand for green technologies by the
worlds largest economy will also create a strong global incentive for the development of
new green technologies in other countries.
Champion Briefs
74
February 2016

Warrant: There is bipartisan support for a carbon tax if the revenue is spent on renewable
energy.
Guest, Greta. "Support for Carbon Tax Grows When Revenue Fuels Renewable Energy |
University of Michigan News." Michigan News. UMich, 22 July 2014. Web. 07
Jan. 2016. <http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22300-support-for-carbon-taxgrows-when-revenue-fuels-renewable-energy>.
A carbon tax with revenues used to fund renewable energy programs gained
support from 60 percent of Americans, according to a University of Michigan poll.
That's the highest among tax options presented and one that crossed the political
divide with majorities of Democrats, Republicans and Independents saying they
would support the tax, according to the National Surveys on Energy and Environment.
The survey is a joint effort of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy at U-M's
Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy and the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion at
Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pa. "Conventional wisdom is that carbon tax is a
political non-starter," said Barry Rabe, U-M professor of public policy and director of the
Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy. "But there may be broader support for such
a tax than is commonly believed, depending upon how revenues from that tax are
used."
Champion Briefs
75

Warrant: Renewable energies create jobs.
February 2016
William, Jacob. "Renewable Resources: The Impact of Green Energy on the Economy."
Business.com. N.p., 22 Oct. 2015. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.business.com/entrepreneurship/the-impact-of-green-energy-on-theeconomy/>.
Making the switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources could provide the
much-needed kick to the economy. According to a 2007 study from the University of
Tennessee, the state of Pennsylvania could generate about 44,000 new jobs and
increase net farm income by $460 million by adopting renewable energy. Among all
renewable sources of energy, bioenergy arguably has the most lasting influence, locally
and regionally. This could be due to the fact that the fuel is created, prepared and
transported within a small area. It is also extremely labor-intensive. Hydropower and
wind power constructions create most jobs during the project development and
construction phase. After the system is completed and commissioned, only a few
personnel are required to carry out the limited operational work. Data released by a
trade association of wind and marine energy providers suggest that three to four
indirect jobs were generated for every person employed directly within the wind
industry.
Analysis: This argument is designed to show benefits in two different arenas the economy, and
the environment. By diversifying the impacts, the argument has a much higher likelihood of
standing longer in the round because even if your opponents have a great response to the
economic side of things, you can still emphasize the environmental benefits to the judge, and
vice versa. Survivable arguments will be very important on this topic because there will be so
much clash there are only so many types of argumentation that can be made about
environmental protection, so trying to address several in one contention can afford you more of
an opportunity to outweigh your opponents given the large amount of clash that is expected later
in the round. This argument also extends the general train of thought that a carbon tax will be
good for the environment by not just reducing emissions in the immediate future by reducing
demand for fossil fuels, but also investing in renewable energies, it makes those benefits much
more long term. It can also work well with other contentions in the Pro case for example the
idea of the US being a global leader in green efforts, also provided in this brief.
Champion Briefs
76

February 2016
A2 A carbon tax allows for green initiatives

Answer: Green energy hurts the economy.
Warrant: 9 jobs are lost for every 4 created through green energy.
Cheplick, Thomas. "Green Job Efforts Kill 2.2 for Every One Created." Heartland
Institute. N.p., 1 July 2009. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/07/01/green-job-efforts-kill22-every-one-created>.
Optimistically treating European Commission partially funded data, we find that for
every renewable energy job that the State manages to finance, Spains experience
cited by President Obama as a model reveals with high confidence, by two different
methods, that the U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9
jobs lost for every 4 created.
Champion Briefs
77

Warrant: Green investment by the government destroys wealth.
February 2016
Cheplick, Thomas. "Green Job Efforts Kill 2.2 for Every One Created." Heartland
Institute. N.p., 1 July 2009. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2009/07/01/green-job-efforts-kill22-every-one-created>.
The more than two-to-one cost paid in conventional jobs to create a single green job
came as little surprise to Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, national spokesman for the Cornwall
Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, a coalition of religious leaders and scientists
concerned about environmental issues. Calzadas study stunningly quantifies the actual
result of green jobs programs in Spain: 2.2 jobs destroyed for every one job created,
Beisner said. That should be no surprise to anyone with the most elementary
understanding of economics. Ventures that create wealth attract private investment
by offering profit. Ventures that can only get investment by force of law dont create
wealththey destroy it. Creating jobs to create wealth makes sense; creating them
to destroy it doesnt. Green jobs programs destroy both wealth and the other jobs
that wealth could have supported, Beisner continued.

Warrant: Clean energy costs more for investment, so green companies actually cause net job
loss in other sectors as well.
Bailey, Ronald. "The Unseen Consequences of "Green Jobs"" Reason.com. N.p., 08 Feb.
2011. Web. 07 Jan. 2016. <https://reason.com/archives/2011/02/08/seen-greenjobs-unseen-layoffs>.
Even more disturbingly, many green job studies have no analyses of job losses.
Clean energy costs more than conventional energy, which means consumers and
businesses will have less income with which to buy and invest. This reduces their
consumption of other goods and services, resulting in job losses in those sectors
one of Bastiat's "unseen" effects. In addition, many studies simultaneously count on
protectionist policies to exclude clean energy imports while assuming that domestic
companies will be freely exporting to other countries.
Champion Briefs
78
February 2016

Analysis: This response is meant to turn the impacts provided by the Pro against them. One of
the things green energy activists talk about the most is how great the industry would be for the
US economy. However, the evidence above attempts to prove otherwise showing that even if
there is space for the industry to exist, and although it may create jobs in its own sector, those
jobs and that space comes at the cost of other industries that contribute far more to the US
economy, proving a net harm. This is important to explain, because it means you can circumvent
your opponents impacts note that yes, the jobs they discuss may be created, but in the process
they are still on net increasing unemployment. If the judge gets analysis saying their impacts are
true, but our evidence demonstrates that as a bad thing it makes it very hard for your opponents
to defend their point, as you ceded their contention and instead just turned the end result of it
against them.
Answer: Oil and fossil fuels are great for the economy.
Warrant: Building up domestic oil supplies creates millions of jobs.
Hemphill, Thomas. "How Obamas Energy Policy Will Kill Jobs." American Enterprise
Institute, 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 7 Jan. 2016. <https://www.aei.org/publication/howobamas-energy-policy-will-kill-jobs-2/>.
Under a scenario that encourages the development of new and existing domestic energy
resources, Wood Mackenzie estimates that by 2015 an additional 1.27 million barrels of
oil equivalent (BOE) could be produced, rising to 10.4 million BOE by 2030. That would
be a 47 percent increase over the estimated 2030 production levels under a current
development path case. Furthermore, under the new development path, there would
be a potential increase of 1 million new oil and natural gas jobs by 2018, and 1.4
million new jobs by 2030, while adding cumulative potential government revenue of
$36 billion by 2015, and nearly $803 billion by 2030.
Champion Briefs
79

Warrant: Increasing oil prices threaten one of Americas key sectors.
February 2016
Americas manufacturing sector is another area of robust job growth, and
manufacturing companies have hired almost 400,000 new workers since the
beginning of 2010. U.S. energy and tax policies have important implications for the
manufacturing sector because of the energy intensity of Americas industrial sector.
In 2010, it was estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration that roughly
one-third of total U.S. delivered energy is consumed by the manufacturing sector.
Additionally, total industrial demand for delivered energy will increase 16 percent by
2035. Nevertheless, the government estimates that fossil fuel consumption will decline
only modestly, from 83 percent of total U.S. energy demand currently, to 77 percent in
2035. Therefore, traditional energy sources of oil and natural gas will continue to play a
major role in providing stable supplies of affordable energy to Americas factories. To
the extent that oil and natural gas companies are targeted with higher taxes or
unfavorable regulatory policies by the Obama administration, American
manufacturers will be hurt by higher energy prices, which could jeopardize job
growth in one of the economys key sectors.
Analysis: This response is similar to the one above it is simply demonstrating just how good
the oil industry is for the American economy. Because the green initiatives discussed by Pro
innately come from the destruction of a different industry (the only reason the green initiatives
exist based on the Pros own links are because the carbon tax takes money from the oil industry
and encourages investments away from it), explain to the judge that it is important to consider
the benefits coming from both of them. In this case, the evidence shows that the oil industry is
far more important to the American economy, winning you the argument.
Champion Briefs
80

February 2016
PRO A Carbon Tax Would Decrease Carbon Emissions

Argument: A carbon tax would decrease the amount of carbon emissions and therefore help
combat climate change.
Warrant: In Australia, the carbon tax is linked to a drop in overall carbon emissions by 1.4%.
The electricity sector, most impacted by the carbon tax, fell 4%.
Milman, Oliver. "Australia Records Biggest Emissions Drop in a Decade as Carbon
Tax Kicks in." The Guardian. N.p., 23 Dec. 2013. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/24/australia-recordsbiggest-emissions-drop-in-a-decade-as-carbon-tax-kicks-in>.
Australias greenhouse gas emissions dropped 1.4% in the second full year of
the carbon price the largest recorded annual decrease in the past decade. Data
released by the Department of the Environment (pdf) showed that emissions in
the June quarter rose 0.4%. However, annual emissions to June 2014 dropped
1.4%. This period includes the second 12 months of the carbon pricing system,
which was introduced by the previous federal government in 2012. The Coalition
fulfilled an election pledge by abolishing carbon pricing in July. Emissions reduction
accelerated during the two-year span of carbon pricing, with emissions edging down
by 0.8% in the first 12 months of the system. The latest greenhouse gas inventory
showed emissions from the electricity sector, the industry most affected by
carbon pricing, fell 4% in the year to June.
Champion Briefs
81
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax in the US would provide an incentive for a reduction in greenhouse
gas emissions.
"Policy Options for Reducing CO2 Emissions." (n.d.): n. pag. CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Feb. 2008. Web.

6 Jan. 2016. <http://www.carbontax.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/04/Congressional-Budget-Office-Policy-Options-forReducing-CO2-Emissions-2008.pdf>.
A tax on emissions would be the most efficient incentive-based option for
reducing emissions and could be relatively easy to implement. If it was
coordinated among major emitting countries, it would help minimize the cost of
achieving a global target for emissions by providing consistent incentives for
reducing emissions around the world. If other major nations used cap-and-trade
programs rather than taxes on emissions, a U.S. tax could still provide roughly
comparable incentives for emission reductions if the tax rate each year was set
to equal the expected price of allowances under those programs. (See Summary
Table 1 for a qualitative comparison of selected policies.)
Champion Briefs
82
February 2016

Warrant: In British Columbia, the carbon tax significantly decreased consumption of fossil
fuels.
"The Case for a Carbon Tax." The New York Times. The New York Times, 06 June
2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/thecase-for-a-carbon-tax.html?_r=0>.
British Columbia started phasing in a carbon tax in 2008 and used the revenue to
reduce income taxes. The provinces fossil fuel use fell after the tax was put in place,
even as fuel consumption increased in the rest of Canada, and the economy of
British Columbia has grown faster than that of the rest of the country. The tax
is currently capped at 30 Canadian dollars per ton of carbon, or about 24 cents per gallon
of gasoline. A carbon tax would also be much easier to administer than some of the
other climate change policies that many leaders, including President
Obama and Gov. Jerry Brown of California, have backed. One of those policies is
cap-and-trade, an approach that limits overall emissions and allows businesses to buy and
sell permits that entitle them to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The
United States used cap-and-trade successfully in the 1990s to reduce the pollution that
causes acid rain. But a European Union trading system for greenhouse gas emissions
has not been as effective.
Champion Briefs
83
February 2016

Warrant: While critics may argue a unilateral move from the United States to tax carbon would
do little to decrease carbon emissions, this ignores the value of a permanent price signal
movement by the US.
Gale, William. "Carbon Tax: A Win-win for the Economy and the Environment." The
Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 12 Mar. 2013. Web.
06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-
VOX/2013/0312/Carbon-tax-A-win-win-for-the-economy-and-the-environment>.
Critics also fear that a unilateral U.S. carbon tax would hurt the domestic
economy while doing little to reduce world-wide carbon emissions or levels. This
view, however, understates the value of a permanent price signal for research
and development and the social and environmental value of emissions
reductions that would come from U.S. action. It also discounts the experience of
other countries that have unilaterally created carbon taxes. There is no evidence that
they paid a significant price, or any price at all, in terms of economic growth.
Moreover, if there is ever going to be multilateral action to limit carbon emissions,
the US as the largest per-capita emitter of carbon dioxide needs to take a leading
role. A carbon tax isnt perfect. But relative to the alternatives, it has an enormous
amount to offer.
Champion Briefs
84
February 2016

Warrant: Unilateral action by the US would decrease carbon emissions and could put the
United States in a position to pressure other countries to decrease their emissions as well.
Nuccitelli, Dana. "95% Consensus of Expert Economists: Cut Carbon Pollution." The
Guardian, 4 Jan. 2016. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2016/jan/04/consensus-of-economists-cut-carbon-pollution>.
Quite obviously an international agreement made by 195 nations around the world is the
antithesis of unilateral action. However, 77% of expert economists agree that
unilateral action would be appropriate in any case, directly contradicting Rubios
comments. Additionally, 82% of the experts agreed that by implementing climate
policies, the US could strategically induce other countries to cut their carbon
pollution.
Analysis: This argument is simple. A carbon tax in the United States would actually decrease
carbon emissions. While there is quite a bit of evidence out there on the Con side to suggest a
unilateral move by the US wouldnt do much to reduce emissions because of leakage, the last
two cards indicate a move from the US is better than nothing at all. Add some cards to this about
why global warming is bad and a card that says carbon dioxide emissions contribute to global
warming, and youve got a solid argument. Good luck!
Champion Briefs
85

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax Would Decrease Carbon Emission

Answer: A carbon tax adopted by the US would not decrease carbon emissions.
Warrant: In order for a carbon tax to be effective, it has to be uniformed across multiple
countries; theres no indication this would happen which means the carbon tax wouldnt be
successful at decreasing emissions.
Goulder, Lawrence C. Tax Policy and the Economy. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T., 1993. 6364. Stanford University and NBER. M.I.T. Press, Jan. 1992. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10840.pdf>.
A carbon tax would raise unit costs to producers of fossil fuels and to users of fossil-fuelintensive products. If the tax were implemented worldwide at a uniform rate, for
given industries the global distribution of the changes in unit costs would be
relatively uniform as well. The effects of the tax on the international competitive
position of firms in given industries would be relatively small.11 This is one attraction of
multilateral carbon tax policies relative to unilateral initiatives. A multilateral approach
also has the virtue of efficiency.12 Global efficiency is served to the extent that marginal
costs (including external costs) and benefits approach equality in all uses of fossil fuels in
all regions of the globe. Uncoordinated, unilateral policies involving different tax
rates would probably be less efficient.
Champion Briefs
86
February 2016

Warrant: Unilateral action on climate change is virtually useless; the emissions levels wont
change.
Green, Kenneth P. "Carbon Taxes Offer Economic Pain for Little to No Environmental
Gain." Financial Post. N.p., 4 Apr. 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/carbon-taxes-pain-for-nobenefit>.
Whether or not one believes that climate change is a modest, moderate or major
threat, unilateral actions by individual countries particularly small countries such
as Canada offer virtually no benefits, but considerable costs. And the idea that such
actions will lead by example flies in the face of what is now 20 years of experience
with efforts to implement global greenhouse gas control regimes. Whet it comes to
climate policy, nobody is playing follow the leader. Carbon taxes, far from being
the panacea that many portray them as, offer economic pain for little to no
environmental gain.
Warrant: It makes little sense to think that a carbon tax created in the United States could serve
as the basis for an international agreement.
Cass, Oren. "The Carbon-tax Shell Game." MIT Energy Initiative. N.p., 15 July 2015.
Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://mitei.mit.edu/news/carbon-tax-shell-game>.
Placing domestic emissions to the side, the pro-tax case quickly shifts to the international
scene, where U.S. "leadership" in the form of a unilateral domestic carbon tax is
described as necessary for and perhaps even the lynchpin of global action. As a
preliminary matter, conceding in advance and then arriving at the table without any
bargaining chips is a very poor negotiating strategy. To the extent such an
agreement could move forward, moreover, it makes little sense to suggest that our
weak domestic action would serve as the basis for a strong global agreement.
Champion Briefs
87
February 2016

Warrant: Unilateral action by the US to adopt a carbon tax would do little to nothing against the
fight on climate change. Because of carbon leakage, or the unregulated amount of carbon
emissions from other countries, any emissions decrease by the US would be offset by other
higher emitting countries.
Morgan, Derrick. "A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income
Americans Without Helping the Environment." The Heritage Foundation. N.p.,
2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/acarbon-tax-would-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-income-americans-withouthelping-the-environment>.
Just as in a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade system, a unilateral U.S. carbon tax would
likely further increase foreign emissions because of a phenomenon called carbon
leakage. As energy-intensive industry relocates from the United States to other
nations such as Mexico, Vietnam, or China (already the worlds largest emitter of
greenhouse gases), GHG emissions and toxic pollutants could increase more than
they would if those industries remained in the United States.
Analysis: In order for the Pro to win this argument, there has to be some type of admission that
multilateral action would happen on carbon tax (i.e. other countries would join in on the battle to
fight carbon emissions.) These cards in the answer section are pretty clear unilateral action by
the US to tax carbon will only hurt the US economy, wont create the framework for an
international carbon tax, and unilateral action by the US will do little to nothing to impact the
overall global carbon emissions levels.
Champion Briefs
88

February 2016
PRO A carbon tax will spur investment in carbon-capture tech

Argument: The implementation of a carbon tax in the United States would provide the push
necessary to invest and research carbon-capture technology, which would help decrease carbon
dioxide emissions from coal-burning plants.
Warrant: Advanced carbon-capture technology is necessary to reduce/slow climate change
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/business/economy/a-carbon-tax-couldbolster-wobbly-progress-in-renewable-energy.html>.
The International Energy Agency now projects that installed global nuclear capacity in
2025 will fall 5 percent, to 24 percent below what will be needed to stay on the safe side
of climate change. And carbon capture technologies, which will be essential if the
world is to keep consuming any form of fossil fuel, remain hampered by high costs,
meager investment and scant political commitment. The unrelenting rise in coal
use without deployment of carbon capture and storage is fundamentally
incompatible with climate change objectives, noted the International Energy
Agency in its Technology Perspectives report. Despite the falling costs of renewable
energy in the United States, the Energy Information Administrations baseline
assumptions project that in 2040 only 16.5 percent of electricity generation will come
from renewable energy sources, up from some 13 percent today. More than two-thirds
will come from coal and gas. Without some carbon capture and storage technology,
drastic climate change is almost certainly unavoidable.
Champion Briefs
89
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon capture technology is too expensive for plants to implement; without a carbon
tax theres no incentive to research the technology and find a way to reduce its cost.
Heinberg, Richard. "Does 'Clean Coal' Technology Have a Future?" WSJ. The Wall
Street Journal, 23 Nov. 2014. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/does-clean-coal-technology-have-a-future1416779351>.
For years, Americans have seen commercials touting clean coal, while politicians on
both sides of the aisle have extolled its promise. The technology to capture carbon
emissions from coal-fired power plants has been tried and tested. Yet today almost
none of the nations coal-fueled plants are clean. Why the delay? The biggest
problem for clean coal is that the economics dont work. Carbon capture and
storage, or CCS, is extremely expensive. That gives the power industry little
incentive to implement it in the absence of a substantial carbon tax.
Champion Briefs
90
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax can be an effective incentive for investment and research into carbon
capture and storage (CCS); the carbon tax in Norway pressured petroleum companies to
research and use CCS technology.
Price, Jeffrey P. "Effectiveness of Financial Incentives for Carbon Capture and Storage."
(n.d.): 5. IEA Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme. Chevron, 19 Dec. 2014. Web. 4
Jan. 2016.
<http://ieaghg.org/docs/General_Docs/Publications/Effectiveness%20of%20CCS
%20Incentives.pdf>.
Carbon taxes have been implemented in several countries and two Canadian provinces.
These including Australia (now repealed); British Columbia; Chile; Costa Rica; Finland;
France; Iceland; Ireland; Mexico; Netherlands; New Zealand (now repealed); Norway;
Quebec; Sweden and Switzerland. 9 A carbon tax can be an effective financial
incentive for CCS if: (1) the tax applies to an industrial or power process from
which CO2 can be captured; (2) the costs of CO2 capture, transport and storage
total less than the amount of tax that would be otherwise paid; (3) the project with
CCS is still financially viable even after the expenditures on CCS; and (4) the tax is
expected to continue through a financially-significant portion of the life of the
project. Carbon taxes in Norway on offshore oil and gas production have met these
criteria and been effective incenting CCS. In all the other jurisdictions, carbon taxes do
not cover the sectors in which CCS would be used, the carbon tax has been far below the
cost of CCS, or has not been permanent enough to stimulate investment. In Norway, the
carbon tax enacted in 1991 applies to various sectors of the economy at different tax
rates. The initiation of CO2 emission taxes for petroleum-related activities on the
continental shelf was a driver for the state-owned Statoil to engage in CCS. Statoil
credits the carbon tax for stimulating investments in CCS at the Sleipner and
Snhvit projects. Norway increased the tax rate for offshore oil and gas production 210
NOK to 410 NOK per ton of CO2 in 2013, nearly a doubling of the tax rate.
Champion Briefs
91
February 2016

Warrant: Currently, US companies do not research or use carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technology because theres isnt an incentive to do so. A carbon tax would provide this incentive.
Exchange Monitor Publications & Public Forums 9.8 (n.d.): 6. Exchange Monitor. GHG
Reduction Technologies Monitor, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 4 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.exchangemonitor.com/PDFs/GHG-vol-9-no-8.pdf>.
In a separate panel at the ARPA-E Summit, NRG Energy President and CEO David
Crane said the U.S. power industry doesnt expect a price on carbon in the near-term. As
a human being and a father of five, I do believe that climate change is the single greatest
issue that mankind faces, he said. But lets not delude ourselves. The power industry
in America today is not solving for carbon because no one has told them to solve for
carbon and no one has put [out] a carbon price incentive, whether it be cap-andtrade or a carbon tax. No one has put that on the table, and no one I know believes
its coming anytime soon. He added that although NRG Energy started pricing carbon
into its forward models in 2008 when President Obama came into office, it since took it
out in the last few years, which he said is really sad.
Champion Briefs
92
February 2016

Warrant: The introduction of a carbon tax will make it cost-effective for energy plants to utilize
carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and lead to a change of carbon emission in power
sector.
"CO2 Mitigation Potential and Cost Analysis of CCS in Power Sector in Guangdong
Province, China." 5.1 Application of CCS in Power Sector under Different
Carbon Taxes. Energy Research Institute of the National Development and
Reform Commission, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/co2-mitigation-potential-andcost-analysis-ccs-power-sector-guangdong-province-china/51-application-ccspower-sector-under-different-carbon-taxes>.
Considering the actual situation of Guangdong, even without carbon tax, the market share
of some technologies, such as hydropower, wind power, nuclear power, will become
close to the maximum application potential, by considering the current policies adopted
by Guangdong. Therefore, the levy of carbon tax will not be able bring additional market
share for these technologies. On the contrary, for other technologies such as gas power
and carbon capture technology, the introduction of carbon tax will be able to
increase their cost-effectiveness and application scales in the market. For the gasfired power unit, it is mainly because its higher generation efficiency and lower carbon
emission per unit of energy consumption that it can obtain higher cost-competitiveness
than coal-fired unit after the introduction of carbon tax. Even though, due to the relatively
high price of gas and the restriction of gas supply, the share of gas-fired power could not
rise substantially unless a very high carbon tax is levied. For the CCS technology, it
becomes cost effective after the introduction of carbon tax because the additional
cost caused by high carbon tax could be avoided when the carbon is captured. In
this sense, the introduction of higher carbon tax will mainly affect the CCS
application and then lead to a change of carbon emission in power sector.
Champion Briefs
93
February 2016

Warrant: As carbon taxes rise, the generating capacity of carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technology will increase to meet the demand needs.
"CO2 Mitigation Potential and Cost Analysis of CCS in Power Sector in Guangdong
Province, China." 5.1 Application of CCS in Power Sector under Different
Carbon Taxes. Energy Research Institute of the National Development and
Reform Commission, 1 Mar. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<https://hub.globalccsinstitute.com/publications/co2-mitigation-potential-andcost-analysis-ccs-power-sector-guangdong-province-china/51-application-ccspower-sector-under-different-carbon-taxes>.
As to the overall application potential, when carbon tax rate rises, the generating
capacity with carbon capture technology will gradually rise. It will account for 1% of
total installed capacity when carbon tax reaches 350 RMB/tCO2 and 5% of total when
carbon tax reaches 500 RMB/tCO2. After that, when carbon tax continues to rise to
higher level, the proportion of CCS technology will remain at a relative steady level
and increase to 6% at highest (see figure 19).
Analysis: This argument is pretty easy to understand. If the price of producing products with
carbon increases, so does the incentive to create technology that lowers that cost. Right now
theres not any real incentive for the industry to explore ways to reduce the cost of carbon
capture and storage (CCS), but that would change if the cost of emitting carbon increased.
Champion Briefs
94

February 2016
A2 A carbon tax will spur investment in carbon-capture tech.

Answer: A carbon tax will not spur investment and research into carbon-capture technology.
Warrant: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) requires 40 percent more fuel than traditional
carbon dioxide disposal techniques. This cost and inefficiency doesnt go away even with a
carbon tax; in Norway, the high carbon tax implemented didnt spur investment into CCS as it
proved too expensive.
Brown, Paul. "Once Hailed As Solution to Climate Change, Carbon Capture and Storage
'Is Not Happening'" Climate News Network. EcoWatch, 02 July 2015. Web. 04
Jan. 2016. <http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/02/carbon-sequestration-nothappening/>.
Collecting liquid carbon dioxide by pipeline from large plants powered by coal is
designed to allow steel, cement and chemical industries to continue to operate without
making climate change worse. But the cost is proving so high that plants are not being
built. This is partly because the penalties imposed by governments in the form of a
carbon tax or charges for pollution permits are so low that there is no incentive for carbon
capture. Another problem is that the technology for removing carbon from fossil fuels,
either before or after combustion, uses 40 percent more fuel to achieve the same
amount of power. In conferences designed to promote the technology enthusiasts
wonder how long they can continue, despite the fine promises that it was this
technology that would save the oil and gas industry, Gjefsen says. He gives the
example of Norway, which has invested billions of kroner in the research and
development of CCS. In 2007 the former prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, said that CCS
would be Norways moon landing. However, a full-scale treatment plant at the
industrial site at Mongstad never came to fruition. The technology proved too energyintensive and costly for large-scale use.
Champion Briefs
95
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology requires tremendous amounts of fuel;
some estimates project a plants energy costs would increase 70-80 percent as a result of CCS
adoption.
And theres more. Capturing and burying just 38% of the carbon released from current
U.S. coal combustion would entail pipelines, compressors and pumps on a scale
equivalent to the size of the nations oil industry. And while bolting CCS technology
onto existing power plants is possible, it is inefficient. A new generation of plants
would do the job much betterbut that means replacing roughly 600 currentgeneration power plants. Altogether, the Energy Department estimates that
wholesale electricity prices with the initial generation of CCS technology would be
70% to 80% higher than current coal-based power.
Champion Briefs
96
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology does not address the societal and
environmental costs of coal use.
CCS also doesnt address the full range of coals impact on society. It wont banish
high rates of lung disease, because it doesnt eliminate all the pollutants from the
combustion process or deal with the coal dust from mining and transport. It also
doesnt address the environmental devastation of mountaintop removal mining.
Warrant: Government investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) distracts from US
dependency on fossil fuels. Additionally, even government incentives do not make the CCS
projects cost-effective.
Stephens, Jennie C. "Time to Stop Investing in Carbon Capture and Storage." Wiley
Online Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-02/time-to-stop-investing-in-carboncapture-and-storage>.
Government investment in carbon capture and storage (CCS) is a large and
expensive fossil-fuel subsidy with a low probability of eventual societal benefit.
Within the tight resource constrained environments that almost all governments are
currently operating in, it is irresponsible to sustain this type of subsidy. CCS has been
promoted as a bridging technology to provide CO2 reductions until non-fossil-fuel
energy is ramped up. But the past decade of substantial government investment and
slow progress suggests that the challenges are many, and it will take longer to build
the CCS bridge than to shift away from fossil-fuels. Optimism about the potential of
CCS is based primarily on research on technical feasibility, but very little attention
Champion Briefs
97

February 2016
Stephens, Jennie C. "Time to Stop Investing in Carbon Capture and Storage." Wiley
Online Library. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 20 Dec. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-01-02/time-to-stop-investing-in-carboncapture-and-storage>.
has been paid to the societal costs of governments perpetuating fossil-fuels or to the
sociopolitical requirements of long-term regulation of CO2 stored underground.
Deep systemic change is needed to alter the disastrous global fossil-fuel trajectory.
Government investment in CCS and other fossil-fuel technologies must end so that
the distraction and complacency of the false sense of security such investments
provide are removed. Instead of continuing to invest billions in CCS, governments
should invest more aggressively in technologies, policies, and initiatives that will
accelerate a smooth transition to non-fossil-fuel-based energy systems. We need to
divest from perpetuating a fossil-fuel infrastructure, and invest instead in social and
technical changes that will help us prepare to be more resilient in an increasingly unstable
and unpredictable future.
Analysis: These answers are two-fold. First, just because the cost of carbon emissions increases,
doesnt necessarily mean research into carbon capture and storage (CCS) becomes suddenly
economically efficient. Make the pro point out that there is a price where it becomes
economically efficient, but ask if thats the price of the carbon tax they assume the pro is setting.
Itll be really hard for them to pin down an exact amount. Thats where the first two cards
become persuasive if they dont know, how do we know its enough to make CCS
economically efficient? The next two cards basically explain hat CCS distracts from real
conversations about how dangerous coal usage is for the environment and public health. CCS
could ultimately prevent us from addressing real addressing environmental impacts of climate
change.
Champion Briefs
98

February 2016
PRO A Carbon Tax Would be Easy for Consumers to Adopt

Argument: A carbon tax is a less invasive government policy, which makes it easier for
consumers to adopt and a much more politically popular plan.
Warrant: The tax wouldnt tell consumers how many cars they can drive or the amount miles
they could put on their cars in a year; rather, a carbon tax creates a greater cost parity between
energy sources and operates at the margins of peoples decision-making
Kerr, Alex Rice. "Why We Need a Carbon Tax." University of California, Davis 34.1
(2010): 75. UCLA Davis. UCLA Law Review, 2010. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
<http://environs.law.ucdavis.edu/volumes/34/1/kerr.pdf>.
Assuming that encouraging the clean tech revolution is needed to both avoid the negative
consequences of depleting the fossil fuel resource and to capitalize on an economic
opportunity, the next point of discussion is why a carbon tax is better than other policy
proposals. A carbon tax is attractive because it pulls the policy lever only slightly. It
nudges natural consumption and development in a sensible direction, but does not
require a dramatic alteration peoples behavior.40 A carbon tax avoids mandates
that people stop driving their environmentally noncompliant diesel trucks, or that a
city buy thirty percent of its electricity from wind turbines. Rather, a small fee on
carbon creates greater cost parity between energy sources and operates at the
margins of peoples decision-making. Businesses may tip toward greener ventures if the
cost margins are slightly improved. At the consumer level, a difference of five cents on
the dollarnot thirtybetween clean and carbon energy may allow people to opt for the
more environmentally responsible choice. Such a nudge does not tell people what they
must not do, but protects our freedom of choice in the marketplace.
Champion Briefs
99
February 2016

Warrant: Support for biofuels is widely popular among republicans and democrats
Much of biofuels success is attributable to their wide-ranging political palatability.
Biofuels please such diverse constituents as farmers, investors, corporations, and
environmentalists. In a recent congressional hearing regarding biofuels, a DuPont
executive stated, [o]n one side of me were the red-state corn growers, and on the other
side were the blue-state edgy, Ivy League-educated NGO types. And they were all in
support. This is the only truly bipartisan issue that Ive seen in years.98
Regionalized production is another attractive aspect of biofuels. A number of companies
are calling for locally harvested crops, capitalizing on the strengths of each climate and
bringing jobs to numerous localities.99 Instead of importing oil from the Middle East and
Venezuela, local communities can produce biofuel, which reinvests money in local jobs
and products.
Warrant: And a carbon tax could apply a slow but steady pressure on consumers to adopt
biofuels and move away from carbon based fuels.
Despite their promise and rapid development, the solar, wind, and biofuel industries still
need governmental support to nudge them over the tipping point. The industries are in
their nascent stages, and the implementation of a carbon tax could create a powerful
incentive for interest and investment. A carbon tax would affect a clear price signal
to put downward pressure on carbon consumption and upward pressure on the
adoption of clean technologies.
Champion Briefs
100
February 2016

Warrant: Americans want political action on climate change and widely support a carbon tax.
Spross, Jeff. "New Poll Finds Overwhelming Support For A Carbon Tax Over Spending
Cuts For Deficit Reduction." Think Progress. N.p., 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 05 Jan.
2016. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/04/1538661/new-poll-findsoverwhelming-support-for-a-carbon-tax-over-spending-cuts-for-deficitreduction/>.
A recent poll found Americans would prefer a carbon tax to cutting spending for
deficit reduction by a huge margin. Commissioned by Friends of the Earth and
conducted by the Mellman Group in December, the poll is the latest evidence that actions
on climate change and efforts to tax or cap carbon emissions specifically are not
the inevitable political losers assumed by beltway pundits. Another recent study by
The Yale Project on Climate Change Communication determined that bipartisan
majorities of voters felt action on global warming should be a priority, would
consider a politicians views on the matter when voting, and support regulating
carbon as a pollutant.
Champion Briefs
101
February 2016

Warrant: Voters support a carbon tax, even after hearing its counterarguments.
Spross, Jeff. "New Poll Finds Overwhelming Support For A Carbon Tax Over Spending
Cuts For Deficit Reduction." Think Progress. N.p., 04 Feb. 2013. Web. 05 Jan.
2016. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/04/1538661/new-poll-findsoverwhelming-support-for-a-carbon-tax-over-spending-cuts-for-deficitreduction/>.
Among other things, the Friends of the Earth poll found that on the carbon tax:
Voters overwhelmingly prefer it to cutting spending. When presented with two
options for reducing the deficit a carbon tax on big polluters such as oil, gas, and
other companies, versus spending cuts for programs like education, Social Security,
Medicare and environmental protection 67 percent favored the carbon tax. 59 percent
favored it strongly. Voters support it regardless of how its used. If revenue from the
carbon tax is used to close the budget deficit, 70 percent favored a carbon tax, with 51
percent favoring it strongly. If revenue was to both shore up the budget and invest in
clean energy jobs and programs to fight climate change, 72 percent favored the tax, with
54 percent in the strongly camp. Voters support it even after hearing the counterarguments. After being presented with suggestions that this is the wrong time to pass a
new tax on every business and consumer in America, that consumers will pay higher
prices for gas and groceries, and that it might even fail to reduce emissions, over twothirds of voters still favored the carbon tax and once again, most who favored it did so
strongly. Voters support it even when theyre Republican. Not surprisingly, 93
percent of Democrats favored a carbon tax. What was surprising was that 66 percent of
Republicans did.
Champion Briefs
102
February 2016

Analysis: This argument has a few interesting parts. The very first card points out that a carbon
tax would be relatively easy for consumers to adopt, since it applies slight downward pressure on
prices and doesnt demand a dramatic and sudden shift in consumption. Additionally, a carbon
tax is widely supported by American voters. This means that if we were to pass a carbon tax, not
only would voters support it, it would be relatively easy for them to adapt to. The other cards
explain that a carbon tax puts pressure on carbon usage, which could probably shift people over
to more biofuels. And, according to one of the cards in this argument, biofuels are extremely
popular among both parties. A carbon tax and its effects are support by both side and would be a
win-win.
Champion Briefs
103

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax Would be Easy for Consumers to Adopt

Answer: A carbon tax is not politically popular; cap-and-trade is easier to sell
Warrant: A carbon tax pushes the cost onto the consumers, but cap-and-trade distributes the
cost among the producers. Consumers are much more likely to support cap-and-trade due in part
to most voters natural aversion to taxes.
Cap-and-trade supporters value its opaqueness. One argument suggests that a cap-andtrade system may be more politically acceptable because it obscures the imposition of a
carbon cost on society.150 This argument resonates with the main criticism of a carbon
taxthat it is a taxand holds some water. Unlike a carbon tax, which makes clear
that society is carrying the burden of consuming carbon, a cap-and-trade system
integrates costs at the production level, outside the of the eye of public scrutiny. In a
cap-and-trade system, higher carbon costs are negotiated on market floors and
behind political and corporate doors. Those costs are then passed to the consumer
as higher packaged prices for goods and services. The public is less aware of its role in
paying for carbon emissions than if its elected representatives used political capital to
enact a new tax. Ultimately, Americans tried-and-true resistance to new taxes is a
material obstacle that may necessitate a search for alternative forms of cost
imposition.
Champion Briefs
104
February 2016

Warrant: The American public has a strong aversion to taxes; a carbon tax would be difficult to
sell to voters.
(2010): 87-88. UCLA Davis. UCLA Law Review, 2010. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
To successfully implement a carbon tax, the government must overcome the publics
aversion to taxes. The word tax triggers a knee-jerk reaction in much of the
American public. For this reason, many tax-like programs seek to manipulate
public perception by avoiding the word tax. Seattle, for example, places what amounts
to a twenty-cent tax on plastic grocery bags and calls it an advance disposal fee.134
California and Oregon collect a system benefit charge as part of utility bills.135 In
California, the fee is a small monthly surcharge that finances programs for energy
efficiency, clean-tech R&D, consumer rebates, and education.136 Such efforts suggest
that political strategists take the public distaste for taxes seriously and create alternatives
to sell their tax-like programs.
Champion Briefs
105
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon taxes were extremely unpopular in Australia; so much so, that the government
had to scrap the taxes and bring back emissions trading (cap-and-trade.)
"Australia
Dumps Unpopular Carbon Tax." Al Jazeera English. N.p., 16 July 2013. Web.
05 Jan. 2016. <http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asiapacific/2013/07/201371645836488593.html>.
Australia's government has moved to scrap its carbon tax and bring forward an
emissions trading scheme a year earlier than planned. Prime Minister Kevin
Rudd said on Tuesday that he wanted the fixed price on carbon emissions to end on June
30, 2014. "The government has decided to terminate the carbon tax to help cost of
living pressures for families and to reduce costs for small businesses," he said. A
floating carbon price, or emissions trading scheme (ETS), that would be linked to the
European carbon market, would start the following day. Rudd said the change away
from the unpopular tax would slash $3.5bn from the federal budget over the
forward estimates period. He said his government would make up the gap with savings
of around $3.6bn from a range of measures.
Analysis: This argument seems generic, but the cards are very specific to a carbon tax.
Consumers dont like taxes and its hard for politicians to sell any new tax increase to their
voters. Therefore, a carbon tax is likely to be fairly unpopular with voters, as it passes the cost of
carbon consumption onto the consumers and not the producers, unlike what happens in cap-andtrade. You can also ask the pro side how many times congress has increased taxes in the past five
year and what the publics response was. That will help paint a pretty clear picture about a lack
of support for a carbon tax in the judges mind.

Champion Briefs
106

February 2016
PRO Oil Companies Support a Carbon Tax

Argument: Some of the largest oil companies publically support a carbon tax
Warrant: CEOs from Shell, BP, Total, Statoil, Eni and the BG Group pressed lawmakers at the
Paris Climate Summit to adopt a carbon tax.
Henderson, Alan. "In Stunning Reversal, Big Oil Asks for Carbon Price." In Stunning
Reversal, 'Big Oil' Asks for Carbon Price. Climate Central, 1 June 2015. Web. 04
Jan. 2016. <http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oil-companies-carbon-price19054>.
In a stunning reversal of years of obstructionism to creating a global framework to deal
with climate change, CEOs from global oil and gas behemoths Shell, BP, Total,
Statoil, Eni and the BG Group have signaled that theyre ready for a price on
carbon. The CEOs of the companies, with nearly $1.4 trillion in annual
revenue, sent a letter on Friday, which was released publicly on Monday,
to Christiana Figueres, the United Nations climate chief, as well as Laurent Fabius,
Frances Foreign Affairs and International Development Minister who will also lead the
Paris climate talks later this year. In it, they ask for national and regional governments
to set a price on carbon and for those regional carbon markets to be linked. We
need governments across the world to provide us with clear, stable, long-term,
ambitious policy frameworks, the letter states. The timing of the letter is no
coincidence. Representatives from 190 countries are meeting in Bonn, Germany this
week to continue hammering out details for an international climate agreement that is
expected to take shape by the end of the year.
Champion Briefs
107
February 2016

Warrant: Big oil companies support a carbon tax because it allows the companies to predict
future oil markets; in other words, a carbon tax would provide stability and certainty for global
oil markets.
Henderson, Alan. "In Stunning Reversal, Big Oil Asks for Carbon Price." In Stunning
Reversal, 'Big Oil' Asks for Carbon Price. Climate Central, 1 June 2015. Web. 04
Jan. 2016. <http://www.climatecentral.org/news/oil-companies-carbon-price19054>.
The desire for a price on carbon might seem anathema to companies that make
much of their billions from extracting oil and gas, two of the main drivers of carbon
dioxide emissions that are warming the planet. And make no mistake, the six
companies are not talking about getting out of the oil and gas business anytime soon. In
fact, a separate letter to the media highlights natural gas as an important bridge fuel. And
despite signing the letter, Shell is also headed back to the Arctic this summer to drill for
oil. But in the big picture, the lack of a price on carbon creates an uncertain
environment for companies that tend to plan decades into the future. The sooner a
price is set, the quicker companies can adjust their plans for future profitability. In
addition, theres been growing pressure from shareholders that want more clarity
on how oil companies plan to continue making money in a world where carbon
emissions need to decline in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The
growing power of the divestment movement, which aims to get pension funds and
endowments to remove fossil fuel companies from their portfolio, is also posing a
growing issue for fossil fuel companies. The investors have really woken up in the
past 12 months, Frances Way, co-chief operating officer of programs at CDP, said.
Theres a push to ask that as a responsible investor, should they be supporting oil
and gas at this point.
Champion Briefs
108
February 2016

Warrant: Companies are preparing budgets that include funds for adapting to climate policy
changes
Davenport, Coral. "Large Companies Prepared to Pay Price on Carbon." The New York
Times. The New York Times, 04 Dec. 2013. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/business/energy-environment/largecompanies-prepared-to-pay-price-on-carbon.html>.
WASHINGTON More than two dozen of the nations biggest corporations,
including the five major oil companies, are planning their future growth on the
expectation that the government will force them to pay a price for carbon pollution
as a way to control global warming. The development is a striking departure from
conservative orthodoxy and a reflection of growing divisions between the
Republican Party and its business supporters. A new report by the environmental
data company CDP has found that at least 29 companies, some with close ties to
Republicans, including Exxon Mobil, Walmart and American Electric Power, are
incorporating a price on carbon into their long-term financial plans. Both
supporters and opponents of action to fight global warming say the development is
significant because businesses that chart a financial course to make money in a
carbon-constrained future could be more inclined to support policies that address
climate change.
Champion Briefs
109
February 2016

Warrant: Big oil companies support a carbon tax and other climate legislation, as they see these
potential changes as lucrative market opportunities
Kent, Sarah, and Justin Scheck. "Carbon-Tax Debate Brings Together Unusual Allies."
WSJ. The Wall Street Journal, 30 Nov. 2015. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.wsj.com/articles/carbon-tax-debate-brings-together-unusual-allies1448936246>.
The embrace of carbon taxes demonstrates how some oil companies now see a
business opportunity as efforts to enact climate-change policies gain momentum.
While not entirely new, oil companies have become more vocal in their support for
carbon taxes in recent years. Oil companies including BP, Shell and
Frances Total SA joined forces in recent months to push for action on climate
change, calling for taxes to encourage the use of cleaner-burning gas over coal. BP
has said switching just 1% of world-wide power production to gas from coal would
have an equivalent emissions reduction as increasing renewable-energy generation
by 11%. Exxon Mobil Corp. isnt part of the coalition, but in recent years it has
expressed support for a carbon tax, provided it is offset by tax reductions elsewhere.
Their support for a carbon tax carries relatively little risk, says Kurt Van Dender, the
head of the tax and environment unit for the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development, a group of first-world countries that includes the U.S. and Western
European nations.
Champion Briefs
110
February 2016

Warrant: Oil companies have a tremendous impact on the US economy as this sector
contributes $1.2 trillion in annual US GDP.
"Economic Impacts of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry on the US Economy in 2011."
American Petroleum Institute (n.d.): 6-7. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, July
2013. Web. 4 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Jobs/Economic_impacts_Ong_2011.pd
f>.
PwC estimates that, at the national level, the oil and natural gas industrys operations
directly and indirectly supported 8.4 million full-time and part-time jobs in the
national economy in 2011. Further, the industrys capital investment supported an
additional 1.4 million jobs in the national economy. Combining the operational and
capital investment impacts, the oil and natural gas industrys total employment
impact on the national economy amounted to 9.8 million full-time and part-time
jobs in 2011, accounting for 5.6 percent of total US employment. Labor Income The
associated labor income (including wages and salaries and benefits, as well as
proprietors income) from jobs directly or indirectly supported by the oil and natural gas
industry through its operational spending, dividend payments, and capital investment is
estimated to be $597.6 billion, or 6.3 percent of total US labor income in 2011. Value
Added Value added refers to the additional value created at a particular stage of
production. The sum of value added across all industries in a country or region is, by
definition, equivalent to its Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Value added consists of:
employee compensation, proprietors income, income to capital owners from property,
and indirect business taxes (i.e., those borne by consumers rather than producers).
Economic Impacts of the Oil and Natural Gas Industry 7 PwC estimates that the US oil
and natural gas industrys operations directly or indirectly generated $1.1 trillion of
value added in the national economy in 2011, and its capital investment added an
additional $135.8 billion of value added. Combining both operational and capital
investment impacts, the industrys total value added impact at the national level was
$1.2 trillion, accounting for 8.0 percent of US GDP in 2011.
Champion Briefs
111
February 2016

Analysis: This argument is pretty straight-forward: big oil companies support a carbon tax.
Many of the petroleum companies know that some type of legislative action on climate change
will happen in the near future. They support a carbon tax, because it would give them a flat-tax
rate on carbon emissions for a set period of time in the future. If they knew this amount they
could adjust their budgets. A carbon tax wouldnt hurt oil companies or deter them from refining
oil in the US.
Champion Briefs
112

February 2016
A2 Oil Companies Support a Carbon Tax

Answer: While global oil companies support a carbon tax, not all US companies support this
type of climate legislation.
Warrant: The three biggest U.S. oil companies ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips
do NOT support a carbon tax
Atkin, Emily. "Why You Should Be Skeptical Of Big Oil Companies Asking For A Price
On Carbon." ThinkProgress. N.p., 03 June 2015. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/03/3665618/oil-companies-wantcarbon-price/>.
More importantly, though at least in terms of getting a carbon price in the final U.N.
climate deal the European companies that signed the letter wield little power within
the U.S. Congress compared to other big oil companies. This matters because the terms
of that deal will almost certainly have to be approved by Congress if it is to include an
enforceable price on carbon. Under U.S. law, any international agreement that binds or
prohibits the United States from actions not otherwise mandated by law must be ratified
by Congress. BP, Statoil, and Total might be actively calling for a carbon tax, but the
three biggest U.S. oil companies ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips
arent. (ExxonMobil says they would prefer a carbon tax to a cap-and-trade system,
but they dont outright support it). And those U.S. companies are spending much
more to influence Congress than the letter-writing companies on campaign
donations and lobbying.
Champion Briefs
113
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax would disproportionally impact US energy companies (with coal being
affected the most); additionally, a carbon tax could make energy companies more hesitant to
adopt any type of climate legislation in the future.
Atkin, Emily. "Why You Should Be Skeptical Of Big Oil Companies Asking For A Price
On Carbon." ThinkProgress. N.p., 03 June 2015. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/03/3665618/oil-companies-wantcarbon-price/>.
There are other reasons to be skeptical of any big oil company fighting for a price on
carbon. For one, some companies have said they would support a carbon tax, but
only if they can avoid other climate-related regulations. As David Roberts pointed
out for Grist back in 2012, the fossil fuel lobby would never give a carbon tax their
OK unless EPA regulations on carbon (and possibly other pollution regs) were
scrapped. Its also reasonable to assume that oil companies see profits increasing in
the markets for low-carbon natural gas while the high-emitting coal industry tanks,
and realize that coal would be hurt far worse by the policy.
Warrant: Oil companies are divided regarding support for a carbon tax
"Why Exxon Mobil Would Support a Carbon Tax." The Economist. The Economist
Newspaper, 18 Nov. 2015. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/11/economistexplains-12>.
Cynics start from the premise that this is a public-relations exercise, rather than a
commitment to wean the world off fossil fuelswhich still account for 87% of the global
energy mix. They note that the oil majors which are supportive of a carbon price put
the onus on governments to implement it, knowing full well that higher petrol prices
look like vote-losers in many parts of the world. And they point out that the
industry is divided. State-run oil companies are as skeptical as Mr. Watson. And
like Chevron, Exxon Mobil declined to join the six European energy companies in
signing their letter to the UN.
Champion Briefs
114
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax could give energy companies more power as the tax would encourage
vilifying media attacks on the coal industry and increase the amount of control these companies
have in the lobbying process.
But the more splits there are, the less lobbying clout the industry has. And there are
reasons why supporting a carbon tax could work in the industrys favour. First, it
enables them to launch a stealth attack on coalusually a dirtier but cheaper fossil
fuel. Bob Dudley, the boss of BP, a British major, says switching just 1% of power
generation away from coal-fired plants to those fired by natural gas would cut global
CO2 emissions by as much as increasing renewable energy capacity by 11%. Already the
industry is emphasising natural gas over oil (BP, for example, is increasing the ratio of
gas to oil from 50:50 to 60:40). Coal-fired power plants are being shut across much of the
developed world. What is more, a robust carbon price can make it easier to decide
where to invest for the future. Like Exxon Mobil, many of the oil companies make
investment decisions based on proxy carbon prices. But the pricing ranges from less
than $5 per tonne of C02 to more than $150; the uncertainty is vast.
Champion Briefs
115
February 2016

Warrant: Theres a difference between companies vocalizing their support for a cause and
lobbying for the same issue; energy companies vocally support a carbon tax, but empirically,
these companies havent lobbied for carbon tax legislation.
Ultimately it makes sense for the industry to shift onto the front foot over climate
change, however much motivation the PR provides. Shareholders are threatening to
divest from dirty businesses. There are fears that the decarbonisation movement
could leave the biggest companies with vast amounts of strandedor unburnable
reserves. However, it is one thing to call for carbon pricing, and another to actively
lobby to bring it about. Exxon Mobil opposed a cap-and-trade bill in America in 2009,
arguing that a carbon tax would be better. So far, America has neither. And however
vocal companies are about taxing carbon, they are less visible pressing for carbon-price
legislation, such as the American Carbon Fee Act, which seeks to put tax the social
cost of carbon starting at a rate of $45 a tonne. The less overt support there is for such
bills, the less likely is it that carbon pricing will develop the momentum it needs to go
global.
Analysis: These cards can answer each of the warrants the Pro brings up in a round. The first
card discusses how international oil companies have voiced their support for a carbon tax, but the
companies operating in the US, have said before they do not want a carbon tax put in place.
Additionally, the second card talks about how specific industries like coal would be
disproportionally impacted since it would be much more expensive for these companies to
generate energy with a carbon tax in place. You could impact this out to certain regional areas
(for example West Virginia relies heavily on coal.) Finally, the last card paints the companies
support as a PR campaign. While yes, they may have vocalized their support in an international
realm; they havent lobbied or pushed for any real change.
Champion Briefs
116

February 2016
PRO Lowered Dependency on Foreign Fuels

Argument: One major flaw with the use of fossil fuels is the fact that they require countries
without ready access to enough fuel in their homeland to rely on other nations to supply it. While
some may view this as an acceptable part of global trade, it is a dangerous to accept this as
necessary. Volatile supplies and prices can make reliance on others for fuel a source of instability
in the economy and overall job market. A carbon tax, however, helps solve this problem. This is
because it lowers the demand for carbon-based fuels, meaning America will need to import less,
decreasing reliance on unstable markets.
Warrant: We use significantly more oil than we actually have domestic access to.
Mulkern, Anne. "Would a Push to Curb Carbon Really Reduce U.S. Dependence on
Oil?" New York Times. N.p., 22 June 2010. Web. 7 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/06/22/22greenwire-would-a-push-to-curbcarbon-really-reduce-us-d-19627.html?pagewanted=all>.
Democrats stepped up their push for climate legislation soon after the April 20 BP PLC
oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. And Obama in his June 15 Oval Office speech urged the
nation to "rally together" in a "national mission" to reduce reliance on oil and coal. "No
matter how much we improve our regulation of the industry, drilling for oil these days
entails greater risk," Obama said. "After all, oil is a finite resource. We consume more
than 20 percent of the world's oil, but have less than 2 percent of the world's oil
reserves." "The transition to clean energy has the potential to grow our economy
and create millions of jobs -- but only if we accelerate that transition," Obama
added. "Only if we seize the moment."
Champion Briefs
117
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax would reduce reliance on foreign oil sources and incentivizes alternative
energies.
07 Jan. 2016. <http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Tax-
VOX/2013/0312/Carbon-tax-A-win-win-for-the-economy-and-the-environment>.
A carbon tax would also reduce Americas dependence on foreign sources of
energy and create better market incentives for conservation, the use of renewable
energy sources, and the production of energy-efficient goods. The permanent change
in price signals from enacting a carbon tax would stimulate new private sector research
and innovation in developing energy-saving technologies and in harnessing renewable
energy. The implementation of a carbon tax also offers opportunities to reduce and
reform federal spending on other energy-related programs.
Warrant: Fossil fuels will get more expensive in time as their supplies dwindle.
Currently, the world depends heavily on coal, oil, and natural gas to meet its
energy needs. However, the utilization of these energy sources has a drastic impact on
our environment, which is well documented. Furthermore, these sources of energy are
non-renewable, that is, they will not last forever. As their supplies dwindle, they will
become too expensive, difficult to retrieve, and will also have a damaging impact on
the environment.
Champion Briefs
118

Warrant: Not importing can save significant sums of money.
February 2016
Consider General Electric, for example, which leads the wind energy market in the
United States. They launched a grassroots campaign to promote renewable energy by
showcasing a 131-foot wind turbine in a few states. Such campaigns aim to spread
awareness about renewable energy and its many advantages. However, several countries
have already moved towards renewable energy. Providers in such countries have seen
the tremendous impact renewable energy can have on the bottom-line. Investing in
renewable energy can also have a massive impact on the governments expenses. For
example, Germany is a major net importer of power. As per estimations, the
country could be using only renewable energy by 2050 that could help it save
billions of dollars as it would not need to import energy.
Champion Briefs
119
February 2016

Warrant: Reducing foreign oil dependency is important to protect the US from supply
disruptions.
Metcalf, Glibert, and Kevin Hassett. "The Whys and Hows of Energy Taxes." Issues in
Science and Technology, Winter 2008. Web. 7 Jan. 2016. <http://issues.org/242/hassett/>.
It is widely held that the United States must reduce its reliance on foreign oil. The
concern over U.S. vulnerability to the disruption of supply by the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is understandable, given the fact that
the United States imports over 60% of the oil it consumes each year. Of the oil that
the United States imports, 40% comes from OPEC countries and nearly half of that from
the Persian Gulf region. Many Americans are also concerned that oil monies help
countries such as Iran pursue activities that are contrary to U.S. foreign policy.
Warrant: Foreign oil usage may fund countries that work against our foreign policy interests.
Metcalf, Glibert, and Kevin Hassett. "The Whys and Hows of Energy Taxes." Issues in
Science and Technology, Winter 2008. Web. 7 Jan. 2016. <http://issues.org/242/hassett/>.
It is widely held that the United States must reduce its reliance on foreign oil. The
concern over U.S. vulnerability to the disruption of supply by the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is understandable, given the fact that the United
States imports over 60% of the oil it consumes each year. Of the oil that the United
States imports, 40% comes from OPEC countries and nearly half of that from the
Persian Gulf region. Many Americans are also concerned that oil monies help
countries such as Iran pursue activities that are contrary to U.S. foreign policy.
Champion Briefs
120
February 2016

Warrant: Reducing the role of oil in the US economy helps protect from price shocks.
Feldstein, Martin. "Reducing Americas Dependence on Foreign Oil Supplies." (n.d.): n.

pag. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003. Web. 7 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nber.org/feldstein/oildependenceaea2003.pdf>.
But even if we cannot completely eliminate the need for oil imports, it is possible to
reduce substantially the role of oil in the economy with the technology that now
exists and even more so with the technology that will be operational during the next
two or three decades. Reducing our consumption of oil would make the U.S.
economy less sensitive to global oil prices and therefore to shocks in foreign global
supplies. If oil plays a smaller role in the economy, changes in world oil prices would
have less of an impact on the domestic price level and on domestic economic output.
Reducing the sensitivity of the U.S. economy to foreign oil markets by decreasing oil
consumption relative to GDP would also reduce the pressure to bend our foreign policy
and our military actions to the geopolitics of oil supply. Reducing the consumption of oil
can also have favorable effects on the emission of carbon dioxide and other specific
forms of air pollution. The extent to which it does so would depend on the nature of the
alternative energy sources that replace gasoline and other petroleum products.

Champion Briefs
121
February 2016

Warrant: Lowering oil dependency reduces pressure on our foreign policy.
Feldstein, Martin. "Reducing Americas Dependence on Foreign Oil Supplies." (n.d.): n.

pag. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2003. Web. 7 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nber.org/feldstein/oildependenceaea2003.pdf>.
But even if we cannot completely eliminate the need for oil imports, it is possible to
reduce substantially the role of oil in the economy with the technology that now
exists and even more so with the technology that will be operational during the next
two or three decades. Reducing our consumption of oil would make the U.S. economy
less sensitive to global oil prices and therefore to shocks in foreign global supplies. If oil
plays a smaller role in the economy, changes in world oil prices would have less of an
impact on the domestic price level and on domestic economic output. Reducing the
sensitivity of the U.S. economy to foreign oil markets by decreasing oil consumption
relative to GDP would also reduce the pressure to bend our foreign policy and our
military actions to the geopolitics of oil supply. Reducing the consumption of oil can
also have favorable effects on the emission of carbon dioxide and other specific forms of
air pollution. The extent to which it does so would depend on the nature of the alternative
energy sources that replace gasoline and other petroleum products.

Analysis: This argument is focused on demonstrating impacts that have a very wide scope.
Because oil shocks affect the entire US economy, by proving a carbon tax reduces the impact of
them, the Pro side effectively helps protect the entire US economy. While economic impacts on
this topic will be very common (expect to see both sides bring up economic impacts in their
cases almost every single round) this economic impact is one that may be far more wide reaching
than those provided in terms of costs by the Con. Moreover though, this argument provides
benefits in other areas as well. On foreign policy, the evidence above demonstrates the US could
stop funding international threats with oil imports, and could reduce strain on the rules and
policies we currently have in place that we are constantly forced to ignore or make excuses for
because we feel obligated to maintain good relationships with our oil suppliers. When we reduce
our need for oil suppliers, this problem dissipates. Similar to other arguments provided on the
pro side in this brief, this argument is aimed at providing a diverse number of impacts so even if
your opponents adequately respond to one of them, you still have more standing in the round.
Champion Briefs
122

February 2016
A2 Lowered Dependency on Foreign Fuels

Answer: A focus on domestic oil instead of renewables could be very beneficial.
Warrant: Focusing on domestic oil would give a much larger supply.
The oil and gas industry could be creating even more jobs if the United States had
more of a pro-development policy for traditional energy sources instead of a
government-driven, heavily subsidized, green energy approach. For example,
energy consulting firm Wood Mackenzie evaluated the impact on production, jobs,
and government revenues of implementing regulatory policies that support the
development of oil and natural gas resources, including: a) opening federal land that is
currently off limits to exploration and development; b) lifting the drilling moratorium
in New York; c) increasing the rate of permitting in the offshore Gulf of Mexico; d)
approving the Keystone XL and other future Canada-to-U.S. oil pipelines; and e) leaving
regulation of shale resources predominantly at the state level. Under a scenario that
encourages the development of new and existing domestic energy resources, Wood
Mackenzie estimates that by 2015 an additional 1.27 million barrels of oil equivalent
(BOE) could be produced, rising to 10.4 million BOE by 2030. That would be a 47
percent increase over the estimated 2030 production levels under a current
development path case.

Champion Briefs
123

Warrant: Many jobs could be created through domestic oil efforts.
February 2016
Under a scenario that encourages the development of new and existing domestic energy
resources, Wood Mackenzie estimates that by 2015 an additional 1.27 million barrels of
oil equivalent (BOE) could be produced, rising to 10.4 million BOE by 2030. That would
be a 47 percent increase over the estimated 2030 production levels under a current
development path case. Furthermore, under the new development path, there would
be a potential increase of 1 million new oil and natural gas jobs by 2018, and 1.4
million new jobs by 2030, while adding cumulative potential government revenue of
$36 billion by 2015, and nearly $803 billion by 2030.

Champion Briefs
124

Warrant: The manufacturing industry largely depends on fossil fuels.
February 2016
Americas manufacturing sector is another area of robust job growth, and manufacturing
companies have hired almost 400,000 new workers since the beginning of 2010. U.S.
energy and tax policies have important implications for the manufacturing sector
because of the energy intensity of Americas industrial sector. In 2010, it was
estimated by the U.S. Energy Information Administration that roughly one-third of
total U.S. delivered energy is consumed by the manufacturing sector. Additionally,
total industrial demand for delivered energy will increase 16 percent by 2035.
Nevertheless, the government estimates that fossil fuel consumption will decline only
modestly, from 83 percent of total U.S. energy demand currently, to 77 percent in
2035. Therefore, traditional energy sources of oil and natural gas will continue to
play a major role in providing stable supplies of affordable energy to Americas
factories. To the extent that oil and natural gas companies are targeted with higher
taxes or unfavorable regulatory policies by the Obama administration, American
manufacturers will be hurt by higher energy prices, which could jeopardize job
growth in one of the economys key sectors.

Analysis: This response is aimed at the logic provided by the Pro that the oil industry is bad.
Although the base of their argument discusses the harms of the foreign oil industry, they achieve
that security from the foreign supplies at the cost of the oil industry domestically as well. By
harming domestic oil industries, we destroy domestic jobs and avoid taking advantage of great
benefits that could be achieved by instead investing in domestic supplies. Moreover, you can
explain to the judge that investing in domestic supplies (instead of taxing it) the Con can still
achieve the same benefits of no longer depending on foreign supplies as instead, the oil can come
from the US. It is also worthy of note that harming the oil supply as a whole would destroy jobs,
making efforts to reduce the foreign supply not as beneficial as the Pro would like you to believe.
Champion Briefs
125

February 2016
PRO Levels Playing Field, Unlike Cap-and-Trade

Argument: Cap-and-trade legislation, the alternative to a carbon tax, is ineffective and allows
companies to play the market to their advantage. A carbon tax levels the playing field for energy
companies and is effective.
Warrant: The cap-and-trade system created in the European Union opened the doors for price
volatility in the energy markets and allowed companies to game the markets by trading carbon
emission rights.
"Cap-and-Trades Inherent Defects." Carbon Tax Center. N.p., 8 July 2015. Web. 04 Jan.
2016. <http://www.carbontax.org/cap-and-trade-problems/>.
A tax on carbon emissions isnt the only way to put a price on carbon and provide
incentives to reduce use of high-carbon fuels. A carbon cap-and-trade system is an
alternative approach supported by some prominent politicians, corporations and
mainstream environmental groups. Cap-and-trade was the structure embodied in the
Waxman-Markey climate bill that passed the House in 2009 but died in the Senate. And
cap-and-trade is the cornerstone of the European Unions Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS). Cap-and-trade systems can be effective under certain conditions.
The U.S. sulfur dioxidecap-and-trade system instituted in the early 1990s, deserves
credit for efficiently reducing acid rain emissions from power plants. However, the
scale of a carbon trading system it would be up to 100 times larger than that for
sulfur combined with the lack of readily available technical fixes for filtering
or capturing CO2, appear to rule out sulfur cap-and-trade as a model for carbon.
Moreover, evidence from the EUs ETS suggests that price volatility and gaming by
market participants have undermined the effectiveness of this complex, opaque
indirect method of pricing carbon pollution.
Champion Briefs
126
February 2016

Warrant: Cap-and-trade systems create price volatility in the energy markets whereas carbon
taxes create predictability. Cap-and-trade systems include loopholes and are often difficult to
understand; carbon taxes are straightforward and easy to understand. The cap-and-trade system is
rife with special interest groups and lobbying. Its easier to keep those special interest groups out
of carbon tax legislation since a carbon tax is a flat tax.
The Carbon Tax Center along with most economists regard a carbon tax as vastly
superior and preferable to a carbon cap-and-trade system. Heres why:
Carbon taxes lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade

systems exacerbate the price volatility that historically has discouraged
investments in carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing
renewable energy.
Carbon taxes are transparent and understandable, making them more likely to
elicit public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade
system. The co-author of the U.S. Senate cap-and-trade bill, Sen. John Kerry
(now Secretary of State) famously told a reporter in 2009, I dont know what
cap and trade means. I dont think the average American does.
Carbon taxes can be implemented more quickly than complex permit-based cap-andtrade systems.
Carbon taxes arent easily manipulable by special interests, whereas the

complexity of cap-and-trade leaves it rife for exploitation by the financial
industry.
Carbon tax revenues can be more or less guaranteed and integrated into state or
federal fiscal policy, owing to their predictability, whereas the price-volatility of
cap-and-trade precludes its being counted on as a revenue source.
Champion Briefs
127

February 2016
Carbon taxes are replicable across borders, since the price metric embodied in a
carbon tax is far more universal than the quantity-reduction metric underlying capand-trade.
Perversely, cap-and-trade discourages voluntary/individual carbon reductions,

since those cause a lowering of prices of emission permits which undercuts lowcarbon investments; carbon taxes are free of this unintended negative
consequence.
Warrant: Cap-and-trade systems allow politicians to hide the price of carbon emissions.
Politically, cap-and-trade has functioned as a safe harbor for politicians who
grasp the need for pricing carbon emissions but cling to the need to hide the price
to avoid the wrath of interest groups and/or ordinary citizens. But the point of carbon
emissions pricing is to raise the price of emitting carbon. Better to make the price
explicit, via a tax, and to protect households by making the tax revenue-neutral.
Champion Briefs
128
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax creates no new markets, instead it sends a clear price signal to existing
fuel markets that will spur innovation and encourage the adoption of clean technology; this
doesnt happen with cap-and-trade.
Komanoff, Charles. "The Time Has Never Been More Right for a Carbon Tax." US
News. N.p., 7 Dec. 2012. Web. 4 Jan. 2016. <http://www.usnews.com/debateclub/is-a-carbon-tax-a-good-idea/the-time-has-never-been-more-right-for-acarbon-tax>.
Recurring and worsening climate disasters make painfully clear that the world has
just a few decades, if that, to leave carbon-based energy behind. But no modern
economy can do that unless prices of fuels tell the truth about the climate damage
they cause. This is best done by aggressively taxing the carbon content of coal, oil,
and natural gas, with the levies placed "upstream" where the fuels are taken from
the ground. That's a carbon tax: straightforward, transparent, no gimmicks, no
loopholes. Unlike cap-and-trade, a carbon tax creates no new markets; rather, it embeds
price signals in existing fuel markets that will spur innovation and reward the rapid
uptake of clean energy. Moreover, making the tax revenue-neutral will prevent it from
adding to the size of government.
Champion Briefs
129
February 2016

Warrant: In a cap-and-trade system, both the companies purchasing emissions rights and the
government have an incentive to collude and hid the failure of the program. Moreover, the capand-trade systems dont actually protect the environment.
Myers, Todd. "How Incentives to Cheat Undermine Cap- and- Trade." How Incentives
to Cheat Undermine Cap-and-Trade (n.d.): n. pag. Washington Policy Center,
June 2008. Web. 4 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/library/docLib/cap-and-trade.pdf>.
The cap-and-trade system Washington is helping develop as part of a regional effort
would require companies that emit greenhouse gases to purchase carbon allocations
from the government, or offsets offered by others, to bring them into compliance
with the law, or pay a fine. The problem is that if the projects that create these
offsets dont protect the environment as promised, both buyer and seller are better
off if nobody realizes it. Both have an incentive to collude, keeping the failure of the
program a secret. Such incentives to cheat demonstrate why a regional cap-andtrade system that allows carbon offsets is more likely to have increased enforcement
costs, while failing to effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is another
reason that a simpler system of creating a carbon price is a better way to reduce
CO2 emissions.
Champion Briefs
130
February 2016

Warrant: Cap-and-trade, as opposed to a carbon tax, is inherently complicated and difficult to
implement.
The final argument in support of cap-and-tradeits political complexity and opacityis

a disadvantage when properly understood. Cap-and-trade, as opposed to a carbon tax,
is inherently complicated. A myriad of considerations must be addressed, including
(1) establishing the baseline for the cap; (2) determining how allowances will be
created and distributed; (3) devising a system for trade that prevents cheating and
punishes those out of compliance; (4) creating systems of international trade and
supervision; (5) establishing the use of variances and safety-valve mechanisms; (6)
and rewarding offsetting projects like carbon sequestration.158 A cap-and-trade
system also poses difficulties and high costs in enforcement. The mechanisms for
distributing allowances and preventing abuse would require a new administrative body or
a new office within an existing department like the Environmental Protection Agency.
Cap-and-trade may also pose collateral issues that are not present with a carbon
tax, such as Securities and Exchange Commission oversight for futures trading in
allowances and complex tax considerations.159
Analysis: This argument is very straightforward. Cap-and-trade is a complicated and confusing
approach to limiting carbon emissions. The cards specifically discuss the downfalls beyond its
difficult implementation (easy to cheat, incentives to collude, no raised revenue, etc.) None of
these problems exist at this magnitude with a carbon tax. You dont necessarily need cards that
say a carbon tax is better at reducing emissions. If you can prove its easier to implement, harder
to cheat, and contains fewer loopholes, you can give a really persuasive argument as to why the
US should adopt it, especially when the US already has a version of cap-and-trade.
Champion Briefs
131

February 2016
A2 Levels Playing Field, Unlike Cap-and-Trade

Answer: Cap-and-trade is an effective instrument to use in the battle against climate change and
carbon emissions.
Warrant: Empirically, cap-and-trade has been effective at reducing carbon pollution and a
carbon tax has not.
"IETA | International Emissions Trading Association." Why Emissions Trading Is More

Effective Than a Carbon Tax. International Emissions Trading Center, 2015.
Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.ieta.org/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle
%26id%3D207:why-emissions-trading-is-more-effective-than-a-carbontax%26catid%3D54:3-minute-briefing%26Itemid%3D135>.
Cap-and-trade has proven its effectiveness in the US through the acid rain program,
where it quickly and effectively reduced pollution levels at a far lower cost than
expected. The European Union Emissions Trading System has shown that cap-andtrade can be extended to carbon and can be done so in a agreed-upon manner across
many countries, and in doing so creates a price on carbon that drives emissions
reductions. In contrast, legislating a carbon tax has proven to be unattainable in the
past. The EU tried and failed to implement a carbon tax in the early 1990s. The political
stigma of another tax significantly stacks the argument in favor of a trading approach.
Champion Briefs
132
February 2016

Warrant: The price of carbon is unknown, so creating a fair and effective carbon tax could take
years to create; the climate problem needs to be addressed now. Cap-and-trade systems can
determine how efficiently and effectively emissions reduction targets will be achieved.
"IETA | International Emissions Trading Association." Why Emissions Trading Is More
Effective Than a Carbon Tax. International Emissions Trading Center, 2015.
Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.ieta.org/index.php%3Foption%3Dcom_content%26view%3Darticle
%26id%3D207:why-emissions-trading-is-more-effective-than-a-carbontax%26catid%3D54:3-minute-briefing%26Itemid%3D135>.
This certainty is critical for the environment. While a carbon tax ensures an increase in
energy prices, it does not ensure that emissions will be reduced to the necessary
level. It may take some years for policy makers to establish the level of tax necessary to
deliver a given emissions reduction pathway. The climate problem needs very urgent
attention: it is widely accepted that global emissions have to begin to decline by 2020
in order to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The true price of carbon is
not yet known, and cannot be identified to create a tax rate. Markets are critical for
price discovery, and in the case of cap-and-trade can determine how efficiently and
effectively emissions reduction targets will be achieved.
Champion Briefs
133
February 2016

Warrant: Cap-and-trade programs are already up and running with little to no evidence of
manipulation and gaming.
De Place, Eric. "Gaming Cap-and-trade: Should We Worry?" Grist. Sightline, 05 Nov.

2009. Web. 04 Jan. 2016. <http://grist.org/article/gaming-cap-and-trade-shouldwe-worry/>.
In short, cap-and-trade programs are already up and running with no evidence of
sinister manipulation. Thats no surprise to specialists who study markets. The very
nature of carbon permit markets makes them hard to game, unlike Californias
spot electricity market, and not terribly prone to speculative bubbles, unlike real estate
and subprime mortgages. Mortgages and pollution permits are very different
commodities; a mortgage is a promise to pay a debt a promise that a mortgage holder
may not be able to keep while a carbon permit is an allowance to emit fixed quantities
of pollution. Carbon markets are not like spot power markets either, in part because
electricity must be supplied immediately to consumers, while firms need permits to cover
their emissions at most only once a year, eliminating the urgency to acquire them at any
particular time.
Analysis: These cards answers back for any carbon tax is better arguments. The first card
explains that empirically, carbon taxes havent work and cap-and-trade has not only been
effective, but its been easier to come to a political agreement on details laid out in the
legislation. You can use the first card to make the argument that even if theres more loopholes
in cap-and-trade its more practical and politically popular. The second card is pretty cool, it
talks about how the ideal price of a carbon tax is nearly impossible to determine. However, capand-trade can be used to test the markets and determine the ideal price; this makes cap-and-trade
better right now. The last card answers back for the loopholes and corruption arguments by
saying empirically, we dont see massive gaming in the system.

Champion Briefs
134

February 2016
PRO Carbon Tax saves lives through emission reduction

Argument: One of the main goals of a carbon tax is to reduce emissions. With that achieved,
significant health benefits can be seen. This is because emissions do not just contribute to harms
in the vein of global warming but also with pollutants that enhance the effects of asthma in the
air, etc. This means that by implementing a carbon tax, the country could directly save the lives
of those who suffer from lung problems by cutting off the supply of the very particulates that
create and amplify those problems in the first place. The other way that health is affected is
through the stoppage of heat-related deaths in the country. Often times pollutants and carbon
emissions trap heat in the atmosphere, and can increase the temperatures drastically, creating a
variety of health problems.

Warrant: Major emissions decreases could occur with a carbon tax.
Richter, Danny. "Summary of The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and Demographic
Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax By REMI and Synapse."
(n.d.): n. pag. Citizen's Climate Lobby, 24 Mar. 2015. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
<https://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/REMI-NationalSUMMARY.pdf>.
Despite these differences in conception, the results of REMI's work are largely
consistent with previous studies in terms a benefit to the economy, industry effects, and
emissions reductions. For example, the May 2013 CBO study also stated that a welldesigned carbon tax could increase economic output and found a hypothetical $20
per ton carbon tax scenario would result in an 8% reduction in emissions at the
national level. If held at that level, REMI's model setup would have found comparable
results.

Champion Briefs
135

Warrant: Carbon emissions by some estimates could drop by 33%
February 2016
Nystrom, Scott, and Patrick Luckow. "The Economic, Climate, Fiscal, Power, and
Demographic Impact of a National Fee-and-Dividend Carbon Tax." (n.d.): n. pag.
Regional Economic Models, Inc., 9 June 2014. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
<http://citizensclimatelobby.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/REMI-carbon-taxreport-62141.pdf>.
The results of the study demonstrate that there are probable benefits to taxing
carbon dioxide emissions and returning the money to consumers through F&D. The
following are highlights of the national level results of the study in 2025. 2.1
million more jobs under the F&D carbon tax than in the baseline 33% reduction
in carbon dioxide emissions from baseline conditions 13,000 premature deaths
saved from improvements in air quality These principal results are not to say the
outcome is universally positive, and there are certain industries and regions in the United
States that may do better or worse under a carbon pricing system. For example, the
industries tied directly to households, such as healthcare, retail, and housing construction,
tend to do well because F&D increases the overall level of consumer spending. There are
other important results in 2025. The F&D rebates return nearly $400 billion to
householdsor almost $300 per month for a family of four, and the carbon tax aids in
retirements of coal plants and accelerates investments in wind, solar, and nuclear power.
The impact to the total cost of living is less than 3% from the baseline, and gross
domestic product (GDP) increases between $80 billion and $90 billion.

Champion Briefs
136
February 2016

Warrant: Heat deaths are expected to total over 150,000 in the US alone by the end of this
century.
Zabarenko, Deborah. "150,000 More US Heat Deaths Projected by 2100." Reuters.
Thomson Reuters, 23 May 2012. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climate-heat-deathsidUSBRE84M1GQ20120523>.
Killer heat fueled by climate change could cause an additional 150,000 deaths this
century in the biggest U.S. cities if no steps are taken to curb carbon emissions and
improve emergency services, according to a new report. The three cities with the
highest projected heat death tolls are Louisville, with an estimated 19,000 heat-related
fatalities by 2099; Detroit, with 17,900, and Cleveland, with 16,600, the Natural
Resources Defense Council found in its analysis of peer-reviewed data, released on
Wednesday. Concentrated populations of poor people without access to air
conditioning are expected to contribute to the rising death tolls. Thousands of
additional heat deaths were also projected by century's end for Baltimore, Boston,
Chicago, Columbus, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Pittsburgh, Providence, St.
Louis and Washington, D.C., the report said.

Warrant: Heat increases also worsen lung and air pollution problems
"A Historic Step in the Right Direction for Clean Air." NRDC. National Resources
Defense Council, 27 Mar. 2012. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nrdc.org/air/carbon-emissions/>.
Warming temperatures worsen smog pollution, which triggers asthma attacks and
permanently damages and reduces the function of childrens lungs. Higher smog
levels even contribute to premature deaths.

Champion Briefs
137

Warrant: Reducing carbon usage is one way to help fix the problem.
February 2016
Altman, Peter. "Killer Summer Heat: Death Toll in U.S. Cities from Rising Temperatures
Due to Climate Change." NRDC: Killer Summer Heat. N.p., May 2012. Web. 05
Jan. 2016. <http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/killer-heat/files/killer-summerheat-report.pdf>.
Rising global temperatures pose a wide range of threats to public health, including
increased mortality driven by excessive heat events. While the preventive and
protective measures adopted by cities in recent years can be expected to offset some
of the impacts of climate change, which includes contributing to worsening heat
waves, it is clear that if temperatures continue to rise, this will likely expose the
populations in our biggest cities to greater risks of heat related deaths. Under the
Clean Air Act, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
charged with protecting public health from dangerous air pollution; one way to do
this is by setting standards to limit carbon and other global warming pollutants. In
late March 2012, the agency took its first steps to limit carbon pollution from industrial
sources by proposing the Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants. Carbon
pollution from existing power plants, refineries and other sources must follow, and other
sectors will need to be addressed as well. Citizens may express their support for EPAs
proposed carbon pollution standard for new power plants by submitting a public
comment to the Agency by June 25, 2012.

Champion Briefs
138

Warrant: Millions of lives are at risk due to emissions
February 2016
Q, By Charles. "Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Prevent Premature Deaths."

LiveScience. TechMedia Network, 22 Sept. 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.livescience.com/39849-greenhouse-gas-emissions-prematuredeaths.html>.
Reducing the flow of the greenhouse gases that spur global warming could prevent
up to 3 million premature deaths annually by the year 2100, a new study suggests.
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide trap heat, helping warm the globe. The surge in
carbon dioxide levels due to human activity since the Industrial Revolution is now
causing an overall warming of the planet that is having impacts around the globe. And the
burning of fuel generates not only carbon dioxide, but also air pollutants that are harmful
to human health.

Analysis: This argument is meant to show large impacts that can come from the program right
off the bat. It is also extremely easy to explain briefly, making it perfect for weighing in the later
speeches in the round where your time may be limited. When it comes to how to use this
argument, make sure to emphasize the fact that lives always outweigh economic impacts,
especially on the scale referred to in the evidence above. Using lines of argumentation that
follow the idea that there is no use for money without people living to spend it, this should be an
easy step to win. The only part after winning the weighing analysis then is to demonstrate that
the carbon tax will save lives and because it is so hard to deny that raising the cost of
something (in this case carbon) reduces the demand, the only link left to prove is why carbon
emissions cause heat increase or lung damage. The evidence provided above definitively proves
that, but logically it can be explained as well. Holistically, this argument should be an easy one
to win with a very large impact for the Pro side.
Champion Briefs
139

February 2016
A2 Carbon Tax saves lives through emission reduction

Answer: A carbon tax does not meaningfully impact emissions.
Warrant: Even if the US cut back its emissions, other countries will continue to pose a problem.
"Nobody Believes a Washington State Carbon Tax Will save the Planet."
MyNorthwest.com. N.p., 30 July 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://mynorthwest.com/76/2790245/Nobody-believes-a-Washington-statecarbon-tax-will-save-the-planet>.
You can tax the citizens of Washington 100 percent and as long as China, India,
and all of these other countries are pumping their carbon emissions into the
atmosphere, it's not going to make one bit of difference. I don't think anybody
believes it's going to make a difference. I don't think the governor thinks it's going to
make a difference, but they see this as a way to exploit the ignorant among us. It's just a
lever for them to get more money from us. What they're talking about is rolling it back a
few years. Well, statistically, that makes zero difference on global climate emissions.
And taxing the people of Washington billions of dollars for zero impact they are just
hoping... I fear that the media and the majority populous in this state are just knee-jerk
reactionaries that they'll accept it while not understanding that there is a cost of billions of
dollars and a reward of zero, as far as helping the planet.
Champion Briefs
140

Warrant: A carbon tax just delays the problem, it doesnt solve it.
February 2016
"Nobody Believes a Washington State Carbon Tax Will save the Planet."
MyNorthwest.com. N.p., 30 July 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://mynorthwest.com/76/2790245/Nobody-believes-a-Washington-statecarbon-tax-will-save-the-planet>.
You can tax the citizens of Washington 100 percent and as long as China, India, and all
of these other countries are pumping their carbon emissions into the atmosphere, it's not
going to make one bit of difference. I don't think anybody believes it's going to make a
difference. I don't think the governor thinks it's going to make a difference, but they see
this as a way to exploit the ignorant among us. It's just a lever for them to get more
money from us. What they're talking about is rolling it back a few years. Well,
statistically, that makes zero difference on global climate emissions. And taxing the
people of Washington billions of dollars for zero impact they are just hoping... I fear
that the media and the majority populous in this state are just knee-jerk reactionaries that
they'll accept it while not understanding that there is a cost of billions of dollars and a
reward of zero, as far as helping the planet.

Analysis: This response takes two different routes in proving that emissions will not decrease.
This is an important step in disproving the affirmatives link, as rather than bothering with
disputing whether climate change causes harm to life (many of your judges will simply see this
as a fact and will disregard your attempt to say otherwise), it attacks the argument with a more
reasonable claim that the lives wont be saved because the emissions will not decrease. It is
also important to emphasize to your judges that you prove this in more than one way first by
demonstrating other countries will continue polluting, making the US efforts pointless seeing as
climate change is a global issue that cannot be solved by just one country, and second by
pointing out that we are past the tipping point and that delaying the inevitable doesnt actually
accomplish much in the long run. Taking note of your two separate links makes it harder for your
opponents to defend against your responses, as they have to look and refute both warrants and
not just one.
Champion Briefs
141

Answer: Emissions may actually increase.
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax forces companies overseas where they will actually pollute more.
"10 Reasons to Oppose a Carbon Tax - American Energy Alliance." American Energy
Alliance. N.p., 04 Nov. 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://americanenergyalliance.org/2015/11/04/10-reasons-to-oppose-a-carbontax/>.
More expensive energy in America will force companies, particularly those in
manufacturing and energy-intensive industries, to shift business operations and the
jobs they support overseas. Often times, these countries, such as China and India,
have weaker environmental standards and less efficient methods of production. Less
stringent standards in these countries are already causing pollution from China to cross
the Pacific Ocean and negatively affect the West Coast. A carbon tax would shift more
production to these countries, leading to more air pollution.
Analysis: This response is designed to turn the argument provided by the Pro against them.
Similar to the previous response, this does not dispute the link between emissions and harm to
life in fact this responses impact is predicated on accepting that link and using it to your
advantage. This is because if the Pro is trying to demonstrate that a reduction in emissions saves
lives, proving that their attempts actually would increase emissions would logically lead to an
increase in life loss as well.

Champion Briefs
142

February 2016
PRO A Carbon Tax has the Political Capital to Pass Now

Argument: Theres enough political capital to pass a carbon tax in the US right now; we should
act immediately.
Warrant: Climate change has long been a politically decisive topic, but the solutions have not
been.
Laskey, Alex. "Climate Change Is Divisive. Climate Solutions Are Not." The Christian
Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor, 14 May 2014. Web. 06 Jan.
2016. <http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/CommonGround/2014/0514/Climate-change-is-divisive.-Climate-solutions-are-not>.
Even though almost all climate scientists agree that human activity is warming the
planet, climate change remains politically divisive. But the same can no longer be
said of climate solutions. A growing body of evidence suggests that people
everywhere, of every political stripe, want to use less energy derived from fossil
fuels. And now, technology, economics, and science are aligning behind them.
Champion Briefs
143
February 2016

Warrant: According to new research, climate change is the most politically divisive topic
Sheppard, Kate. "Climate Change Is The Single Most Divisive Political Issue, Says Poll."
The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 21 May 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/21/republicans-climatechang_n_5368134.html>.
WASHINGTON -- Climate change remains a divisive political issue, with a
significant percentage of Republicans saying they don't believe the scientific
consensus that man-made industrial emissions are accelerating the rise of global
temperatures. But is it the most divisive political issue -- more so than abortion, guns
or evolution? Apparently it is, according to new polling data from Lawrence
Hamilton of the Carsey Institute at the University of New Hampshire. Mother Jones'
Chris Mooney highlighted the data in a piece on Tuesday, noting that distrust of science
was much higher among people who self-identified as Tea Partiers than it was among
traditional Republicans. The most interesting part of the research, however, is the
difference between all Republicans -- a category that includes Tea Partiers as well as
more traditional Republicans -- and all Democrats on key policy issues. That research
found a 53-point difference between Democrats and Republicans on climate change.
That's a bigger difference than on the issue of gun control (a 44-point gap) and on
whether or not abortion should be legal (a 35-point gap). Strangely, on evolution, the
gap is only 23 points, meaning there is a wider difference of opinion on an issue of pure
science than on existential questions like "when does life begin" and "who created the
universe." The poll results appear to support the idea that the discussion about climate
change is no longer really about science -- it's about culture. This might also explain why
all the scientific evidence in the world -- including the most recent Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change report, the National Climate Assessment and the collapse of the
West Antarctica ice sheet -- isn't changing many opinions.
Champion Briefs
144

Warrant: A carbon tax would receive bipartisan support
February 2016
Brodwin, David. "The Bipartisan Case for a Carbon Tax." US News. U.S.News & World
Report, 15 Sept. 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/articles/2015-12-15/tomeet-the-paris-climate-pledge-pass-a-bipartisan-carbon-tax>.
Until recently, the odds of the Republican-controlled Congress passing a climate bill
were essentially zero. The odds remain low, but they're improving. Behind the
scenes, a growing number of Republicans with leadership from Bob Inglis, former
congressman from South Carolina are acknowledging climate change and seeking a
way to do something about it. They are seeking solutions that are compatible with
conservative principles of small government, limited regulation and respect for
market forces. A year-old organization, RepublicEn, welcomes them. Its home page
beckons: "Conservative and concerned about climate change? You're not alone." A key
concept heard increasingly in this conversation is revenue-neutral, border-adjusted carbon
tax. In our work at American Sustainable Business Council (I'm a cofounder there),
we've concluded that a carbon tax offers perhaps the best chance for a climate
solution that both Democrats and Republicans can support.
Champion Briefs
145
February 2016

Warrant: President Obama has enough political capital to push for international regulations on
climate change; the US can once again become a leader in action against climate change.
Worland, Justin. "How the U.S. Became an Unlikely Hero at the Paris Climate Summit."
Time Magazine, 8 Dec. 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://time.com/4140684/obama-paris-climate-talks/>.
The U.S. is likely to find a willingness to compromise on the mandates within any
agreement, if only because the question may determine whether the deal has to be
approved by a U.S. Congress dominated by Republicans resistant to acting on
climate change something that would be dead on arrival in Washington. All
concerned at Paris understand the U.S. the worlds largest economy and second largest
emitter of greenhouse gases needs to join the deal in full for it to be considered
credible on the world stage. The U.S. failed to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Protocol after 95
Senators suggested they would vote against it if it were brought to a vote. But without the
U.S. on board, the treatys impact was limited. A lot has changed since then. Obamas
White House has worked to show the international community that the U.S. is serious
about addressing climate change, starting with the Clean Power Plan, which aims to
reduce U.S. carbon-dioxide emissions from power plants by 32% by 2030 from 2005
levels. Its no accident that the high-level U.S. delegation sent to Paris includes four
Cabinet Secretaries, one of whom is Secretary of State John Kerry. These efforts have
given the Obama Administration the political capital necessary to forge a strong
deal. Thats a big change from past climate summits. In Bali, when the U.S. needed
to do revising, they needed to call back to Washington, D.C., said John Coequyt, the
Sierra Clubs director of federal and international climate campaign, referring to a 2007
climate conference. Here theres a much stronger delegation. So strong, in fact,
that it has outweighed concerns that Congress or the next U.S. President, should
he or she be Republican undo whatever is done at Paris. Even a House vote earlier
this month to repeal the Clean Power Plan which would be vetoed by Obama in the
unlikely event it passed the Senate barely seems to register for international
negotiators in Paris. If [I] think about all of the many meetings Ive had, U.S. politics is
by and large not coming up, Stern said. Coequyt put it even more bluntly: Theyre not
having an impact. Theyre being ignored.
Champion Briefs
146
February 2016

Analysis: This argument basically explains that while climate change is the most politically
divisive issue, there has been some bipartisan discussion and agreement as to what could be done
to address it. Theres a specific card that says a carbon tax is supported by both democrats and
republicans. There are very few things the grid-locked legislature can agree on, so I think you
can spin this to say, if we pas a carbon tax, not only is that good for the environment and
everyone around, but it also frees up time on the legislative docket to deal with other issues. The
last card discusses that Obama has a bunch of political capital right now on the international
level when it comes to discussions on climate change, so I think you can say a carbon tax in the
US would be warmly praised by our allies.
Champion Briefs
147

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax has the Political Capital to Pass Now

Answer: Climate change is too much of a divisive issue; there isnt enough bipartisan support to
pass any legislation dealing with a carbon tax.
Warrant: Republicans dont support a carbon tax; in the past five years, only 2 republicans have
signed on to support carbon tax legislation.
Berdik, Chris. "The Carbon Tax: Why a Bipartisan Idea Is Still Held up - The Boston
Globe." BostonGlobe.com. N.p., 4 Aug. 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2014/08/09/the-carbon-tax-why-bipartisanidea-still-held/1uEpr3Cy90J9wLgyA72OyK/story.html>.
Despite the growing and bipartisan support for raising the price of carbon among
economists and policy wonks, its still a political nonstarter for many conservatives
for several reasons. Many, of course, simply arent convinced that climate change is
a serious threat. They also argue that unilateral emissions cuts by the United States
(responsible for about 15 percent of global emissions) would hurt national
competitiveness while having little effect on global climate this century. And they scoff
at the idea that the government could actually be trusted to return tax revenue. Its a
suckers game for conservatives, says David Kreutzer, a research fellow in energy,
economics, and climate change at the Heritage Foundation. In [Washington] D.C., Ive
come to realize that a revenue-neutral tax means they promise to spend all the money.
As a result, in the past five years, only two bills advocating a carbon tax or emissions
cap have had Republican sponsors. One of those was from Bob Inglis, a congressional
representative from South Carolina, who introduced the Raise Wages, Cut Carbon Act
in 2009 and lost his seat to a primary challenger in 2010. Two years ago, Inglis founded
the Energy and Enterprise Initiative to make the conservative case for a carbon tax,
arguing that a tax that leaves solutions to the marketplace is preferable to stricter
government regulation. Free enterprise can fix climate change, because innovation can
happen rapidly, and it will be driven by consumer demand, not by dictate, Inglis says.
Champion Briefs
148
February 2016

Warrant: Republicans are ready to veto any legislation President Obama suggests after the Paris
Climate Talk.
Nussbaum, Alex. "Like Obamacare, Climate Gives President Huge But Fragile Win."
Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, 13 Dec. 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-13/like-obamacareclimate-gives-president-huge-win-on-shaky-ground>.
The U.S. got much of what it had sought in the final agreement -- in particular,
commitments by developing nations to shoulder more of the pollution reductions. That
followed years of personal diplomacy by Obama with other world leaders and a string of
new regulations at home to cut greenhouse gases. Obama played a huge role in this
deal, said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a participant in two
decades of what until now had been mostly fruitless international talks. This is a
tremendous testament to his concern on the issue, his persistence and his willingness to
spend political capital. But as with Obamacare, the presidents signature health care
reform, the victory rests on shaky ground. Even supporters say the new deal wont
go far enough on its own to stop global warming. Republicans in Congress,
meanwhile, many of whom question whether human activity is affecting the climate,
are vowing to kill Obamas domestic regulations, which they paint as a job killer, an
economic disaster, and a war on coal. The Paris accord also rests on scores of
nations following through on voluntary pollution pledges and technological
innovations in energy production that may take years to emerge.
Champion Briefs
149
February 2016

Warrant: President Obama drained all his political capital during the Paris Climate Talks.
Goldenberg, Suzanne. "How US Negotiators Ensured Landmark Paris Climate Deal Was
Republican-proof." The Guardian, 13 Dec. 2015. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/13/climate-change-paris-dealcop21-obama-administration-congress-republicans-environment>.
The deal reached in Paris set goals to limit warming, phase out carbon emissions by
the middle of the century, help poor countries realign their economies, and review
their progress towards hitting those targets at regular intervals. Jim Inhofe, the chair
of the Senate environment and public works committee, who holds views on global
warming outside the scientific mainstream, said he would continue to scrutinise Obamas
climate agenda. Inhofe and other committee chairs in Congress have held hearings
seeking to undermine the Paris climate meeting and the work of government scientific
agencies. The United States is not legally bound to any agreement setting emissions
targets or any financial commitment to it without approval by Congress, Inhofe
said in a statement. Meanwhile, campaigners plan to use the agreement to push
Obama to stop Congress lifting a ban on oil exports in the budget bill, and to phase
out fossil fuel extraction on public lands. But as administration officials pointed out
after the deal was done, the agreement reached in Paris was constructed with a view
to making it safe from Republican attacks which was one reason negotiations were
so difficult. The US needed a very particular kind of deal and it required immense
political capital to achieve it.
Champion Briefs
150
February 2016

Analysis: These cards are meant to help you answer the link level of the pro arguments. The first
couple cards talk about how republicans wont support any type of climate legislation. You can
read these two and also offer some empirics. When has there been bipartisan support for climate
legislation? The last two cards point out that Obama drained his political capital at the Paris
Climate Talks. That means that even if a carbon tax could be passed in the US, the international
community probably wouldnt be really excited about it and the US couldnt pressure other
countries to adopt a similar policy. Use those two cards and some other cards from the brief
about how the only way to actually reduce emissions is with multilateral efforts, and youve
taken out their offense.
Champion Briefs
151

February 2016
PRO A Carbon Tax Wont Increase Energy Prices

Argument: A carbon tax wont increase the cost of energy for consumers.
Warrant: The Georgia Institute of Technology determined compliance with the EPAs new
Clean Power Plan (aimed at reducing carbon emissions) could be done through the combination
of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. Under this carbon pricing policy, the cost of
lower electricity bills decreased, GDP growth increased, and there were significant reductions in
SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions.
Phillips, Ari. "Obamas Clean Power Plan Will Actually Lower Your Energy Bill,
According To New Study." Think Progress. N.p., 30 July 2015. Web. 05 Jan.
2016. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/30/3685299/cheapest-way-toreduce-power-plant-emissions-and-save-money-on-electricity/>.
A new study from researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology examines how
states can reduce carbon pollution cheaply while also keeping household energy
prices low. Titled Low-Carbon Electricity Pathways for the U.S. and the South,
the report found that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants a
requirement of the EPAs proposed Clean Power Plan could be done cost
effectively through a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies
as well as a modest carbon price. To minimize costs, the country needs to reduce its
coal consumption more rapidly, continue to expand its gas-fired power plants, but temper
this growth with aggressive policies to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy,
Marilyn Brown, the projects lead researcher and the Brook Byers Professor of
Sustainable Systems in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech, told ThinkProgress.
The researchers also found that complying with the Clean Power Plan, which aims
to reduce emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by
2030, would produce substantial collateral benefits. These include lower electricity
bills, greater GDP growth, and significant reductions in SO2, NOx, and mercury
emissions. The strong push on energy efficiency also enables GDP to rise above the
business-as-usual forecast, said Brown. The U.S. increases its exports and
decreases its imports as a result of being more competitive.
Champion Briefs
152
February 2016

Warrant: Although a carbon tax has distributional outcomes, those changes can be offset that
can be offset by other energy policies such as renewable energy targets which actually lower
energy prices.
Parry, Ian, Adele Morris, and Roberton C. Williams, III. "Implementing a US Carbon
Tax." The International Monetary Fund (n.d.): 195-96. Google Books. 2015. Web.
5 Jan. 2016.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=Ek2hBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195
&dq=%22carbon+tax%22+AND+%22effects+on+energy+prices%22&source=bl
&ots=UdSkxxj4oV&sig=43yr3e1yWxP2Q2AXJMWn7nFxuZw&hl=en&sa=X&
ved=0ahUKEwj4kN6jkJTKAhWFSiYKHTthAoUQ6AEIJzAB#v=onepage&q=%
22carbon%20tax%22%20AND%20%22effects%20on%20energy%20prices%22
&f=false>.
A second reason why the tax may not be set efficiently is distributional considerations.
Tax economists typically relegate the remediation of distributional effects directly to
distributional policies and seek to design a tax system that is as efficient as possible;
however, in practice policy coalitions form to balance multiple objectives. A price on
carbon has distributional outcomes that can be offset by other energy policies such
as renewable energy targets, which tend to lower market prices of power (see
below). Up to a point, energy efficiency and renewable polices also have weaker
effects on energy prices than carbon taxes (as the latter involve the pass through of
carbon payments in higher prices). This may also explain the coexistence of a
carbon price (below its inefficient level) and other energy policies even when those
other polices are less environmentally effective.
Champion Briefs
153
February 2016

Warrant: Policy makers should enact a carbon tax immediately and take advantage of the
already low energy prices.
Van Der Hoeven, Maria. "Use Drop In Oil Prices To Put A Price On Carbon, Says IEA
Director." CleanTechnica. N.p., 15 Dec. 2014. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://cleantechnica.com/2014/12/15/use-drop-oil-prices-put-price-carbon-saysiea-director/>.
But now there is a ray of hope: with the drop in oil prices delivering a shot of
economic stimulus to consumers around the world, policymakers have leeway to
take actions that even a year ago would have been unthinkable. It all depends on
national circumstances, of course, but two areas spring to mind. The first is eliminating
subsidies to fossil-fuel consumption. In 2013, governments around the world spent $550
billion on these subsidies, which encourage waste. Reforming such subsidy schemes is
difficult, as the short-term costs imposed on certain groups of society can be burdensome
and induce political opposition. But such opposition may well be muted now, in the
current climate of lower oil prices, than it would have been a year ago. By the same
token, policymakers in major energy consuming countries should take advantage of
the oil markets collapse to introduce carbon pricing, taxes or low-carbon mandates,
or to strengthen existing schemes. Such actions would encourage more efficient use
of energy, would boost the economic case for carbon capture and storage, and would
promote low-carbon energy sources such as renewables and nuclear power.
Moreover, higher taxes on transport fuels would help finance clean energy research,
development and deployment. If such schemes are designed properly, and put in place
in an environment of lower energy prices, economic discomfort can be minimized.
Indeed, many studies suggest they can yield a net economic benefit. The worst course
of action would be complacency in the face of low oil prices. We saw this 30 years ago,
but back then the prospect of climate change barely registered as a policy concern. Today
we know otherwise: policymakers must keep a long-term perspective. They have a oncein-a-generation chance to get us back on track. Lets hope they seize this moment.
Champion Briefs
154
February 2016

Warrant: We need to take advantage of lower energy prices and pass a carbon tax now.
Summers, Lawrence H. "Why Now Is the Right Time for a U.S. Carbon Tax." Scholars
Strategic Network. Harvard University, Jan. 2015. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org/brief/why-now-right-time-us-carbontax>.
Understandably, many people see the recent sharp decline in energy prices as a good
thing. With people paying less to heat homes or drive cars, the incomes of many
Americans have gone up. They can spend the savings on other things. But here is the
problem: lower prices for energy make the problem of overuse of carbon fuels even
worse. That means that the benefits of starting a carbon tax now are greater than
they would have been even a few months ago and the arguments usually rolled out in
opposition are weaker. Some critics, for example, have maintained that carbon taxes
place an unfair burden on some middle-income and low-income consumers people
who have to drive long distances to work, say, or people who live in places with severe
winters and have homes that are expensive to heat. True, such people would be hit
harder than others by carbon taxes. But right now, these groups have also received
a windfall from the drop in energy prices, so it would be possible to impose
substantial taxes without making them worse off than they were when paying higher
energy prices six months ago. As an example, the price of gasoline has fallen by over $1
per gallon. A $25 a ton tax on carbon that would raise over $1 trillion during the next
decade would lift gas prices by only about 25 cents. Drivers would still be well ahead of
where they recently were by 75 cents a gallon.
Champion Briefs
155
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax leads to energy efficiency improvement and subsequently lower energy
prices
Yuan, Mei, Sugandha Tuladhar, Paul Bernstein, and Lee Lane. "Policy Effectiveness in
Energy Conservation and Emission Reduction." Chinese Research Perspectives
Online (n.d.): 195. University of Vienna. The Energy Journal. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
<http://bwl.univie.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/lehrstuhl_ind_en_uw/lehre/ws1213
/SE_Energy_WS12_13/Policy_Effectiveness_in_Energy_Conservation_and_emis
sion_reduction.pdf>.
Figure 4 compares the percentage change in energy intensity relative to the baseline level.
Energy intensity experiences the largest reduction in the carbon standards case and
the smallest reduction in the standards alone case. The change in energy intensity is
relatively similar between the carbon tax and energy tax policies. The rebound
effect is an unintended consequence of efficiency improvement that leads to lower
energy prices. These lower prices lead to inefficient energy use in the sectors where no
standards are implemented or efficiency opportunities are more limited. Much of the
reduction in energy use attributable to standards is offset by inefficient energy use outside
the regulated activities, especially after 2025 when reductions in energy use attributable
to efficiency standards largely evaporate.
Analysis: This argument is meant to point out that a carbon tax would not only improve energy
efficiency, which would ultimately lower energy prices, but the tax if implemented with other
renewable standards will decrease the overall cost of energy. Moreover, theres a card that
discusses how the cost of energy production is at an all time low (due to huge drops in oil
prices). Use these cards to tell the judge now is the time to implement a carbon tax and how that
could hopefully continue to place a downward pressure on energy prices.
Champion Briefs
156

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax Wont Increase Energy Prices

Answer: Empirically, a carbon tax increases energy prices.
Warrant: In Australia, the carbon tax drove energy prices up dramatically.
Bruce Billson, Hon. "Consumers to Benefit from Lower Energy Prices When Carbon Tax
Repealed." Australian Government Treasury. N.p., 3 Apr. 2014. Web. 05 Jan.
2016. <http://bfb.ministers.treasury.gov.au/media-release/019-2014/>.
Scrapping the carbon tax will take the pressure off electricity and gas prices. Power
bills are forecast to be around 9 per cent lower and gas prices would be around 7
per cent lower than they otherwise would be. Overall, households are forecast to be
around $550 a year better off, on average, without the carbon tax. There should be no
doubt about the Governments determination to get rid of the carbon tax. Labor on the
other hand remains determined to keep and expand this painful and pointless slug on
households and business. Previously, there were some suggestions that energy retailers
would not be able to pass through savings from the repeal of the carbon tax because they
have to set prices in advance. Todays AER decision has put to rest these claims.
Champion Briefs
157
February 2016

Warrant: In Australia, the carbon tax drove energy prices up; the recent decision to repeal the
tax will finally lower energy bills.
Energy companies will be able to lower prices without delay once the carbon tax is
repealed delivering significant savings for Australian households and business.
The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) today confirmed that it will use its discretion
and allow retailers to lower prices straight away. Power bills will fall as soon as Bill
Shorten and the Labor Party stop blocking the abolition of the carbon tax, Minister
for Small Business Bruce Billson said. The AERs decision is good news for anyone
who pays a power bill as they will see their bills drop when the carbon tax is repealed.
The Coalition Government is committed to delivering lower energy bills for Australian
households and businesses. Bill Shorten and Labor continue to support the carbon tax and
higher electricity bills for households and business. Today the AER has made it clear it
will not take action against an energy retailer for breaches of the National Energy Retail
Law in circumstances where retailers are charging lower prices to reflect savings from
the repeal of the carbon tax.
Analysis: In a debate round, I think empirical evidence will always beat hypothetical assertions.
While I was researching, it was difficult to find any empirical evidence that a carbon tax had
decreased energy prices. Instead, all the evidence seemed to point to increasing energy prices
under a carbon tax. Use these empirical examples of Australia to prove that while hypothetically,
it could lower energy costs, weve seen in reality that it actually increases it.
There are also some cards that argue we should pass a carbon tax now because energy prices are
low. However, energy prices fluctuate all the time, so theres no reason they couldnt skyrocket
due to instability in the Middle East next week. Moreover, just because the energy costs are
lower doesnt mean a carbon tax and the increase in energy prices would hurt those in the lower
income bracket any less. Just because theyre spending less on energy now doesnt mean an
increase in energy costs wouldnt hurt them in the long run; in fact you should argue a carbon tax
and an increase in energy prices will disproportionally impact them more.
Champion Briefs
158

February 2016
PRO US can be a global leader in climate change initiatives.

Argument: Many opponents to the idea of a carbon tax claim that it would be useless in so far as
other countries would still continue polluting, and carbon emissions are a global issue that cannot
just be solved by the United States making efforts. However, this argument is meant to
demonstrate that, by taking the first steps individually, we can motivate others to act as well and
pioneer these efforts.
Warrant: Our tax can motivate other countries to implement similar costs.
Clark, Jon. "A Revenue-neutral Carbon Tax Is a Win for Consumers: Jon Clark."
PennLive. N.p., 21 July 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/07/a_revenueneutral_carbon_tax_i_2.html>.
The plan is simple - place a steadily-rising tax on carbon emissions and return 100
percent of the revenue equally back to every household. We can reduce emissions, shift
investment away from fossil fuels towards clean, carbon free forms of energy and put the
money back into the hands of consumers. A border tax adjustment on imports coming
from countries without similar carbon pricing makes sure American manufacturers
are not put at a competitive disadvantage and in fact encourages countries who
haven't put a price on carbon to do so to avoid paying us costly tariffs, something
EPA regulations does not do. To ensure that a revenue-neutral carbon tax wouldn't
negatively impact our economy CCL sought out the experts to do the research.
Champion Briefs
159
February 2016

Warrant: Commercial incentives may drive other countries to investing in clean technologies.
<http://www.felj.org/sites/default/files/docs/elj351/14-45Meltzer_Final%205.13.14.pdf>.
Should the United States succeed in pricing carbon, a range of international trade
issues will arise. Some of these are positive as they reinforce the need for liberalized
trade as a driver of innovation and the production of cheap green technology. For
instance, a carbon price in the United States would send a strong market signal that
there are commercial opportunities in finding cost effective ways to reducing CO2
emissions, whether through incremental improvements in energy efficiency or the
development of breakthrough technologies which change the energy paradigm.
Warrant: US needs to take the leading role as the largest emitter per-capita.
07 Jan. 2016. <http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/TaxVOX/2013/0312/Carbon-tax-A-win-win-for-the-economy-and-the-environment>.
Critics also fear that a unilateral U.S. carbon tax would hurt the domestic economy
while doing little to reduce world-wide carbon emissions or levels. This view,
however, understates the value of a permanent price signal for research and
development and the social and environmental value of emissions reductions that
would come from U.S. action. It also discounts the experience of other countries that
have unilaterally created carbon taxes. There is no evidence that they paid a significant
price, or any price at all, in terms of economic growth. Moreover, if there is ever going
to be multilateral action to limit carbon emissions, the US as the largest per-capita
emitter of carbon dioxide needs to take a leading role.

Champion Briefs
160
February 2016

Warrant: International climate cooperation will become easier with a carbon tax.
A carbon tax will also incentivize the development of green technologies that can
be used to reduce CO2 emissions in the country applying the tax as well as overseas.
This is because a carbon tax, unlike a technology standard, creates an incentive to find
multiple ways of reducing CO2 emissions. As a result, a carbon tax should lead to a
broader range of innovations that could also be applicable in other countries.101
The increase in innovation that would follow the introduction by the United States
of a carbon tax should lead to new opportunities for international collaboration and
cooperation. In some areas, the United States has already forged these ties, such as with
the U.S.-China Clean Energy Research Center, and has clean energy partnerships with
Australia, Japan, and India, to name a few countries in the Asia-Pacific region.102 AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is also working on energy issues, including
promoting the development of energy efficiency technologies.

Warrant: International efforts towards green tech snowball into lower costs.
Increased global innovation in green technologies will also have a range of positive
spillovers. As new sources of R&D and opportunities for scientific collaboration
open up, greater resources become available to fund the innovation process and the
knowledge and skills to assess the commercial viability of green technologies increases
the access to and reduces the costs of finance. These factors should drive down the
costs of innovation and development of green technologies
Champion Briefs
161
February 2016

Warrant: Market demand also increases for green technologies, incentivizing other countries to
fill the supply gap.

The adoption by the United States of a carbon tax will create an incentive for both
U.S. and overseas firms to innovate and develop green technologies. As outlined
above, a carbon tax can induce innovation by incentivizing U.S. firms to innovate
and produce green technologies that reduce the impact of the tax. Not all firms will
be innovators, and many will instead turn to the market to obtain the latest green
technologies to reduce their CO2 emissions. This demand for green technologies by
the worlds largest economy will also create a strong global incentive for the
development of new green technologies in other countries.

Analysis: This argument is meant to show a long-term benefit to a carbon tax that is less
quantifiable but still extremely easy to weigh. In fact, that the argument doesnt have numbers
can actually be seen as an advantage in that it is much harder for your opponents to outweigh
they can claim a certain cost to the domestic economy in the immediate future, but you can
explain to your judges that you have an incalculable international benefit in the long-run that will
always be more important. The impacts attained from this argument are also not just limited to
one factor like, for example, the economic side of the debate. It can be expanded to discuss
cooperation between nations in general, as the evidence above proves countries are more likely
to cooperate with this incentive structure in place, and it can be proven to lead to other countries
investing in green energy infrastructure as well making the entire world much better off in an
environmental sense. This also directly responds to con arguments claiming curbing emissions is
a useless action if other countries continue emitting, because this proves other countries can be
persuaded to work with the US because of a carbon tax.

Champion Briefs
162

February 2016
A2 US can be a global leader in climate change initiatives.

Answer: A carbon tax would just push pollution overseas.

Warrant: Energy companies will feel incentivized to go overseas if policies make it more
expensive to work in the US.
Taken together, it is estimated by the American Petroleum Institute that all eight
targeted proposals of the administrations FY2013 budget would burden the oil and gas
industry with almost $86 billion in higher taxes over the next ten years. Energy
companies, who have recently been aggressively expanding operations in domestic oil
and natural gas fields from North Dakota to Texas to Pennsylvania, will have an
incentive to shift their operations overseas if U.S. tax policies make it less profitable
to engage in domestic oil and natural gas exploration and drilling.

Warrant: A carbon tax can cause carbon leakage.
"Considering a Carbon Tax: Frequently Asked Questions." Resources for the Future.
N.p., 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
Because the U.S. emits significantly more CO2 than most other countries, reducing
U.S. emissions can contribute to reducing total global emissions. However, imposing
a carbon tax or other policy to reduce emissions in one country can lead to increased
emissions elsewherea phenomenon known as carbon leakage. This occurs for a
variety of reasons. First, production of some carbon-intensive goods is likely to move
abroad to avoid the tax. Second, reduced U.S. demand for fossil fuels would result in
lower global prices for those fuels, making them more attractive in unregulated countries.
Research finds that, on average, a 10 percent reduction in carbon emissions in the United
States would be partially offset by a 1 to 3 percent increase elsewhere.
Champion Briefs
163

Warrant: Reduced US demand would increase oil prices elsewhere.
February 2016
"Considering a Carbon Tax: Frequently Asked Questions." Resources for the Future.
N.p., 2 Nov. 2012. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
Because the U.S. emits significantly more CO2 than most other countries, reducing
U.S. emissions can contribute to reducing total global emissions. However, imposing a
carbon tax or other policy to reduce emissions in one country can lead to increased
emissions elsewherea phenomenon known as carbon leakage. This occurs for a variety
of reasons. First, production of some carbon-intensive goods is likely to move abroad to
avoid the tax. Second, reduced U.S. demand for fossil fuels would result in lower
global prices for those fuels, making them more attractive in unregulated countries.
Research finds that, on average, a 10 percent reduction in carbon emissions in the
United States would be partially offset by a 1 to 3 percent increase elsewhere.

Warrant: Unilateral US action would lead to almost no reduction in emissions due to leakage.
Morgan, Derrick. "A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income
Americans Without Helping the Environment." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 21
Aug. 2012. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-tax-would-harm-uscompetitiveness-and-low-income-americans-without-helping-the-environment>.
Just as in a unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade system, a unilateral U.S. carbon tax
would likely further increase foreign emissions because of a phenomenon called
carbon leakage. As energy-intensive industry relocates from the United States to
other nations such as Mexico, Vietnam, or China (already the worlds largest emitter of
greenhouse gases), GHG emissions and toxic pollutants could increase more than they
would if those industries remained in the United States. Unilateral action by the
United States to tax carbon emissions is unwise because it would not achieve its
stated environmental goal: material reduction of global GHG emissions.
Champion Briefs
164
February 2016

Analysis: This response is driven by the idea that no matter how much of a leader the US may
be and no matter how incentivized other countries may be to try out green technologies, it will all
be outweighed by the increases in emissions that occur through carbon leakage into other
nations. Because other countries, like Mexico or China, have significantly lower standards than
the US in terms of environmental regulation, the evidence above demonstrates a potential for a
net increase in carbon emissions that directly contradicts the goal of a carbon tax. In terms of
weighing, this is a clear point for the Con side that is very easy to explain to a judge.

Answer: The other nations around the world will not be convinced to follow suit.

Warrant: Developing nations and other country-leaders are not willing to harm their countrys
growth with renewables and a carbon tax.
Cohen, Steven. "It's Time to Abandon the Delusion of a Carbon Tax." The Huffington
Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 29 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-cohen/its-time-to-abandon-thed_b_5899448.html>.
A less generous interpretation would label it cynical baloney. No political leader
responsible for ensuring the material well-being of his or her people in the modern
global economy is going to willingly raise the price of something so central to that
economy as the price of energy. This is especially true in the developing world. It
makes for interesting cocktail party chitchat and impassioned rhetoric in global talks and
academic conferences, but it bears no resemblance to political or economic reality.

Analysis: This response is aimed to refute the link the Pro provides. The pros argument is
largely dependent on the idea that the US acting through a carbon tax could drive other countries
to follow suit and pursue their own person greener goals. However, at the point where doing this
would only serve to threaten their economies and peoples well-being, it makes no sense that
they would do so. It is also vital to explain to the judge why this is uniquely true for other
countries that are still developing, who need this energies so desperately to get themselves to a
point where they could be stable enough to consider green policies, like the US is doing now.
Champion Briefs
165

February 2016
PRO A Carbon Tax Could Pave the Way for US Tech Leadership
Argument: A carbon tax could provide the incentive necessary for a green tech revolution in the
United States, and paving the way for US leadership and innovation in clean technology.
Warrant: Carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology and innovation can spill over into other
developing nations.
Heidug, Wolf. "A Policy Strategy for Carbon Capture and Storage." IEA Energy Papers
(2012): 36. The International Energy Agency. Sustainable Energy Policy and
Technology Directorate, Jan. 2012. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/policy_strategy_fo
r_ccs.pdf>.
Developed countries will provide support for CCS deployment in developing countries
(through NAMAs or other processes) partly for political reasons. However, in the
context of CCS, developed countries (and firms domiciled in these countries) can
realize some non-political benefits by supporting developing country mitigation
efforts: introducing CCS to a variety of environments, including in developing
countries, may lead to greater learning than regionally concentrated pilots in a few
developed countries; CCS deployment may be possible at lower cost in the
developing world; firms domiciled in one country may enhance technology
leadership by demonstrating the ability to operate in a range of different locations,
laying the groundwork for a strong position in a global CCS market; and benefits
of reduced climate change damage accrue globally, no matter where CO2 is
captured and stored.
Champion Briefs
166
February 2016

Warrant: Currently, the US is not a leader in green technology; China is taking the lead.
Mattoo, Aaditya, and Arvind Subramanian. "A Greenprint?" for International
Cooperation on Climate Change." Open Knowledge. The World Bank
Development Research Group Trade and Integration Team, May 2013. Web. 05
Jan. 2016.
<https://www.openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/15581/wps
6440.txt?sequence=2>.
Third, there is an arguably bigger political economy benefit. Prospects for climate change
action in the United States in the form of a carbon tax or cap-and-trade do not seem
bright. President Obamas acknowledgement of climate change as a priority in his State
of the Union Speech is unlikely to be matched by bold action because of the lack of
bipartisan support in Congress. This state of affairs reflects a combination of factors
climate change denial, the strength of the carbon energy industries, and weak economic
prospects. Thus, the United States is unable or unwilling either to raise the price of
carbon or to subsidize cleaner fuels and technologies. One development may
galvanize action in the United States: the threat that green technology leadership
will be captured by China. In other words, the United States needs a Sputnik
moment of collective alarm at the loss of US economic and technological
ascendancy.
Champion Briefs
167
February 2016

Warrant: The US is currently not the leader in green technology; in order to become the leader,
the US must foster the green tech industry.
Pernick, Ron, and Clint Wilder. Clean Tech Nation: How the U.S. Can Lead in the New
Global Economy. New York: HarperBusiness, 2012. Journal of High Technology

Law. Suffolk University Law School, 2012. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
<http://host.joemoakley.com/documents/jhtl_book_reviews/Hollister12.pdf>.
Clean Tech Nation: How the U.S. Can Lead in the New Global Economy analyzes patent
filing data to determine what cities and countries are poised to succeed as the clean
technology sector expands. Authors Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder make it clear from the
outset that the United States is not in the lead when it comes to clean technology. In
order to win the race to global supremacy in clean technology, Pernick and Wilder
write, the U.S. must make a concerted effort to foster and grow the clean technology
industry. Some of the most important tools available to the United States when it comes
to clean technology are the robust patent-protection laws and unparalleled venture
capital networks. After analyzing the geographic dispersion of clean technology patents
and the current hodgepodge of policies in place Pernick and Wilder set out a sevenpoint action plan to solidify the American clean technology industry.
Champion Briefs
168
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon taxes incentivize and fuel innovation in green technology.
Kerr, Alex Rice. "Why We Need a Carbon Tax?" University of California, Davis 34.1
(n.d.): 27-33. University of California, Davis Law School. University of
California, Davis, 2010. Web.
Lastly, carbon taxes may benefit the global effort in preventing climate change without
requiring participation from all countries. Carbon taxes that fuel innovation in the
leading industrialized countries like the United States, Denmark, Germany, Japan, and
Canada can spur clean technologies to the point of economic scale when distribution
to less industrialized countries becomes cost effective. Just as Chinese automakers are
aiming to skip the current technology of gas-powered vehicles by jumping to newer
electric technologies,177 many countries that lag technologically can make a virtue of a
liability. Emerging market powers like India, Brazil, and China may have the option of
implementing new solar and wind technologies without ever investing in conventional
grid infrastructure. Furthermore, given the size of these markets, even modest
adoption rates of solar, wind, and other renewables could result in significant global
reductions in clean tech costs.178 China, for example, despite its poor environmental
track record and reputation for polluting, just overtook the United States as the worlds
third largest producer of solar panels, after Germany and Japan.
Champion Briefs
169

Warrant: A carbon tax will fuel the innovation of clean technology.
February 2016
The United States and other clean tech leaders have a significant role to play in
providing funding, technology, and knowledge in the diffusion of clean tech. A
carbon tax, regardless of whether countries like China and India are among the first
to adopt it, feeds the dynamic of the innovation-based environmental protection
model. Spillover from industrialized to industrializing markets contributes to the
creation of a worldwide clean tech market. Both types of markets benefit from
competition and collaboration, and a worldwide market creates greater scale and diversity
in technology developments. The United States has already experienced the benefit of
Chinese interest in clean tech and can expect more to come. Companies from China are
already tapping American equity markets, creating [a] frenzy over Chinese solar stocks,
reflecting the confluence of two major trends: [Chinas] growing interest in clean
technology stocks and demand from investors for more plays on Chinas booming
economy.180 A worldwide clean tech market invites new opportunities for
entrepreneurial companies across the globe. Including India and China in the marketbased solution to climate change is critical to the international negotiation dynamic.
These countries, as an inescapable part of the global problem, must be part of the global
solution.
Champion Briefs
170
February 2016

Warrant: The country that takes the lead in clean technology will lead the world in
technological innovation.
Mirsky, Steve, and Thomas Friedman. "The U.S. Needs to Lead in Clean Tech."
Scientific America, 1 Dec. 2008. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-need-to-lead/>.
In a world that is hot, flat and crowded, clean power and clean technology are going
to be a currency of geopolitical and military power, every bit as much as tanks,
planes and nuclear missiles have been. In a world thats hot, flat and crowded, clean
tech has to be the next great global industry. Therefore, the country that takes the
lead in clean power and clean tech is going to be by definition an economic and
strategic leader in the 21st century. Thats why theres absolutely no contradiction
not only between going green and being patriotic but also between being geopolitical and
geostrategic. They go together.
Analysis: If the United States were to implement a carbon tax, the cost of producing energy that
would emit carbon would be significantly more expensive. The extra tax on carbon emissions
will incentivize research and development in the clean tech industry. The last card in this
argument explains that the next global tech leader will be the leader in green technology.
Champion Briefs
171

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax Could Pave the Way for US Tech Leadership

Answer: A carbon tax will not pave the way for US tech leadership; that spot has already been
taken.
Warrant: China is the leader with nearly half of the fastest growing green technology companies
based in the country.
Chandran, Nyshka. "Guess Where Asia's Fastest-growing Clean Tech Industry Is."
CNBC. N.p., 03 Dec. 2015. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/03/chinese-green-energy-companies-amongasias-fastest-growing-tech-firms-deloitte-says.html>.
China boasts the higher number of fastest-growing clean technology companies in
Asia-Pacific, according to a new Deloitte report released on Thursday. Every year,
Deloitte ranks the 500 fastest-growing technology, media and telecommunications
firms across the region based on percentage revenue growth rates. This year, clean
technology was the third leading industry with more than 48 companies on the list,
out of which 27 were Chinese. The results come as President Xi Jinping reaffirmed
Beijing's dedication to reducing greenhouse gas emissions at a closely-watched climate
change conference in Paris this week. He also stressed any agreement inked at the
summit should respect the rights of developing countries to grow their economies as they
continue to industrialize. "China shines in clean energy," Paul Sallomi, Deloitte's vice
chairman and global technology, media, telecommunications industry leader, told CNBC.
Champion Briefs
172

Warrant: China spends double the US budget on clean technology.
February 2016
Chandran, Nyshka. "Guess Where Asia's Fastest-growing Clean Tech Industry Is."
CNBC. N.p., 03 Dec. 2015. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/03/chinese-green-energy-companies-amongasias-fastest-growing-tech-firms-deloitte-says.html>.
"I think China has more tools than California did when it started on the same
journey 30 years ago." Indeed, the world's second-largest economy has deep pockets
when it comes to funding its ambitious climate targets, having spent more than $90
billion on low-carbon energy last year, nearly double the U.S.'s $50 billion spend,
according to think-tank World Resources Institute.
Warrant: China is the leader in clean technology, securing more contracts than the US for green
tech projects and investing over $10 billion more than the US in the green tech. sector.
"Red Light, Green Light." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 08 Mar. 2014.
Web. 05 Jan. 2016. <http://www.economist.com/news/business/21598670-chinasanti-pollution-drive-will-make-it-good-place-clean-energy-firms-red-light-green>.
ENVIRONMENTAL pollution has become a major problem, which is natures red-light
warning. Those green-tinged words do not come from an activist. Rather, they come
from Chinas leaders, who gathered this week in Beijing for a big annual meeting. On
March 5th Li Keqiang, the prime minister, vowed to declare war on pollution. The timing
could not have been better, then, for the launch of a firm devoted to the manufacture
of greener engines. The same day EcoMotors, a startup backed by Bill Gates and
Khosla Ventures (supported by Vinod Khosla, a Californian venture capitalist),
unveiled its joint venture with a division of China FAW Group, a local carmaker.
The Chinese partner vowed to spend more than $200m on a factory in Shanxi, a northern
province, that will produce 100,000 of the new engines a year. The ventures OPOC
two-stroke engine, a novel twist on a century-old idea, consists of a pair of cylinders,
Champion Briefs
173

February 2016
each containing two opposing pistons. Its backers claim its fuel-efficiency will be up to
45% better than the four-stroke engines commonly used in cars. The technology was
developed with financial help from the Defence Advanced Research Projects
Agency, an arm of the Pentagon with a record of promoting breakthroughs (robot
legs and self-driving cars are two others). The engine can run on a variety of fuels. The
plan is first to make diesel engines for use in lorries, and only later to consider petrol
versions for cars. However, local boosters in Shanxi also want future configurations to
burn methanol, which can be made from abundant local coal supplies. Another
noteworthy aspect of this deal, argues Andrew Chung of Khosla Ventures, is that it
suggests the best way for inventive energy startups to achieve scale: make a big push
in China. Despite the downturn in the solar business there (see article), Bloomberg New
Energy Finance, a research firm, estimates that the clean-technology market in China
exceeded $60 billion last year, whereas Americas was less than $50 billion.
Commercialising new technologies is not easy in rich countries, says Amit Soman,
the president of EcoMotors, since slow growth and legacy assets make incumbent
manufacturers reluctant to take a punt on unproven new kit. But in China his firm
has already reached two non-exclusive deals. In one of these, EcoMotors signed a
$200m licensing agreement last April to let Zhongding Power make a version of its
engines for diesel generators. The innovation cycle is being completed in China and
other emerging economies, not America, says Mr Chung. Maybe so, but there are two
caveats. The first is that Chinese firms will not pay much for intellectual property, and
will copy it as soon they figure out how. The second, observes Jonathan Woetzel of
McKinsey, a consulting firm, is that only technology firms that fit conveniently into the
Chinese ecosystem, to the benefit of local companies, will be allowed to prosper.
Consider the much-trumpeted recent arrival of Tesla Motors in China. The American
electric-car firm unarguably has cutting-edge clean technology, but its business model of
importing all its vehicles does not enrich powerful Chinese firms or transfer intellectual
property to local joint ventures. So the subsidies and tax breaks lavished by Chinas
central and local governments on buyers of even the most wretched new energy
vehicles made there will not be offered to purchasers of Teslas gorgeous green
machines.
Champion Briefs
174
February 2016

Analysis: This is a long card, but the story could be really helpful in answer arguments from the
Pro. Note that this contains many anecdotes regarding contracts that Chinese firms secured or
how China spends more on green technology than the US. You can use these anecdotes as
examples in a round with a lay judge.
Warrant: China is the leader in green technology with a 20% increase in green technology
projects over the past year. In comparison, the US decreased funding for green technology by
roughly 37%.
Hargreaves, Steve. "China Trounces U.S. in Green Energy Investments." CNNMoney.
Cable News Network, 17 Apr. 2013. Web. 05 Jan. 2016.
<http://money.cnn.com/2013/04/17/news/economy/china-green-energy/>.
China retook its top spot as global leader in the clean energy race, attracting nearly twice
the green energy investment dollars last year as the United States did. Investors plowed
$65 billion into Chinese wind farms, solar panel arrays and other clean energy projects in
2012, a 20% increase over the year prior, according to a report released Wednesday by
Pew Charitable Trusts and Bloomberg New Energy Finance. The numbers reflect only
private investments in power projects, and do not include government subsidies or R&D
money. China's total made it the world's top destination for green energy investments in
2012, a position it held in 2009 and 2010 but lost to the United States in 2011. In the
United States, green energy investments last year plummeted 37% to $35.6 billion,
although the country still came in second worldwide.
Analysis: These answers are meant to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Pro argument. They
can say a carbon tax may push innovation in green technology. But there isnt evidence out there
to suggest that push would be enough to overcome the tremendous growth in the green
technology sector in China. The last card gives you a comparison between China and the US and
how their green tech markets have faired over the past few years.

Champion Briefs
175

February 2016
PRO A Carbon Tax can be revenue neutral

Argument: One major complaint about the idea of a carbon tax is that it adds more costs to
consumers and citizens that cannot afford it. This is especially emphasized for low-income
communities wear the tax can be seen as very regressive. However, simple facets of the policy
can help cancel those effects out. Many cities that have implemented carbon taxes in the past, for
example, use the revenue to alleviate the need for money from other places using the carbon
tax as an excuse to cut others, like income tax or sales tax. This can help families significantly
and make the tax often far more favorable in the eyes of the affected population.
Warrant: A carbon tax would bring in a very large amount of revenue.
"U.S. Carbon Tax Could Halve Deficit in 10 Years: Report." Reuters. Thomson Reuters,
26 Sept. 2012. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.reuters.com/article/us-carbonidUSBRE88P0DV20120926>.
Imposing a $20 per metric ton carbon tax in the U.S. could reduce the country's budget
deficit by 50 percent over the next 10 years, a report by the Congressional Research
Service said on Tuesday. Such a tax would generate approximately $88 billion in
2012, rising to $144 billion by 2020, the report said, slashing U.S. debt by between 12
and 50 percent within a decade, depending on how high the deficit climbs. The U.S.
budget deficit has exceeded $1 trillion annually in each fiscal year since 2009, and could
rise to between $2.3 trillion and $10 trillion by 2020, according to the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO).

Champion Briefs
176
February 2016

Warrant: Even conservative economists agree a revenue-neutral carbon tax would be efficient.
Clark, Jon. "A Revenue-neutral Carbon Tax Is a Win for Consumers: Jon Clark."
PennLive. N.p., 21 July 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2014/07/a_revenueneutral_carbon_tax_i_2.html>.
Conservative economists such as Art Laffer, Greg Mankiw and George Shultz have
been telling us that a carbon tax is the simplest, most efficient and fairest way to
correct the failure of the market to include the hidden costs such as climate change,
subsidies, and air and water pollution into the cost of fossil fuels. In fact George
Shultz feels so strongly about this that he sits on CCL's Advisory Board. So we've
been taking our revenue-neutral carbon tax proposal to Congress every year. The
plan is simple - place a steadily-rising tax on carbon emissions and return 100
percent of the revenue equally back to every household. We can reduce emissions,
shift investment away from fossil fuels towards clean, carbon free forms of energy and
put the money back into the hands of consumers.

Warrant: Recycling the money back into the economy creates a lot of jobs.
"New Economic Study Shows Carbon Tax Refunded to Households Would Create Jobs."
Citizens Climate Lobby. N.p., 9 June 2014. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://citizensclimatelobby.org/press-release-june-9-2014/>.
The study, conducted by Regional Economic Models, Inc., examined a tax on the
carbon-dioxide content of fossil fuels. The tax would start at $10 per ton, increasing at
$10 per ton each year. Revenue from the tax would be returned to households in
equal shares as direct payments. Under this approach, the REMI study found that
recycling the revenue back into the economy would add 2.1 million jobs over ten
years. Improvements in air quality would save 13,000 lives a year. Emissions would
decline by 33 percent.
Champion Briefs
177
February 2016

Warrant: Some taxes are worse than others and a carbon tax is one of the better ones
"Carbon Taxes Don't Kill Jobs." BloombergView.com. N.p., 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 06 Jan.
2016. <http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-09-30/carbon-taxes-don-tkill-jobs>.
Where they've been tried, the evidence shows, well-designed carbon taxes have
succeeded in reducing greenhouse-gas emissions. But that doesn't necessarily end the
debate over their effects -- nor should it. The next question is whether that success is
bought at the expense of jobs and incomes. The answer is no. As long as the tax is
well-designed, it can cut emissions at little or no economic cost. And that is a
conservative assessment: In practice, a carbon tax has been shown to provide an
economic boost. The reason is that the revenue raised by a carbon tax can be used to
cut other, more damaging, taxes. In general, taxes make economies less efficient. But
some do more harm than others. Taxing "bads," such as pollution, actually
improves the allocation of resources, whereas taxing "goods," such as labor, reduces
the economy's capacity to produce. In principle, therefore, using the revenue from a
carbon tax to cut other taxes can yield a double benefit: reducing pollution and
expanding the economy. There are transition costs that have to be reckoned with. But
even making allowances for them, it's plausible that carbon taxes help the economy, and
not just by reducing greenhouse gases.

Champion Briefs
178
February 2016

Warrant: Some forms of revenue-neutrality, such as tax rebates, can be very effective.
A simple carbon tax will likely be regressive instead of progressive, and a carbon tax on
just the power sector will potentially be more regressive than an economy-wide program.
Thats because low-income consumers spend a higher portion of their income on
electricity than high-income consumers, even though wealthy households tend to use
more electricity because they live in bigger houses, own more appliances, and
generally have more demand for energy. Research from the Congressional Budget
Office explored seven different options for reducing the regressivity of a carbon tax
via the tax code or targeted-spending programs. While none of its solutions are
perfect, it does find that an income-tax rebate or payroll-tax rebate can be very
effective in addressing the challenge. This is because these rebates reach a very
broad number of people and can be targeted to specific income levels. Congress
could also create a carbon tax in the context of broader tax reform. If this is the case, the
carbon tax need not be explicitly linked to a progressive fix, as long as the overall reform
package is progressive. Closely related to reducing harm to low-income consumers is
reducing potential harm to energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries. A relatively small
number of industries such as cement and glass manufacturing could be harmed by
competing imports from countries that do not have their own price on carbonand
therefore can offer their goods at a lower price. Efforts to reduce harm can come from the
revenue collection side; that is, there could be some sort of border tax on imports from
nations without programs to limit carbon pollution in order to level the playing field.

Champion Briefs
179
February 2016

Analysis: This argument is meant to demonstrate that a carbon tax can be implemented without
one of its largest harms and in that vein, actually accomplish something that is beneficial in
reversing that downfall. By removing taxes that act as a larger drain on the economy, for
example income and sales taxes, and replacing them with a tax that is beneficial in that it can
raise money for green programs, reduce emissions, and balance out its effects on lower income
communities, it is clearly an optimal choice. This argument can be weighed effectively by
stressing that the carbon tax is not only helping people here, but the very people that need help
the most (that being low-income populations). By creating jobs and expanding economic growth,
these effects snowball and can outweigh most any impact provided on the con side.
Champion Briefs
180

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax can be revenue neutral

Answer: A carbon tax is very regressive.

Warrant: A carbon tax hits low income communities much harder.
Jones, Mitch. "Why a Carbon Tax Won't Save the Climate." Food & Water Watch. N.p.,
16 Sept. 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/
why-carbon-tax-wont-save-climate>.
So, whats this got to do with pricing carbon? Quite a bit actually, because the same
failed economic myths that support the desire for water markets support the idea of
pricing pollution. Weve already documented the problems with pricing pollution,
including carbon, through cap and trade. And while cap and trade is still being pushed at
the state and regional level, nationally the push is for a carbon tax. The problems with the
carbon tax begin with its regressivity. A regressive tax is one that hits households with
lower income harder than those with higher income. The Congressional Budget
Office estimated that under a $28/ton carbon tax, the bottom 20 percent of income
earners would pay 2.5 percent more in taxes, while the top 20 percent would pay less
than 1 percent more.

Analysis: This response doesnt disagree with the pro side in fact, the pro argument is
predicated on this response because it accepts that the tax is very regressive and attempts to solve
for that problem. This response then is just meant to demonstrate just how regressive it is. If it
can be proven that it is truly terrible for the poor, the likelihood that rebates can fix the problem
entirely is slim to none.

Champion Briefs
181

Answer: A carbon tax would not be revenue neutral.
February 2016

Warrant: Historically and logically, attempts towards revenue neutrality do not succeed.
Some claim that a carbon tax will be revenue neutral, meaning that revenues from
the carbon tax will be used to offset or decrease taxes in another area. However,
history shows us that this is unlikely to happen. The federal income tax was also
intended to be a revenue neutral tax swap that would only tax the richest Americans
while phasing out regressive tariffs, yet that has been proven to not be true.
Additionally, the idea that a carbon tax can offset the federal income tax or payroll
taxes is shaky because the taxes are based on separate tracks: a carbon tax (according
to its supporters) provides the optimal disincentive for emissions based on models of
climate change, while a payroll tax is based on Social Security demographics. Over time,
these tracks would diverge and eventually break down, so that even if the carbon tax
originally were tied to an offsetting cut to other taxes, over time this connection would
be severed. Americans would simply have a new tax on energy, on top of the other
taxes they suffer.

Analysis: This response attempts to disprove their argument on face value. The pro sides
argument is simply discussing the benefits of a revenue-neutral tax, without ever really
addressing the feasibility of it. The evidence above though shows that the likelihood that a
carbon tax would actually be implemented in such a manner is very low. It is also important to
make your judges note that there are two links demonstrated above first the historical evidence
that shows revenue-neutral attempts have failed in the past, and second the diverging tracks that
cause the neutrality to break down after a short amount of time. If your opponents dont respond
to both, then they lose their entire argument (or try to explain it that way, at least).
Champion Briefs
182

Answer: The revenue neutral aspect is implemented unfairly.
February 2016
Warrant: The taxes cut in exchange are corporate taxes, not income and sales taxes.
Jones, Mitch. "Why a Carbon Tax Won't Save the Climate." Food & Water Watch. N.p.,
16 Sept. 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/insight/
why-carbon-tax-wont-save-climate>.
The problems with the carbon tax begin with its regressivity. A regressive tax is one that
hits households with lower income harder than those with higher income. The
Congressional Budget Office estimated that under a $28/ton carbon tax, the bottom 20
percent of income earners would pay 2.5 percent more in taxes, while the top 20 percent
would pay less than 1 percent more. The politics of passing a carbon tax will make this
inequality worse. While the carbon tax is already regressive, the most likely
proposals to get bipartisan and corporate support couple it with a reduction in
individual and corporate taxes that make it even more so. Unfortunately, the politics
that would have to come together to pass a carbon tax would likely necessitate just
this sort of tax swap to get the votes to pass. Beyond the regressive nature of any
carbon tax that could get the votes to pass, we should also be clear that using pricing to
reduce pollution is the wrong approach. Pricing relies on the idea that market signals
are the best way to regulate pollution. Put a price on it, and businesses and households
will respond by polluting less. The goal has been to replace environmental regulations
with these price and market signals.
Analysis: The benefits of a revenue neutral carbon tax are entirely predicated on the idea that
they will be used to directly offset costs to low-income communities and offset the correct types
of taxes. However, the evidence shown above proves that the neutrality will come from tax
reductions in areas that do not help the poor, and actually make their situation worse, turning the
impacts provided by the pro against them.

Champion Briefs
183
February 2016

Answer: The harms on the economy are wide-reaching to the point they may counter-balance
any neutrality attempts.

Warrant: The prices of goods go up as well as the price of energy.
It will increase the cost of goods and services More expensive energy means more
expensive goods and services. The costs associated with higher energy prices will be
passed onto consumers through more expensive goods across all sectors of the
economy. 3). It disproportionately hurts low income communities and seniors The
carbon tax is by nature regressive, because it will raise the prices of gasoline, electricity,
and other goods by the same dollar amount for all consumers, regardless of their incomes.
This disproportionately affects the poor, because energy costs are a bigger portion of their
overall budgets. A carbon tax will therefore hurt low-income families and seniors more
than it will hurt middle- and upper-class households.

Analysis: This is simply meant to mitigate the impacts provided by the Pro. Even if all of the
other answers offered above get responded to, the impact the Pro achieves from their argument is
that the poor are not harmed that much. This answer proves that they are though even if the tax
facet is balanced out, they are harmed in other areas of the economy, for example with their
goods getting much more expensive. Because product prices are regressive as well, this
specifically harms the poor more than others.

Champion Briefs
184
Champion Briefs
February 2016
Public Forum Brief
Con Arguments with

Pro Responses
Con Arguments with Pro Responses

February 2016
CON Carbon Taxes Use Valuable Political Capital

Argument: Carbon taxes will take political capital away from other necessary political changes.
Warrant: Voters do not like carbon taxes
"Hansen to Obama: Support a Carbon Tax." World Watch Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 9
Jan. 2016. <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5962>.
Carbon taxes are currently in place, with frequent exemptions, in Scandinavia, the United
Kingdom, British Columbia, and select U.S. cities. The taxes are generally politically
unpopular - national plans in New Zealand and Canada failed to win residents'
support. According to a global BBC poll in 2007, about half of the 22,000 people
surveyed were in favor of increased fossil fuel taxes, and 44 percent opposed the
proposal.
Warrant: Carbon taxes are unpopular on both sides of the aisle
"Floored." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 22 Mar. 2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21599420-carbon-taxes-are-necessarythey-are-unpopular-floored>.
Since 2005 an EU cap-and-trade scheme has forced polluters across the continent to
purchase permits for each tonne of carbon they emit. Britains carbon-price floor, a form
of carbon tax announced in 2011 and enacted in 2013, aims to protect green investors
from swings in the price of these permits by setting a minimum amount that polluters
must pay for them. The policy riles businesses in energy-intensive industries, such as
chemicals and manufacturing, whose bills are already rising because of global fuel
costs. Nor is it much loved by renewable groups, for whom straightforward cash
subsidies are a more appealing means of support.
Champion Briefs
186

Warrant: It will take a lot of political capital to pass carbon taxes
February 2016
Baird, Julia. "A Carbon Taxs Ignoble End." The New York Times. The New York
Times, 24 July 2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/opinion/julia-baird-why-tony-abbott-axedaustralias-carbon-tax.html>.
The tax, or carbon-pricing mechanism, had defined three elections, destabilized
three prime ministers and dominated public debate in this country for eight toxic
years. . . In 2010, the Labor prime minister, Julia Gillard, said she would look at carbonpricing proposals, but also promised, There will be no carbon tax under the government
I lead. Then, under pressure to form a minority government, she made a deal with the
Greens and agreed to legislate a carbon price: a tax by any other name. The heat, anger
and vitriol directed at her as a leader and as Australias first woman to be prime
minister coalesced around the promise and the tax. It grew strangely nasty: She was
branded by a right-wing shockjock as Ju-Liar, a moniker she struggled to shake. The
political cynicism surrounding the carbon tax certainly reduced Ms. Gillards
political capital, but it was a perceived lack of conviction in the policy itself that
damaged the pricing schemes credibility.
Champion Briefs
187
February 2016

Warrant: The political capital necessary would lead to ineffective compromises on carbon
taxation
"Options And Considerations For A Federal Carbon Tax." Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.c2es.org/publications/options-considerations-federal-carbon-tax>.
A carbon tax could be subject to political compromises that can dilute the
effectiveness of the policy. Some have argued that political pressure from
powerful interest groups will push for reductions in or exemptions/rebates from
the tax. If decision-makers yield to these pressures, the scope of the program
under a tax will be reduced, compromising the environmental objective and
reducing the availability of potentially lower cost emission reductions. The
experience of Norway illustrates the potential difficulties of implementing a
carbon tax. Norway set a high nominal carbon tax in 1991 but under political
pressure ended up exempting the majority of its industries, with the effect that only
about 55 percent of its CO2 emissions are taxed.10 Emissions not covered by a
carbon tax are included in their emissions trading scheme (ETS), which was linked to
the European ETS in 2008. Instead of implementing dual carbon pricing programs or
blanket exemptions, "inframarginal" exemptions are typically recommended by
economists. In other words, the carbon tax would apply only to emissions in
excess of some given percentage of a firm's historical emissions. Like a free
allocation of allowances in a cap-and-trade system, this would provide targeted
compensation to the firm while still preserving the marginal incentive to reduce
emissions.
Champion Briefs
188

Warrant: Global warming is a low-priority issue to American voters
February 2016
"Deficit Reduction Declines as Policy Priority." Pew Research Center for the People
and the Press RSS. N.p., 27 Jan. 2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.people-press.org/2014/01/27/deficit-reduction-declines-aspolicy-priority/>.
Overall, the widest partisan difference is over the importance of protecting the
environment viewed as a top priority by 65% of Democrats and only 28% of
Republicans. The gap is nearly as large on dealing with the problems of the poor
and needy (32 points) and reducing the budget deficit (31 points). There also are
substantial partisan differences over the importance of dealing with global
warming (28 points), improving education (25 points) and strengthening the
military (also 25 points). There is greater agreement on the importance of some other
key issues. For instance, Republicans and Democrats give about equal priority to
reforming the nations tax system and reducing the influence of lobbyists.
Analysis: This argument is pretty straightforward. You could use this as a base argument and
extend the argument to talk about what policies the political capital is being taken from (i.e. Iran
sanctions, welfare programs, etc) and talk about the harms that come from losing that political
capital.
Champion Briefs
189

February 2016
A2 Carbon Taxes use Valuable Political Capital

Answer: The capital is returned in monetary funds from the taxes
Warrant: Carbon taxes generate revenue
Carbone, Jared. "Deficit Reduction and Carbon Taxes: Budgetary, Economic, and
Distributional Impacts." Deficit Reduction and Carbon Taxes: Budgetary,
Economic, and Distributional Impacts (n.d.): n. pag. RFF Report. Aug. 2013. Web.
9 Jan. 2016.
This set of scenarios is generally similar to the revenue-neutral cases, in that the CO2 tax
revenue finances a lower rate for some other tax. The key difference is that, in this case,
lower means a smaller increase, not an actual decrease. Thus, these reductions do not
represent cuts below current rates. Rather, they are reductions below the higher rates
needed to achieve longterm deficit reduction in the different scenarios. Put
differently, this is still a tax swapits just a tax swap from a baseline that includes
potentially large tax increases and spending cuts. Overall, tax rates (and revenues) are
higher in these cases, consistent with the long-term deficit-reduction goals. The small
differences in the rate cuts (or rebates) between the tax reform and deficit reduction cases
reflect the higher GDP growth in the former scenario. Arguably, these are artificial
differences because of the highly stylized assumption in the deficit-neutral case that
markets will ignore the growing deficit indefinitely.
Champion Briefs
190

Warrant: Carbon taxes benefit a majority of Americans
February 2016
"In Charts: How a Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax Creates Jobs, Grows the Economy." The
Guardian. N.p., n.d. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-percent/2014/jun/13/how-revenue-neutral-carbon-tax-creates-jobs-grows-economy>.
The main source of opposition to carbon pricing is the perception that it will 'kill jobs' or
otherwise hurt the economy. However, economic forecasts have rarely been done for a
carbon fee in which 100% the revenue is returned to the taxpayers. Under proposed
revenue-neutral carbon tax legislation, about two-thirds of taxpayers are projected
to receive more in refunds than they pay in higher energy prices. It's a net financial
gain for most people. This is a key factor that differentiates a revenue-neutral carbon tax
system and its economic impacts from other carbon pricing systems.
Warrant: A majority of Americans like carbon taxes
"Poll: 60% Back Carbon Tax If Used for Renewables." USA Today. N.p., 21 July 2014.
Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/21/poll-on-carbon-taxfinds-mixed-support/12950925/>.
Yet a different picture emerges when survey participants are asked about three possible
uses of the tax revenue. If used to fund programs for renewable power like solar and
wind, 60% back the tax overall, including 51% of Republicans, 54% of
Independents and 70% of Democrats.
Analysis: The first warrant seems wacky, but the card in its entirety lays out that carbon taxes
generate significant revenue when compared to no taxation at all. Argue that most Americans
like carbon taxes and even would support it if it was neutral-revenue oriented, so the political
capital necessary is not as large as it seems. Then bring up positives about carbon taxes.
Champion Briefs
191

February 2016
CON Unilateral Carbon Taxes Would Be Ineffective

Argument: Carbon emissions are a global problem and should be treated as such.
Warrant: Individual action on climate change would be inadequate
Harris, Jonathan M., and Brian Roach. "The Economics of Global Climate Change."
(n.d.): n. pag. Global Development And Environment Institute. Tufts University,
2007. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.economicsnetwork.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Brian%20Roach/The_E
conomics_of_Global_Climate_Change.pdf>.
If indeed the effects of climate change are likely to be severe, it is in everyones interest
to lower their emissions for the common good. If no agreement or rules on emissions
exist, actions by individual firms, cities or nations will be inadequate. Climate
change can thus be viewed as a public good issue, requiring collaborative action.
Since the problem is global, only a strong international agreement binding nations
to act for the common good can prevent serious environmental consequences.
Warrant: Universal actions wont influence climate change
"Carbon Taxes: Reducing Economic Growth-Achieving No Environmental Improvement
- IER." Institute for Energy Research. 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 08 Jan. 2016.
<http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/carbon-tax-primer/>.
As time goes on, the United States will emit a smaller and smaller share of the
worlds total greenhouse gas emissions,[21] which makes unilateral efforts such as
a domestic carbon taxan 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.[22] 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.[23] Increases in worldwide carbon dioxide emissions
are driven by developing economies, not the United States.
Champion Briefs
192
February 2016

Warrant: Single and small regional alliances would not be effective in decreasing emissions
Zhang, Zhong Xiang, and Andrea Baranzini. "What Do We Know About Carbon Taxes?
An Inquiry into Their Impacts on Competitiveness and Distribution of
Income." Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems 3. 2000. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c12/E1-04-07-10.pdf>.
The carbon taxes imposed unilaterally or even regionally would be largely
ineffective. This ineffectiveness is attributed partly to a relatively small share of the
coalition (for example, EU, OECD) emissions in the world total and partly to strong
economic growth and the resulting increase in emissions taking place in noncoalition countries that offset the coalitions achievements.
Warrant: International agreements have only succeeded in producing vague pledges

Loris, Nicolas, and Brett D. Schaefer. "Climate Change: How the U.S. Should Lead." The
Heritage Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 24 Jan. 2013. Web. 08 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/01/climate-change-how-the-usshould-lead>.
The past four years have seen successive annual U.N. conferences (Copenhagen in
2009, Cancun in 2010, Durban in 2011, and Doha in 2012) frantically trying to reach
agreement among nearly 200 countries on a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. In essence,
these conferences have succeeded only in wresting vague pledges from developed
countries to reduce emissions, contribute funds to help developing countries adapt
to climate change, and meet again to try to negotiate a binding treaty by 2015.
Champion Briefs
193
February 2016

Warrant: International agreements rely heaving on developed countries, rather than the
developing nations that produce the most emissions

The problem is that the basic approach is unworkable. International negotiations have
centered on placing the economic burden of addressing climate change on a few
dozen developed countries while asking nothing from more than 150 developing
countries. But the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions is increasingly the
developing world. Any approach to effectively address increasing emissions of
greenhouse gases must capture emissions from developed and developing countries.
Warrant: Some of the largest emitters, India and China, do not plan to reduce emissions

But developing countries, primarily India and China, have made it quite clear that
they have no appetite to slow economic growth or curb use of conventional fuels to
control emissions. For this reason, Canada, Japan, and Russia refused to sign onto a
new agreement committing them to emissions reductions unless major developing
country emitters were also included. Until and unless this issue is resolved, the U.S.
would be foolish to consider unilateral restrictions on the U.S. economy that, in the end,
would be merely symbolic without significant effect on global emissions reductions.
Champion Briefs
194

Warrant: China is the highest global emitter
February 2016
Friedrich, Johannes, Mengpin Ge, and Thomas Damassa. "Infographic: What Do Your
Country's Emissions Look Like?" World Resources Institute. 23 June 2015. Web.
08 Jan. 2016. <http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/06/infographic-what-do-yourcountrys-emissions-look>.
Emissions sources vary by country. While the energy sector dominates, industrial
emissions in China contribute more than 3 percent of global emissions and new data
from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) indicate that agriculture contributes a
notable share of Brazils and Australias emissions. Mitigation policy options that
countries pursue should therefore align with their national circumstances.
Six of the top 10 emitters are developing countries. According to the data, China
contributes approximately 25 percent of global emissions, making it the top emitter.
India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico and Iran are also contributing relatively large shares of
global emissions as their economies grow. Although developed countries used to
dominate the list of top 10 emitters, the visual represents the changing emissions (and
geopolitical) landscape. It is important, however, to consider a range of indicators that
help differentiate the responsibility and capability of countries to act.
Warrant: The U.S. should not take the symbolic gesture to lead in reducing admissions, as past
precedent indicates the international community wont follow

Restricting greenhouse gas emissions, whether unilaterally or multilaterally, would
result in significant economic costs for the U.S. economy. This is a serious decision
with grave consequences. The U.S. should not unilaterally assume these burdens as a
symbolic gesture hoping that other countries might emulate our examplerepeated
U.N. negotiations demonstrate the small likelihood of that outcome.
Champion Briefs
195
February 2016

Argument: Unilateral action results in carbon leakage, which diminishes the ability of emissions
to be decreased
Warrant: Carbon tax ineffective without universal and international application due to carbon
leakage
"Do Economists All Favour a Carbon Tax?" The Economist. The Economist, 19 Sept.
2011. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy>.
A carbon tax will be less effective if it's not universally applied, potentially leading
to carbon leakage to countries with looser environmental rules.
Warrant: Carbon leakage will increase domestic costs and ship environmental emissions
overseas
Robson, Dr. Alex. "Australias Carbon Tax: An Economic Evaluation." Institute for
Energy Research Volume 34.1 (2014) Sept. 2013. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wpcontent/uploads/2013/09/IER_AustraliaCarbonTaxStudy.pdf>.
Hence a carbon tax is likely to increase the cost of exports, whose prices are largely
determined on world markets. There is little opportunity for Australian export industries
to pass on the increases in costs that are due to the carbon tax. In other words, the effect
of the carbon tax on Australias emissions-intensive, trade-exposed industries is similar to

a tax on exports or a tax on import competing industries. Providing free permits to these
industries does not alter marginal incentives. Domestic emissions in these industries
may fall after a carbon tax is imposed, but that cannot be counted as an
environmental gain if the ultimate effect is that the businesses shut down and
emissions simply rise overseas. The net effect will be a pure deadweight cost to the
Australian economy.
Champion Briefs
196

Warrant: Increased costs due to carbon tax would push jobs overseas
February 2016

10. Domestic carbon taxes will force more industries to leave America. Energy costs
are a major expenditure for heavy industry. Americas natural gas prices are the highest
in the world,[24] even though we have the worlds sixth largest proven natural gas
reserves.[25] The high price of natural gas has significantly contributed to the loss of
more than three million manufacturing jobs since 2000.[26] Carbon taxes will drive up
the cost of natural gas because companies would use it as a substitute for coal in
electricity production, which means increased electricity costs for industry and increased
natural gas prices. This is especially troublesome for chemical companies, all of which
use natural gas not only as an energy source, but also as a feedstock. Higher natural
gas prices will force them to pursue options offshore and overseas, reducing
American jobs.
Warrant: Carbon leakage prevents effective emission reductions that the carbon tax tries to
create
11. Domestic carbon taxes cannot address leakage. High costs of doing business in
America will force jobs and economic activity to leave this country in favor of
countries with lower energy prices. China and India have stated they will not impose
burdensome climate regulations on their citizens.[27] Because not all countries will
implement carbon taxes, industries will take their jobs to countries where taxes do not eat
their profits. Despite a huge American economic sacrifice, global emissions will
remain the same. Most disturbingly, if the United States unilaterally reduces our
carbon dioxide emissions, it will not have a real effect on global carbon dioxide
concentrations. This means there will be no environmental benefits to the United
States unilaterally reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Champion Briefs
197

Warrant: Multilateral agreements for carbon tax policies are not likely
February 2016
Goulder, Lawrence H. "Carbon Tax Design and U.S. Industry Performance." Ed. James
M. Poterba. Tax Policy and the Economy. Vol. 6. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T.,
1993. NBER. The MIT Press, Jan. 1992. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Multilateral agreements are likely to be hard to achieve, however, for at least two
reasons. First, the net benefits from multilateral carbon tax policies would be
distributed very unevenly across countries. Large international transfers of funds
would be necessary to make the distribution more even. Countries whose net transfers
would be negative might be reluctant to support such schemes. Second, even if
international transfers could be guaranteed, individual countries would often have
incentives to spurn international agreements and act as free riders. Even though all
countries could benefit from multilateral action in which all countries impose a carbon
tax, a given country might do even better by free riding on an agreement reached by
a number of other countries. The incentives to free ride are particularly strong for
small countries who would enjoy only a small share of the environmental benefits
related to their own emissions reductions.
Analysis: Climate change is a global issue. Therefore, unilateral actions will not be effective in
solving this issue alone. Though there are some programs currently being implemented in the
European Union & Australia, this argument explains that it is not nearly enough, especially
considering that some of the largest emitters (China and India for example) refuse to pledge to
any definitive, specific, and long term action. Especially in the case of carbon taxes, if only
certain countries have these policies, it is likely that businesses will participate in carbon leakage,
which eliminates any potential gains to the atmosphere.
Champion Briefs
198

February 2016
A2 Unilateral Carbon Taxes Would Be Ineffective

Answer: Unilateral action still reaps important benefits
Warrant: Carbon leakage ineffective without universal and international application
Andersen, Prof. Mikael Skou. "Europe's Experience with Carbon-energy
Taxation." S.A.P.I.EN.S. N.p., 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 08 Jan. 2016.
<https://sapiens.revues.org/1072>.
The disappointment over outcomes in Copenhagen has in certain countries reverberated
on unilateral efforts towards factoring in carbon costs in energy prices. The French
government, which had announced a carbon tax at 17 euro/ton CO2, backed out from the
initiative following judicial concerns that more than 90 per cent of industrial emissions
were to be exempted. The Irish government, on the other hand, recently did implement a
domestic carbon tax (at a rate of 15 euro/ton CO2). No unilateral measure will of
course tackle climate change per se and it can also be argued that a low tax mainly
addressing households and private transport will have limited impact on carbon
emissions. However, all tax changes come gradually and limited unilateral measures
may offer prospects for the longer term, in particular if more countries implement
comparable systems for pricing of carbon.
Champion Briefs
199

Warrant: Unilateral actions can still achieve benefits
February 2016
As emphasized by Poterba (1991), the difficulties in reaching agreements for
multilateral action make it reasonable for U.S. policy makers to contemplate
unilateral policies even while considering potential multilateral initiatives. A given
nation can improve its well being through a unilateral carbon tax, despite the fact
that some (and perhaps most) of the environmental benefits from the policy will spill
over to other countries.
Warrant: Lack of international options does not negate the opportunity for unilateral actions
The advantages of multilateral policies do not eliminate the need for analysis of
unilateral programs, however: in view of the difficulties inherent in reaching
agreements for coordinated, international action, it is worthwhile to investigate
closely the potential of unilateral alternatives. This paper has examined various
unilateral carbon tax policies, focusing on the distribution of the tax burdens across U.S.
industries.
Champion Briefs
200
February 2016

Answer: Multilateral agreements are already in place and decreasing emissions
Warrant: Countries have approved of extensions to the Kyoto Protocol
"The Global Climate Change Regime." Council on Foreign Relations. Council on

Foreign Relations, 19 June 2013. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.cfr.org/climate-change/global-climate-change-regime/p21831>.
At the launch of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
seventeenth Conference of Parties (COP-17) in Durban, South Africa, many climate
change experts were concerned that the Kyoto Protocol could expire in 2012 with no
secondary legally binding accord on limiting global emissions in place. This fear,
however, was somewhat assuaged as the nearly two hundred countries present at
the COP-17 approved an extension of the protocol through 2017
and potentially 2020. A decision was also reached at the meeting to draft a successor
accord to the Kyoto Protocol by 2015, which would ultimately come into force in
2020. Delegates also envisioned that the new accord would include greenhouse gas
emissions targets for all countries, regardless of their level of economic
development. This framework notably contrasts with that of the Kyoto Protocol, which
primarily focuses on reducing emissions emanating from developed countries.
Champion Briefs
201
February 2016

Warrant: The United States and other countries have began collaborating with fewer nations to
decrease emissions
Seeking a more flexible and effective approach, the United States and other emitters
have begun to turn to " la carte multilateralism," focusing on smaller, less formal
frameworks, such as the Major Econonomies Forum (MEF) and the Group of
Twenty (G20). The MEF was launched in March 2009 as a successor to the Bush
administration's Major Economies Meeting (MEM). The seventeen-member MEF,
which includes countries responsible for approximately 80 percent of global
emissions, has provided an arena for major emitting countries to confront tricky
issues and hammer out viable strategies without entering the labyrinth of UN
diplomacy. In February 2012, a six-state coalition was also established to tackle
climate and public and health risks posed by short-lived pollutants including
methane, hydrofluorocarbons, and black carbon (soot). Even these niche fora,
however, are not immune to political rancor over legally binding emissions cuts.
Champion Briefs
202
February 2016

Warrant: These smaller agreements have already been fulfilling their goals

Despite concern that alternative efforts to the UNFCCC process might undermine the
credibility and success of that universal forum, the MEF and the parallel G20 have the
potential to complement the UN track by enabling meaningful dialogue among the
countries whose financial commitments and solutions on mitigation and technology truly
matter. The MEF and G20 offer leaders a setting for candid dialogue where parties can
meet to negotiate new bilateral and "minilateral" arrangements, align parallel domestic
initiatives and regulatory approaches, and monitor each other's progress as part of an
informal, "pledge and review" process. Accomplishments of the MEF and G20
include, respectively, launching a Global Partnership on Clean Energy Technologies
and reaching an agreement to phase out inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. In
September 2011 the MEF reportedly held a "frank discussion" regarding the COP17 meeting in Durban and the future of the Kyoto Protocol among other issues.
Champion Briefs
203
February 2016

Answer: The U.S. should take the lead in environmental reform because of its role as a global
leader and its ability to give America leverage in future agreements
Warrant: The United States global leadership is tied to the success of climate change action
Opponents argue that the rest of the world is looking to the United States to act on
climate change, and that pursuing national level reformeven if during the global
financial crisiscould give the United States credibility and leverage in this area.
Since the failure of cap-and-trade, no significant climate change legislation has passed
the House or Senate, calling U.S. global leadership in this area into question. Many
climate change analysts also point to criticism regarding the inaction of the United
States during the COP-17 as evidence that the climate change issue may be
negatively affecting perceptions of U.S. global leadership. Furthermore, some would
also suggest that the December 2011 decision by Canada to withdraw from the Kyoto
Protocol has placed the entire global climate change regime in jeopardy.
Warrant: The United States can lead the world in developing solutions to climate change and
gain leverage in international bargaining agreements
The failure to pass comprehensive U.S. climate legislation, with a sweeping carbon capand-trade at its base, is a significant setback to U.S. mitigation efforts. Cutting U.S.
emissions remains an essential step toward a climate-change solution at home and
abroad, providing not only an environmentally sound solution to the problem, but
giving the United States leverage in international bargaining as well. The
increasingly intractable position of the United States became more apparent during the
COP-17 meeting in Durban. There, the United States faced nearly universal criticism
for not showing the leadership necessary to address climate change.
Champion Briefs
204

Warrant: There are tremendous consequences to inaction
February 2016

Climate change is one of the most significant threats facing the world today. According
to the American Meteorological Society, there is a 90 percent probability that global
temperatures will rise by 3.5 to 7.4 degrees Celsius (6.3 to 13.3 degrees Fahrenheit) in
less than one hundred years, with even greater increases over land and the poles. These
seemingly minor shifts in temperature could trigger widespread disasters in the
form of rising sea levels, violent and volatile weather patterns, desertification,
famine, water shortages, and other secondary effects including conflict. In
November 2011, the International Energy Agency warned that the world may be
fast approaching a tipping point concerning climate change, and suggested that the
next five years will be crucial for greenhouse gas reduction efforts.
Analysis: There are multiple ways that you can answer this argument. First, you can agree that
multilateral agreements are not likely but that it does not then follow that no actions should occur
whatsoever. You can point to multiple unilateral agreements already in place and show that it
either increases the incentive for other countries to do so in the future or, with larger emitters like
the United States, still has a positive impact on the environment. Finally, you can argue that the
United States has a hegemonic incentive to lead the world in environmental reform because it
helps increase their global legitimacy and gives them leverage at international bargaining tables.
Champion Briefs
205

February 2016
CON Carbon Taxes are not Effective

Argument: Carbon taxes are not as effective in reality as they seem in theory.
Warrant: There is no replacement for fossil fuels in large quantities
- IER." IER. N.p., 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
Carbon taxes effectively increase the cost of fossil fuels in an effort to make non-fossil
fuels more economically attractive. The technologies to significantly reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels, however, are decades away and
extremely costly.[16] 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. Given
current technologies, carbon taxes will result in less economic output. The graphic below
illustrates that point. The implication is clearthere is a strong correlation between
energy use and GDP.
Champion Briefs
206
February 2016

Warrant: There will be a corresponding drop in GDP from the implementation of carbon taxes

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. Given current
technologies, carbon taxes will result in less economic output. The graphic below
illustrates that point. The implication is clearthere is a strong correlation between
energy use and GDP.
Warrant: Carbon taxes will have minimal global impact on climate change
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.
Champion Briefs
207
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon taxes will give too much power to EPA to overregulate households
"EPA Staff's Attempt to Regulate Greenhouse Gases Under the Clean Air Act - American
Energy Alliance." American Energy Alliance. N.p., 21 May 2012. Web. 09 Jan.
2016. <http://americanenergyalliance.org/2012/05/21/epa-staffs-attempt-toregulate-greenhouse-gases-under-the-clean-air-act/>.
If EPA were to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles under the
Clean Air Act, then regulation of smaller stationary sources that also emit GHGs
such as apartment buildings, large homes, schools, and hospitalscould also be
triggered. One point is clear: the potential regulation of greenhouse gases under
any portion of the Clean Air Act could result in an unprecedented expansion of
EPA authority that would have a profound effect on virtually every sector of the
economy and touch every household in the land.
Analysis: Carbon taxes are ineffective in reality and will give too much power to the
government to be worth the price to pay.
Champion Briefs
208

February 2016
A2 Carbon Taxes are Not Effective

Answer: Carbon taxes are effective
Warrant: Carbon taxes reduce fossil fuel use
"Here's Why B.C.'s Carbon Tax Is Super Popular -- and Effective." Grist. N.p., 27 Mar.
2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://grist.org/climate-energy/heres-why-b-c-scarbon-tax-is-super-popular-and-effective/>.
The B.C. government levies a fee, currently 30 Canadian dollars, for every metric ton of
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions resulting from the burning of various fuels,
including gasoline, diesel, natural gas, and, of course, coal. That amount is then included
in the price you pay at the pump for gasoline, its 6.67 cents per liter (about 25 cents
per gallon) or on your home heating bill, or wherever else the tax applies. (Most
monetary amounts in this piece will be in Canadian dollars, which are currently worth
about 89 American cents.) If the goal was to reduce global warming pollution, then
the B.C. carbon tax totally works. Since its passage, gasoline use in British
Columbia has plummeted, declining seven times as much as might be expected from
an equivalent rise in the market price of gas.
Champion Briefs
209

Warrant: Some big businesses like carbon taxes
February 2016
"Carbon-Tax Debate Brings Together Unusual Allies." WSJ. N.p., 30 Nov. 2015. Web.
09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/carbon-tax-debate-brings-togetherunusual-allies-1448936246>.
Several big oil companies have fallen into unlikely alignment with environmental groups
calling for new taxes on air polluters like coal-burning power plants. One key reason:
Those taxes are probably good for their natural-gas businesses. Energy giants including
Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BP PLC hope a so-called carbon taxwhich would
force companies to pay for their emissions and likely increase oil producers costs
also would increase demand for natural gas, an increasingly significant part of their
output. The companies are part of a collection of business interests, environmental
activists and economists that have urged negotiators meeting at a U.N. climate-change
summit in Paris over the next two weeks to consider potential carbon pricing policies as a
tool to curb emissions. Such programs could open new markets in China and elsewhere
for gas to displace coal.
Analysis: Carbon taxes are effective at reducing gasoline demand compared to doing nothing
and letting the market dictate demand. Businesses even support the trend and will be less willing
to drag their feet in the installation of the carbon tax.
Champion Briefs
210
February 2016

Answer: Carbon taxes are easier to adopt than other climate change policies
Warrant: Carbon taxes are the easiest way to lower gasoline demand
2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/thecase-for-a-carbon-tax.html>.
A carbon tax would also be much easier to administer than some of the other
climate change policies that many leaders, including President Obama and Gov. Jerry
Brown of California, have backed. One of those policies is cap-and-trade, an approach
that limits overall emissions and allows businesses to buy and sell permits that entitle
them to emit carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The United States used capand-trade successfully in the 1990s to reduce the pollution that causes acid rain. But
a European Union trading system for greenhouse gas emissions has not been as
effective.
Analysis: Carbon taxes are legislatively a lot easier to pass than other climate change policies.
Champion Briefs
211

February 2016
CON Social Cost of Carbon Impossible to Determine

Argument: With global warming, the lack of perfect information is further compounded by
partisan politics and uncertain climate science. This makes it impossible to determine an optimal
carbon tax. A carbon tax set at an inefficient or ineffective level would have multiple negative
impacts.
Warrant: It is impossible to create an optimal carbon tax. Economically efficient central
planning is not possible if central planners cannot aggregate all of the information necessary to
make economically efficient choices; the information regarding climate change is always
fluctuating.
"Carbon Taxes: Reducing Economic GrowthAchieving No Environmental
Improvement." The Institute for Energy Research. N.p., 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 09
Jan. 2016. <http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/studies/carbon-tax-primer/>.
It is impossible to create an optimal carbon tax. A carbon tax would need to be set at
an optimal level that accounts for the economy and climate science. This is an impossible
task. One of the greatest insights of the 20th century was that economically efficient
central planning is not possible. Friedrich Hayek and others demonstrated that
central planners cannot aggregate all of the information necessary to make
economically efficient choices.[10] Their insight remains true today. A planner (or
Congress) cannot create an optimal tax because he or she does not have all of the
necessary information. With global warming, the lack of perfect information is
further compounded by partisan politics and uncertain climate science. This makes
it impossible to determine an optimal carbon tax. The cost of a carbon tax will
increase the costs of nearly everything that is produced, manufactured, or transported,
including food and gasoline. How one would construct a credible methodology for
accurately and precisely measuring and accounting for these effects remains, perhaps
intentionally, an unaddressed question.
Champion Briefs
212
February 2016

Warrant: Theres disagreement at the federal level about how to calculate the cost of carbon.
Foster, Johanna M. "The Social Cost of Carbon: How to Do the Math?" NYT. The New
York Times, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
<http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/the-social-cost-of-carbon-how-to-dothe-math/?_r=0>.
In 2010, 12 government agencies working in conjunction with economists, lawyers
and scientists, agreed to work out what they considered a coherent standard for
establishing the social cost of carbon. The idea was that, in calculating the costs and
benefits of pending policies and regulations, the Department of Transportation
could not assume that a ton of emitted carbon dioxide imposed a $2 cost on society
while the Environmental Protection Agency plugged 10 times that amount into its
equations. Instead, they decided, all of the agencies would use the same baseline of $21
per ton as the standard in monetizing the social costs of the seven-plus billion tons of
carbon generated by American power plants, vehicles and factories each year. But a new
paper published in the Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences concludes
that the costs of carbon pollution and related climate change are vastly greater
possibly two to 12 times as much. The problem, the authors argue, is that the federal
government is not adequately taking into account the impacts of climate change on
future generations.
Champion Briefs
213
February 2016

Warrant: Many scientists are calling into question the accuracy of the US governments
projected carbon tax, arguing that the government did not account for the future cost of carbon
emissions. This has important implications with respect to greenhouse gas standards, in which
debates over their stringency focus critically on the benefits of regulations justifying the industry
compliance costs.
Johnson, Laurie T., and Chris Hope. "The Social Cost of Carbon in U.S. Regulatory
Impact Analyses: An Introduction and Critique." Springer Link. Journal of
Environmental Studies and Sciences, 12 Sept. 2012. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13412-012-0087-7>.
In 2010, as part of a rulemaking on efficiency standards, the U.S. government
published its first estimates of the benefits of reducing CO2 emissions, referred to as
the social cost of carbon (SCC). Using three climate economic models, an
interagency task force concluded that regulatory impact analyses should use a
central value of $21 per metric ton of CO2 for the monetized benefits of emission
reductions. In addition, it suggested that sensitivity analysis be carried out with values
of $5, $35, and $65. These estimates have been criticized for relying upon discount rates
that are considered too high for intergenerational costbenefit analysis, and for treating
monetized damages equivalently between regions, without regard to income levels. We
reestimate the values from the models (1) using a range of discount rates and
methodologies considered more appropriate for the very long time horizons
associated with climate change and (2) using a methodology that assigns equity
weights to damages based upon relative income levels between regionsi.e., a
dollars worth of damages occurring in a poor region is given more weight than one
occurring in a wealthy region. Under our alternative discount rate specifications, we
find an SCC 2.6 to over 12 times larger than the Working Groups central estimate
of $21; results are similar when the governments estimates are equity weighted. Our
results suggest that regulatory impact analyses that use the governments limited
range of SCC estimates will significantly understate potential benefits of climate
mitigation. This has important implications with respect to greenhouse gas
standards, in which debates over their stringency focus critically on the benefits of
regulations justifying the industry compliance costs.
Champion Briefs
214
February 2016

Warrant: In order to be effective at reducing carbon emissions, the standards need to account
for future carbon emissions. Unfortunately, the US government has done an abysmal job of
doing that in the past and current models are far from accurate.
Than, Ker. "Estimated Social Cost of Climate Change Not Accurate, Stanford Scientists
Say." Stanford University. N.p., 12 Jan. 2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://news.stanford.edu/news/2015/january/emissions-social-costs011215.html>.
The economic damage caused by a ton of carbon dioxide emissions often referred
to as the "social cost" of carbon could actually be six times higher than the value
that the United States now uses to guide current energy regulations, and possibly
future mitigation policies, Stanford scientists say. A recent U.S. government study
concluded, based on the results of three widely used economic impact models, that
an additional ton of carbon dioxide emitted in 2015 would cause $37 worth of
economic damages. These damages are expected to take various forms, including
decreased agricultural yields, harm to human health and lower worker productivity, all
related to climate change. But according to a new study, published online this week in
the journal Nature Climate Change, the actual cost could be much higher. "We
estimate that the social cost of carbon is not $37 per ton, as previously estimated,
but $220 per ton," said study coauthor Frances Moore, a PhD candidate in the Emmett
Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources in Stanford's School of Earth
Sciences. Based on the findings, countries may want to increase their efforts to curb
greenhouse gas emissions, said study co-author Delavane Diaz, a PhD candidate in
the Department of Management Science and Engineering at Stanford's School of
Engineering. "If the social cost of carbon is higher, many more mitigation measures
will pass a cost-benefit analysis," Diaz said. "Because carbon emissions are so
harmful to society, even costly means of reducing emissions would be worthwhile."
Champion Briefs
215
February 2016

Analysis: This argument is very straight-forward. It discusses how current models and projects
do an abysmal job of projecting the social cost (or estimated monetary cost) of carbon emissions.
Some of the models dont account for future increases in carbon dioxide pollution and some do,
but overall its kind of a mess. Most importantly, however, the social cost of carbon changes as
we are learning more about climate change and its effects. You should spin this argument as
follows: we currently cant come up with the an accurate social cost of carbon since our models
do an inadequate job of projecting cost and our knowledge of climate change and its effects are
constantly changing. This means the carbon tax would also have to change to reflect our newly
gained knowledge. However, since we constantly have to revise the cost to correctly account
for carbon emissions, that means at some point the tax was ineffective and didnt work. Then you
can read cards about how that hurts local economies, or people in lower socio-economic groups,
or how that hurts the US economy (all arguments included in the brief.) The gist is: our carbon
tax wont ever be effective and will cause significantly more damage than itll help, which means
the US should not adopt a carbon tax.
Champion Briefs
216

February 2016
A2 Social Cost of Carbon Impossible to Determine

Answer: The estimation of the social cost of carbon is grossly overstated.
Warrant: Inaccurate models and data have produced inflated estimates for the cost of carbon
emissions.
Michaels, Patrick J. "An Analysis of the Obama Administration's Social Cost of Carbon."
Cato Institute. N.p., 22 July 2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/analysis-obama-administrationssocial-cost-carbon>.
The social cost of carbon as determined by the Interagency Working Group in their
May 2013 Technical Support Document (updated in November 2013 and July 2015)
is unsupported by the robust scientific literature, fraught with uncertainty, illogical,
and thus completely unsuitable and inappropriate for federal rulemaking. Had the
IWG included a better-reasoned and more inclusive review of the current scientific
literature, the social cost of carbon estimates would have been considerably reduced with
a value likely approaching zero. Such a low social cost of carbon would obviate the
arguments behind the push for federal greenhouse gas regulations.
Analysis: you can use this card as defense against the claims of the Con. IT really boils down to
model use and data interpretation. While this argument might become a wash when you throw
this card into the flow, itll at least help cast doubt on the Cons claims of a carbon tax thats set
ridiculously low. Then you should read some offense about why were obligated to reduce
emissions or why emissions are good (see next card.)
Champion Briefs
217

Answer: Carbon dioxide has positive impacts of vegetation growth
February 2016
Warrant: Scientific research shows that carbon dioxide helps increase the lifespan and growthcycle of plants. This helps increase vegetation growth by 30% in some areas.
Michaels, Patrick J. "An Analysis of the Obama Administration's Social Cost of Carbon."
Cato Institute. N.p., 22 July 2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.cato.org/publications/testimony/analysis-obama-administrationssocial-cost-carbon>.
Carbon dioxide is known to have a positive impact on vegetation, with literally
thousands of studies in the scientific literature demonstrating that plants (including
crops) grow stronger, healthier, and more productive under conditions of increased
carbon dioxide concentration. A recent study (Idso, 2013) reviewed a large
collection of such literature as it applies to the worlds 45 most important food crops
(making up 95% of the worlds annual agricultural production). Idso (2013)
summarized his findings on the increase in biomass of each crop that results from a
300ppm increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide under which the plants
were grown. This table is reproduced below, and shows that the typical growth
increase exceeds 30% in most crops, including 8 of the worlds top 10 food crops
(the increase was 24% and 14% in the other two). Idso (2013) found that the
increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide that took place during
the period 1961-2011 was responsible for increasing global agricultural output by
3.2 trillion dollars (in 2004-2006 constant dollars). Projecting the increases forward
based on projections of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, Idso
(2013) expects carbon dioxide fertilization to increase the value of agricultural
output by 9.8 trillion dollars (in 2004-2006 constant dollars) during the 2012-2050
period.
Champion Briefs
218
February 2016

Warrant: Scientists from the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Organization in Australia
predicted that an increase in carbon dioxide levels by 14 percent would increase foliage by 5-10
percent; he was able to demonstrate the prove his theory during a recent study.
Radford, Tim. "Study Finds Plant Growth Surges as CO2 Levels Rise." Study Finds Plant
Growth Surges as CO2 Levels Rise. Climate News Network, 9 June 2013. Web.
09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.climatecentral.org/news/study-finds-plant-growthsurges-as-co2-levels-rise-16094>.
Plants build their tissues by using photosynthesis to take carbon from the air
around them. So more carbon dioxide should mean more vigorous plant growth
though until now this has been very difficult to prove. Arid areas could be transformed
by green plants as carbon dioxide levels rise. Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Organization in Canberra, Australia, and his colleagues
developed a mathematical model to predict the extent of this carbon dioxide
fertilization effect. Between 1982 and 2010, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere
increased by 14 percent. So, their model suggested, foliage worldwide should have
increased by between 5 and 10 percent. It is one thing to predict an effect, quite another
to prove it. Satellite observations can and successfully do measure seasonal changes in
vegetation, the growth of deserts, the change from open prairie to savannah, the growth
of new trees in the tundra and so on, but its very difficult to be sure that these changes
have anything to do with carbon dioxide fertilization: changes in temperature and rainfall
patterns would also have an impact. Also, some regions tropical rainforests, for
example are already completely covered by forest canopy: orbiting satellites are
unlikely to measure much change there. Donohue and his team, in a study appearing
in Geophysical Research Letters, the journal of the American Geophysical Union, looked
at those regions where leaf cover really would stand out, and where carbon dioxide
fertilization would be the best explanation for new growth. These were the warm, dry
places: while the researchers focused on changes in arid regions in North Americas
south-west, Australias Outback, the Middle East and parts of Africa, they also had to
find a technique that allowed for natural seasonal and cyclic changes, alterations in land
use and so on. They calculated that in these conditions, plants would make more leaves if
they had the water to do so. A leaf can extract more carbon from the air during
photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to
elevated CO2, says Donohue. That is the CO2 fertilization effect.
Champion Briefs
219
February 2016

Analysis: You can use these two cards to explain that even if were off on estimating the social
cost of carbon, a little extra CO2 actually helps increase the amount of foliage development in
the world. (And plants conduct photosynthesis, which actually decreases CO2.) This gives you
some offense in the round. I would also suggest going and pulling arguments about how the US
has a moral obligation to combat climate change in any way possible (included in the brief.) That
gives you some more offense in round.
Champion Briefs
220

February 2016
CON Cap and Trade is better than a Carbon Tax

Argument: A cap and trade system would be more efficient and more effective than a carbon tax
at reducing emissions
Warrant: Cap and Trade is a system which sets a hard limit on the total amount of carbon on the
system but allows firms flexibility in their pollution
"How Cap and Trade Works." Environmental Defense Fund. N.p., Feb. 2008. Web. 07
Jan. 2016. <https://www.edf.org/climate/how-cap-and-trade-works>.
Cap and trade is the most environmentally and economically sensible approach to
controlling greenhouse gas emissions, the primary driver of global warming. The
cap sets a limit on emissions, which is lowered over time to reduce the amount of
pollutants released into the atmosphere. The trade creates a market for carbon
allowances, helping companies innovate in order to meet, or come in under, their
allocated limit. The less they emit, the less they pay, so it is in their economic incentive
to pollute less.
Champion Briefs
221

Warrant: Cap and Trade allows for realistic, strong emissions standards
February 2016
Balko, Radley. "Backgrounders: Sweatshops and Globalization." (n.d.): n. pag. School of

Business & School of Languages and World Affairs - College of Charleston.
Jesus Sandoval-Hernandez, 11 Dec. 2007. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
<http://sandovalhernandezj.people.cofc.edu/index_files/egl_36.pdf>.
Cost certainty v. environmental certainty. By setting a cap and issuing a
corresponding number of allowances, a cap-and-trade system achieves a set
environmental goal, but the cost of reaching that goal is determined by market
forces. In contrast, a tax provides certainty about the costs of compliance, but the
resulting reductions in GHG emissions are not predetermined and would result
from market forces. Compliance flexibility for firms. A tax requires a firm each year
to decide how much to reduce its emissions and how much tax to pay. Under a capand-trade system, borrowing, banking and extended compliance periods allow firms
the flexibility to make compliance planning decisions on a multi-year basis.
Warrant: Cap and trade is more flexible than carbon tax
Changes in economic activity impact a firms behavior under either system. Under
a cap-and-trade system, reduced economic growth would lower allowance
prices. Under a tax, government action to lower the amount of the tax, not market
forces, would be required to reduce the carbon price seen by firms. In times of
economic expansion, the opposite would be true under cap and trade, allowance prices
would rise based on market forces, but taxes would remain the same unless adjusted
through government action. In this sense, cap and trade can be seen as providing a
self-adjusting price, high when the economy is doing well and low when the
economy is in a downturn. A tax in contrast is not self-adjusting.
Champion Briefs
222

Warrant: Cap and trade has a proven track record
February 2016
"Cap and Trade vs. Taxes." Cap and Trade vs. Taxes. Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions, n.d. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.c2es.org/publications/cap-tradevs-taxes>.
Cap and trade has become the cornerstone of successful efforts to achieve low-cost
reductions in sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States. For GHGs, this same
approach is also being relied upon in the European Union (EU). The EU has
implemented a GHG cap-and-trade program covering thousands of sources and has
created a market with millions of transactions producing a market price for carbon
determined through supply and demand. Following a trial period, during which a number
of start-up challenges were encountered (e.g., lack of data, different approaches across
Member States), the EU has succeeded in establishing the building blocks for a
successful trading regime. Cap and trade is also being used in three regional trading
programs in the United States and Canada.
Analysis: Cap and Trade is a better carbon pricing mechanism. If the goal is to reduce emissions,
only cap and trade sets a hard limit. If the goal is to not hurt business, cap and trade provides for
a more stable marketplace. Frame the round in terms of comparative advantage and you can
outweigh most offense coming off of carbon taxes.
Champion Briefs
223

February 2016
A2 Cap and Trade is better than a Carbon Tax Answer:

Answer: Cap and trade is costly and ineffective
Warrant: Real world cap and trade plans would hurt the economy
These proposals are very, very costly and economically damaging. If enacted, last
years flagship cap and trade proposal, the Lieberman-Warner bill, would increase
the cost of gasoline by anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent and increase the cost
of electricity by 77 to 129 percent. Up to four million Americans would lose their jobs
under the program, which amounts to a $4,022 to $6,752 loss in disposable income
per household. In return, we could have expected a 63 percent emissions cut. President
Obamas budget proposes to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 83 percent. If successful,
its reasonable to conclude it would lead to even greater economic hardship than
envisioned under Lieberman-Warner.
Champion Briefs
224

Warrant: Cap and Trade increases emissions historically
February 2016

Europes Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) began in 2005. The first phase, from
2005 to2007, did not reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Instead, overall emissions
increased 1.9 percent over that period. The reason is simple: European politicians
know that cap and trade is economically harmful and do not want these policies to cost
more jobs, especially during these difficult economic times. German Chancellor Angela
Merkel recently stated that she would not allow EU climate regulations to go forward that
would take decisions that would endanger jobs or investments in Germany.
Warrant: Cap and Trade would hurt the poor
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the costs of reducing carbon dioxide
emissions would disproportionally harm the poor. A mere 15 percent decrease in
carbon dioxide emissions would cost the lowest-income Americans 3.3 percent of
their income, but only 1.7 percent of the income of higher income households. President
Obama wants to decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 83 percent, not a mere 15 percent.
This will entail much greater economic sacrifice among those who have the least to
spare.

Champion Briefs
225
February 2016

Warrant: Much of the curbed emissions would simply move abroad, exemplified by the EU
"VOX CEPR's Policy Portal." Why a Cap-and-trade System Can Be Bad for Your
Health. VOX EU, Dec. 2006. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.voxeu.org/article/why-cap-and-trade-system-can-be-bad-yourhealth>.
Most existing analysis of carbon leakage focuses on a small subset of energy-intensive

sectors (steel, cement, etc.) whose products are often traded intensively. The EU has
actually defined sectors exposed to a significant risk of carbon leakage mainly in
terms of their openness to trade and found that about 60% of all Emission Trading
Scheme sectors (accounting for about 75% of emissions) are at risk (see
Appendix). A recent study based on a large general-equilibrium model concludes that
about 40% of any reduction in the production of energy-intensive goods in the EU
would be offset by higher production abroad (Veenendaal and Manders 2008).
Analysis: Cap and Trade is very costly, because it puts a strict limit on the amount of carbon
(and by proxy energy and goods) an economy can produce. This is likely not only to be
circumvented, but also fall hardest on the poor and cost the economy far more than desirable.
Champion Briefs
226

February 2016
CON Carbon Taxes are not Popular

Argument: Carbon taxes are not popular and will not pass through Congress.
Warrant: Voters do not like carbon taxes
"Hansen to Obama: Support a Carbon Tax." World Watch Institute. N.p., n.d. Web. 9
Jan. 2016. <http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5962>.
Carbon taxes are currently in place, with frequent exemptions, in Scandinavia, the United
Kingdom, British Columbia, and select U.S. cities. The taxes are generally politically
unpopular - national plans in New Zealand and Canada failed to win residents' support.
According to a global BBC poll in 2007, about half of the 22,000 people surveyed were
in favor of increased fossil fuel taxes, and 44 percent opposed the proposal.
Warrant: Unpopular on both sides of the aisle
"Floored." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 22 Mar. 2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21599420-carbon-taxes-are-necessarythey-are-unpopular-floored>.
Since 2005 an EU cap-and-trade scheme has forced polluters across the continent to
purchase permits for each tonne of carbon they emit. Britains carbon-price floor, a form
of carbon tax announced in 2011 and enacted in 2013, aims to protect green investors
from swings in the price of these permits by setting a minimum amount that polluters
must pay for them. The policy riles businesses in energy-intensive industries, such as
chemicals and manufacturing, whose bills are already rising because of global fuel
costs. Nor is it much loved by renewable groups, for whom straightforward cash
subsidies are a more appealing means of support.
Champion Briefs
227

Warrant: Politicians wont support a carbon tax
February 2016
"Here's Why B.C.'s Carbon Tax Is Super Popular -- and Effective." Grist. N.p., 27 Mar.
2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://grist.org/climate-energy/heres-why-b-c-scarbon-tax-is-super-popular-and-effective/>.
Theres also the question of politics. B.C. is exceptional its one of the few places in
the world where people actually welcomed a carbon tax. Most other people arent so
evolved. Politicians cant go around imposing too many policies people dont like,
because theyll be booted out of office. And so no matter what the merits of a carbon
tax, if you cant persuade most people its good for them youll get nowhere.
Warrant: Carbon taxes eventually hurt voters
"Stanford Research Finds Carbon Regulation Burden Heaviest on Poor." Stanford
University. N.p., 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://news.stanford.edu/news/2014/february/kolstad-carbon-tax-022814.html>.
The heaviest burden for climate change regulation costs falls on people
especially lower income groups and not corporations, according to new Stanford
research. The reason is that companies ultimately pass on those costs to people.
For the poor, basic necessities take up a bigger chunk of the budget than for the
rich. "Households in the lowest income group pay, as a percent of income, more
than twice what households in the highest 10 percent of the income distribution
pay," wrote economist Charles Kolstad, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for
Economic Policy Research and the Precourt Institute for Energy.
Champion Briefs
228

Warrant: Voters eventually want carbon tax gone
February 2016
"Australia Becomes First Developed Nation to Repeal Carbon Tax." WSJ. N.p., 17 July
2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/australia-repeals-carbontax-1405560964>.
After almost a decade of heated political debate, Australia has become the world's first
developed nation to repeal carbon laws that put a price on greenhouse-gas
emissions. In a vote that could highlight the difficulty in implementing additional
measures to reduce carbon emissions ahead of global climate talks next year in Paris,
Australia's Senate on Thursday voted 39-32 to repeal a politically divisive carbon
emissions price that contributed to the fall from power of three Australian leaders
since it was first suggested in 2007.
Analysis: Carbon taxes are unpopular, and if they were popular, they dont work and voters will
push to repeal carbon taxes and punish the Congresspeople that voted for the taxes.
Champion Briefs
229

February 2016
A2 Carbon Taxes are Not Popular

Answer: Carbon taxes are popular
Warrant: Americans support a carbon tax
"Poll: 60% Back Carbon Tax If Used for Renewables." USA Today. N.p., 21 July 2014.
Web. 9 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/21/poll-on-carbon-taxfinds-mixed-support/12950925/>.
Yet a different picture emerges when survey participants are asked about three possible
uses of the tax revenue. If used to fund programs for renewable power like solar and wind,
60% back the tax overall, including 51% of Republicans, 54% of Independents and
70% of Democrats.
Warrant: Carbon taxes already exist in the United States
2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/thecase-for-a-carbon-tax.html>.
Many countries already have some version of carbon taxes. In the United States, for
example, federal and state taxes on gasoline and diesel, which are used to pay for
road and transit projects, are effectively carbon taxes. But at the federal level, those
taxes have not been increased since 1993, which has eroded their effectiveness. Revenue
generated by carbon taxes could be used for a variety of purposes. A lot of the money
should surely be given to households, especially the poorest, through tax credits or direct
payments to offset the higher prices they would have to pay for gasoline, electricity and
other goods and services because of the tax.
Champion Briefs
230

Warrant: Some big businesses like carbon taxes
February 2016
"Carbon-Tax Debate Brings Together Unusual Allies." WSJ. N.p., 30 Nov. 2015. Web.
09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.wsj.com/articles/carbon-tax-debate-brings-togetherunusual-allies-1448936246>.
Several big oil companies have fallen into unlikely alignment with environmental groups
calling for new taxes on air polluters like coal-burning power plants. One key reason:
Those taxes are probably good for their natural-gas businesses. Energy giants including
Royal Dutch Shell PLC and BP PLC hope a so-called carbon taxwhich would
force companies to pay for their emissions and likely increase oil producers costs
also would increase demand for natural gas, an increasingly significant part of their
output. The companies are part of a collection of business interests, environmental
activists and economists that have urged negotiators meeting at a U.N. climate-change
summit in Paris over the next two weeks to consider potential carbon pricing policies as a
tool to curb emissions. Such programs could open new markets in China and elsewhere
for gas to displace coal.
Analysis: Certain kinds of carbon taxes have bipartisan support. Clarify what specific kinds of
carbon taxes are being put into place and that will help you refute the Neg.
Champion Briefs
231

Answer: Carbon taxes help Americans
February 2016
Warrant: Carbon taxes are beneficial for the poor

Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/aparnamathur/2015/09/29/a-carbon-tax-can-bedesigned-to-be-pro-poor/>.
An argument often used against a carbon tax is that it will impose costs on firms and
eventually on households, particularly low income households, as prices of taxed items
rise. However, it is important to remember that existing Environmental Protection
Agency regulations on carbon emissions are also costly. As per a report by NERA
consulting, the cost of the EPA regulating emissions through the Clean Power Plan
could be as high as $479 billion between 2017 and 2031. Separate calculations,
including those of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, produce similar estimates. The EPA
projects the cost to be between $4.2 to $7.4 billion in 2020. When analyzing the
possibility of a carbon tax, the core question is whether a carbon tax is likely to be
less costly and more efficient than existing command and control policies. Viewed
from this perspective, much of the opposition to the tax seems less defensible.
Analysis: When compared to the status quo alternatives, carbon taxes do not hurt the lower and
middle classes as much as opponents will claim.
Champion Briefs
232

February 2016
CON A Carbon Tax is Impractical

Argument: The design, creation, and implementation of a carbon tax is impractical
Warrant: A carbon tax is difficult to design and implement, especially during a time period of
fluctuating energy prices
(n.d.): 94. University of California, Davis Law Review. Web. 6 Jan. 2016.
A carbon tax, however, comes with one major disadvantagethe practical challenge
of enacting tax legislation in the United States, especially during a recession that
features unstable energy prices. The transparency and easy implementation of a
carbon tax ironically serve to undermine its political attractiveness. A carbon tax
makes it clear that society is paying the costs of carbon pollution, and the very word
tax raises American hackles. A cap-and trade system may be more politically viable
because it is not called a tax and is more obscure about its effect on energy prices. The
political advantages of cap and-trade, however, may be more illusory than real.
Opponents will challenge any proposalincluding a cap-and-trade regimethat
increases energy costs at the expense of businesses in an already weakened economy.170
Champion Briefs
233
February 2016

Warrant: The tax systems of other nations that have implemented carbon taxes are significantly
different than that of the US. Implementing a carbon tax under our current tax structure would
be difficult and it would be hard to enforce given our regulatory environment.
Landau, Erin. "Milne Argues for U.S. Carbon Tax." The Dartmouth. N.p., 2 Aug. 2013.
Web. 07 Jan. 2016. <http://thedartmouth.com/2013/08/02/milne-argues-for-uscarbon-tax/>.
Milne used the example of British Columbia, which has effectively used well-defined
and comprehensive tax bases to increase revenue for the past five years. Milne also
said there are many political issues that come with the choice to implement carbon
taxes, especially because the tax is revenue neutral, meaning that the revenue it
produces is largely returned to the public. The tax itself should achieve
environmental benefit so there is no correct way to use this revenue, she said. They had
to consider revenue-neutral tax reform in terms of the politics of increasing taxes and the
policy issues that come out of carbon tax. Milne said that imposing a cost on fuel can be
unfair to lower income households, so the government of British Columbia ensured that
tax cuts went to small businesses. In a study conducted by the government, the carbon
tax had a minor negative effect on the economy and did not require further policy
changes to adapt to the new regulations. All in all, British Columbias policies are
comprehensive, simple, quick, here to stay and effective, Milne said. She also
discussed how carbon taxes in Switzerland, Australia, Japan and Sweden have
effectively reduced carbon dioxide emissions while increasing gross domestic
product. Milne said that the government calculates emissions based on the carbon
content of fossil fuels. Despite the positive effects a carbon tax may have, Milne said it is
difficult to gauge the behavioral response that such taxes could elicit from the public.
Students attending the lecture said they appreciated Milnes holistic perspective and her
realistic portrayal of carbon taxes in the U.S. Katie Bernhard 15, who is currently
enrolled in an environmental studies course, said she is interested in getting a broad range
of perspectives on renewable energy and the policies involved in making it a possibility
in the U.S. Bernhard said guest lectures effectively provide this diversity. This
particular lecture showed that carbon tax could be beneficial for this country, but
given our current regulatory environment it might be extremely difficult to
implement, she said.
Champion Briefs
234
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax is a hard political sell and it becomes harder to sell every year as the cost
to combat climate change continues to increase.
Henderson, Bill. "Bill Henderson: B.C.'s Carbon Tax Reveals Lessons Not Yet Learned
about Carbon Pricing." Georgia Straight Vancouver's News & Entertainment
Weekly. N.p., 02 Mar. 2015. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.straight.com/news/401611/bill-henderson-bcs-carbon-tax-revealslessons-not-yet-learned-about-carbon-pricing>.
The Campbell government hoped that B.C.s leadership would be followed by, first,
North American partners, then a global carbon pricing mechanism so that B.C.
trade in the global economy wouldnt be disadvantaged. But even an economyfriendly (puny and ineffectual) carbon tax can be a hard political sell in insecure
economic times. Every year a higher price is needed to reduce the carbon budget
emissions effectively and every year it gets more difficult to implement any variant
of carbon pricing. Each of the wedgesall extant climate policiesis limited in
implementation within continuing business as usual, within the continuing marketbased economy without government action. Like carbon pricing, renewables,
efficiency, electrification, forestry and agriculture, smart cities, et cetera can each
deliver but a fraction of the emissions reduction needed, now, after several wasted
decades, as our carbon budget is rapidly being used up by the developed world's
rich half billion with high individual carbon footprints.
Champion Briefs
235
February 2016

Warrant: As we learn new information about the effects of climate change and the cost of
abatement, the tax rate will have to change to reflect the newly estimated cost; this constant
change in tax rates will be difficult to implement.
Metcalf, Gilbert, and David Weisbach. "The Design Of A Carbon Tax." The Law School
The University Of Chicago (N.D.): 2. The Law School The University Of
Chicago, Jan. 2009. Web. 7 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/447-254.pdf>.
Although the theory behind setting the rate is well known it should equal the
marginal harm from emissions there are a number of difficult design issues.3 The
most difficult issue with respect to rates is the design of a system for ensuring that
the rate changes over time as we learn new information about the costs and benefits
of reducing emissions. In particular, a central problem with climate change is
uncertainty about the effects and uncertainty about the costs of abatement. The best
that can be done now is a crude estimate of the optimal rate. As we learn new
information, the tax rate will have to change to reflect this. We suggest a delegation
or partial delegation of rate setting authority to an expert agency to ensure that rate
changes at appropriate intervals are on the agenda and expertise in the relevant
parameters for setting the rate. Given the size of the tax and the potential winners and
losers from rate changes, full delegation may not be possible, in which case we
recommend a number of intermediate regimes. We also discuss the use of the revenues,
recommending a revenue neutral and distributionally neutral adjustment to the income or
payroll taxes.
Champion Briefs
236
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax system in the US would be difficult to design and implement because it
would have to interact with other carbon pricing and energy policies both domestically and
aboard.
If the United States were to adopt a carbon tax, an important design issue would be
how it interacted with other carbon pricing and energy policies both domestically
and abroad. Internationally, the major program with which a domestic tax would
have to interact is the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The ETS
is a cap and trade program on EU emissions from the energy industry plus energyintensive industries. Phase I of the ETS ran from 2005 through 2007 and was viewed as a
trial run to develop the market mechanisms to support permit trading. Phase II running
from 2008 through 2012 is designed to help the EU meet its Kyoto obligation of an eight
percent reduction below the base year levels (generally 1990). The burden sharing
allocation withinthe EU is complex and Ellerman, A. D., B. Buchner and C. Carraro
(2007) describe it in detail. We do not discuss the merits of the ETS in this paper but
do wish to comment on two aspects of its design. First, the EU system was
implemented at the electric utility and industry level. This significantly multiplies the
number of covered installations and makes a comprehensive system difficult to
implement. Second, the ETS only covers a relatively small portion of greenhouse gas
emissions in the EU. According to Convery, F. J. and L. Redmond (2007) the European
Commission estimates that less than half of CO2 emissions and less than one-third of all
greenhouse gas emissions will be subject to the ETS caps in 2010. In particular, the
transportation sector is excluded. It has been argued that the transport sector was
excluded from the ETS because it was already subject to high taxes on motor fuels (see
Metcalf, G. E. (2008) for a comparison of US and EU gasoline tax rates). These taxes on
motor fuels, however, were presumably motivated by other externalities associated with
Champion Briefs
237

February 2016
driving. Therefore, these taxes need to be imposed in addition to rather than as a
replacement for, a carbon tax. Moreover, to the extent that an element of these taxes
relates to carbon emissions, nothing precluded the EU from including transport in the
ETS and encouraging member countries to impose motor fuels taxes only to the extent of
non-carbon Metcalf/Weisbach The Design of a Carbon Tax Page 11 externalities from
driving.11 To the extent EU motor fuels taxes are to be thought of as part of their carbon
pricing regime, the EU has a hybrid cap and trade, tax regime rather than a pure cap and
trade regime.
Analysis: This argument makes the case that an effective and practical carbon tax would be very
difficult to design and even more difficult to implement. Not only would it be politically
unpopular, stalling its passage (if that even happened), but the tax would need to be designed in
a way that interacted with other carbon pricing policies domestically and abroad. The articles all
cast doubt on the ability to draft and implement a carbon tax that can do this. Make the Pro prove
that a carbon tax adopted in the US would work effectively and would help reduce global
emissions.
Champion Briefs
238

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax is Impractical

Answer: Implementation is feasible on a smaller, more manageable scale.
Warrant: It would be very difficult to implement a uniform and effective carbon tax across
countries; its easier for countries to adopt carbon taxes individually.
Eni Enrico Mattei, Fondazione. "Designing a Carbon Tax: A Broader View." The
European Carbon Tax: An Economic Assessment: An Economic Assessment. By
Carlo Carraro. N.p.: Springer Science & Business Media, 1993. 276. Google
Books. 1993. Web. 07 Jan. 2016. <https://books.google.com/books?id=QGN-DBDLCwC&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=%22carbon%2Btax%22%2BAND%2
B%22difficult%2Bto%2Bimplement%22&source=bl&ots=YYaFSJA1JC&sig=3
NU8QG9ZRhg20rT4A42yV9oluCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi468KJm5n
KAhVG7iYKHR_tDcs4ChDoAQgbMAA#v=onepage&q=%22carbon%20tax%2
2%20AND%20%22difficult%20to%20implement%22&f=false>.
Therefore, en efficient carbon tax should account for asymmetries across countries
in industrial structure, technology, fossil fuel endowments, nuclear plants
availability, and existing taxation on fuel consumption. Such an emission taxation
scheme is quite difficult to implement at the international level (in particular, it would
require too much information on countries characteristics, thus raising adverse selection
problems). A preferable solution could be a country-specific, coordinated, carbon
tax. Each country could optimally choose its own environmental instruments in order to
achieve a coordinated environmental target. Even I this may not be an optimal policy in
competitive domestic markets, this could turn out to be the best policy in the presence of
market distortions (see the paper by Michael Hoel, in this volume.)
Champion Briefs
239
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax is predictable, simple, and relatively easy to administer
Beary, Brian. "Economy-wide Carbon Tax Proposed by Two US Senators." Contexte.

Europolitics, 6 Nov. 2015. Web. 7 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.contexte.com/article/politique-exterieure-de-lue/economy-widecarbon-tax-proposed-by-two-us-senators_42359.html>.
The choice of venue to unveil it on 10 June was notable : the American Enterprise
Institute, a top conservative think tank in Washington. The Democrat co-sponsor of
the 37-pageAmerican Opportunity Carbon Free Act, Senator Brian Schatz
(Hawaii), admitted : I never expected to be here, adding lets begin the discussion.
An environmental NGO would have been a more obvious choice of venue to launch the
bill, however some conservatives do support a carbon tax, seeing it as a less onerous way
to tackle climate change than the Obama administrations approach of regulations based
the 1990 Clean Air Act. A carbon tax has the benefit, Schatz argued, of being
predictable, simple and relatively easy to administer.
Champion Briefs
240
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax would be relatively easy to implement and administer in the United
States, echo economist.
Rivers, Nicholas. "The Case for a Carbon Tax in Canada." Canada 2020. N.p., 11 Nov.
2014. Web. 07 Jan. 2016. <http://canada2020.ca/canada-carbon-tax/#note_37>.
Amongst policy analysts, international organizations, many large companies, and
academics, there is a nearly universal acknowledgment that a carbon tax represents the
optimal policy instrument for reducing greenhouse gases. For example, a recent
International Monetary Fund report suggests that countries should implement energy
taxes that reflect environmental externalities,36 and a recent World Bank initiative aims
to encourage countries around the world to adopt carbon pricing to stimulate greenhouse
gas reductions.37 The highly-respected bipartisan US Congressional Budget Office
claims that a tax on emissions would be the most efficient incentive-based option
for reducing emissions and could be relatively easy to implement.38 Major
corporations also support a carbon tax; for example, a recent statement by major
institutional investors, together managing $24 trillion in assets, calls for stable and
economically meaningful carbon pricing.39 In a similar vein, a recent survey of top
US economists found near unanimity on the optimality of a carbon tax as an
instrument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.40 This high degree of consensus
is also echoed in the academic literature, which affirms the significant economic
efficiency benefit of market-based emissions reduction programs such as a carbon
tax.41
Analysis: The cards in this basically all state that there are ways to create and administer a
carbon tax effectively. However, you can win this argument without the cards. You can talk
about how just because its difficult to implement doesnt mean we shouldnt do it. Then go read
a couple moral obligation cards.
Champion Briefs
241

February 2016
CON A Carbon Tax Would Increase Energy Prices

Argument: A carbon tax would increase the price of energy, as it would tax all carbon
emissions, a common by product in nearly all energy production.
Warrant: In Australia, the carbon tax drove energy prices up dramatically.
Scrapping the carbon tax will take the pressure off electricity and gas prices. Power
bills are forecast to be around 9 per cent lower and gas prices would be around 7
per cent lower than they otherwise would be. Overall, households are forecast to be
around $550 a year better off, on average, without the carbon tax. There should be no
doubt about the Governments determination to get rid of the carbon tax. Labor on the
other hand remains determined to keep and expand this painful and pointless slug on
households and business. Previously, there were some suggestions that energy retailers
would not be able to pass through savings from the repeal of the carbon tax because they
have to set prices in advance. Todays AER decision has put to rest these claims.
Champion Briefs
242
February 2016

Warrant: In Australia, the carbon tax drove energy prices up; the recent decision to repeal the
tax will finally lower energy bills.
Energy companies will be able to lower prices without delay once the carbon tax is
repealed delivering significant savings for Australian households and business.
The Australian Energy Regulator (AER) today confirmed that it will use its discretion
and allow retailers to lower prices straight away. Power bills will fall as soon as Bill
Shorten and the Labor Party stop blocking the abolition of the carbon tax, Minister
for Small Business Bruce Billson said. The AERs decision is good news for anyone
who pays a power bill as they will see their bills drop when the carbon tax is repealed.
The Coalition Government is committed to delivering lower energy bills for Australian
households and businesses. Bill Shorten and Labor continue to support the carbon tax and
higher electricity bills for households and business. Today the AER has made it clear it
will not take action against an energy retailer for breaches of the National Energy Retail
Law in circumstances where retailers are charging lower prices to reflect savings from
the repeal of the carbon tax.
Champion Briefs
243
February 2016

Argument: A carbon tax would increase the price of production for energy intensive industries.
Du, Zhenya. "Manufacture Engineering and Environmental Engineering." Manufacture
Engineering and Environment Engineering. By Peiyu Ren. N.p.: Wexess Instutite,

n.d. 1118. Google Books. 2014. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<https://books.google.com/books?id=pccyAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA1118&lpg=PA11
18&dq=%22carbon%2Btax%22%2BAND%2B%22energy%2Bcost%22&source
=bl&ots=Tus7IJduOQ&sig=uAgAU_5_kpDBpCQ2L7Cw9TWhDCA&hl=en&sa
=X&ved=0ahUKEwjHhdmnhJfKAhUBQSYKHf4kAdsQ6AEIOjAF#v=onepage
&q=%22carbon%20tax%22%20AND%20%22energy%20cost%22&f=false>.
Carbon taxation would raise energy cost of energy intensive industries. Energy
intensive industries consume enormous amounts of energy during the
manufacturing process, smelting and pressing of ferrous metals, processing of
petroleum, coking, processing of nuclear fuel, manufacture of nonmetallic mineral
products, manufacture of raw chemical materials and chemical products, smelting
and processing of nonferrous metals, and so on, these are all energy intensive
industries. Take the iron and steel industry for example, from mining and transportation
of raw materials such as iron ore and coal, to manufacturing, using, discarding, and
recycling of iron and steel products, a large amount of energy would be consumed;
expansion of the scale leads to crucial changes of relationships among production factors
in enterprises, especially the relationship among labors, which means the development
and deepening of the division of labor and specialization, and technological progress and
development of production mode.
Champion Briefs
244
February 2016

Warrant: The carbon tax leveled in Australia will increase energy prices by $150 per household
next year
Wilson, Tim. "Publications." Carbon Tax to Push Electricity Prices up by 150 Dollars
next Year. The Institute of Public Affairs, 10 July 2011. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.ipa.org.au/publications/1885/carbon-tax-to-push-electricity-pricesup-by-150-dollars-next-year/pg/7>.
The Gillard government's carbon tax will push up the price of electricity for
households by $150 in its first year alone', said Director of Climate Change Policy,
Tim Wilson, today from Parliament House. In her press conference announcing the
carbon tax the Prime Minister acknowledged the carbon tax "has price impacts, it's meant
to - that's the whole point". Now we know it will increase electricity prices by $150
and continue going up every year', said Mr Wilson. Climate Change Minister, Greg
Combet said that the carbon tax will rise by 2.5 per cent a year in real terms. This is
effectively an increase of 5 per cent annually', he said. According to the Centre for
International Economics' independent modeling, in order to achieve the government's
emissions reduction of 5 per cent from 2000 levels by 2020, the $23 carbon tax has to
rapidly increase to $49 by 2020. This will cause electricity prices to increase by
nearly $300 per household.'
Champion Briefs
245
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax will increase the cost of energy production; this will impact the coal
industry the most as well as low-income households.
Kaineg, Robert. "Carbon Taxes: Key Considerations For Policymakers And
Stakeholders." (n.d.): n. pag. Thomson Reuters. 2013. Web. 7 Jan. 2016.
<http://thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/openweb/documents/pdf/tr-com-
financial/white-paper/carbon-taxes-key-considerations-for-policymakers-andstakeholders.pdf>.
In general, GHG emissions are tied to energy use. The result of a carbon tax will thus
be an increase in cost on users of energy. Therefore, when implementing a carbon
tax, it is critical to consider the impact on domestic industries, sensitive
constituencies, and international competitiveness. This can be a particularly difficult
problem for jurisdictions where major domestic industries and fuel sources are
emissions intensive. For example, in regions where the power complex is almost
entirely coal, a highly emissions intense fuel; the cost of a carbon tax are ultimately
passed through to the residential, commercial, and industrial segments. Carbon
taxation of residential heating and transportation fuels may have an especially
burdensome impact on low income households, where energy costs make up a
significant portion of overall revenue.
Champion Briefs
246
February 2016

Warrant: The cost of a carbon tax would increase the price of electricity, petroleum products,
and energy-intensive goods
"Options and Considerations for a Federal Carbon Tax | Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions." Options and Considerations for a Federal Carbon Tax | Center for
Climate and Energy Solutions. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Feb.
2013. Web. 07 Jan. 2016. <http://www.c2es.org/publications/optionsconsiderations-federal-carbon-tax>.
A carbon tax uses the power of market price signals to encourage greenhouse gas
emission reductions from a variety of sources. The predominant greenhouse gas produced
by humans is carbon dioxide (CO2), which results largely from burning fossil fuels. An
upstream carbon tax, for example, would impose a charge on coal, oil, and natural
gas in proportion to the amount of carbon they contain. This tax would be passed
forward into the price of electricity, petroleum products, and energy-intensive
goods. A more broad-based carbon tax could also be designed to apply to non-energy
sources of CO2 emissions and on other greenhouse gases based on their global warming
potential relative to CO2.
Champion Briefs
247

Warrant: The costs of a carbon tax are passed down to consumers
February 2016
Metzger, Elliot. "Bottom Line on Carbon Taxes." Bottom Line on Carbon Taxes. World
Resources Institute, July 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.wri.org/publication/bottom-line-carbon-taxes>.
Companies and individuals pay higher prices for GHG-intensive energy (and other
goods and services) as the costs of a carbon tax are passed down to consumers. The
extent to which these higher energy prices impact the overall income of companies
and individuals depends on how the tax revenues are used. The overall impact on a
company also depends on how much fossil fuel-based energy it uses, how higher
energy prices affect their business, and a companys ability to either minimize or
avoid increasing costs (e.g., by using fuel more efficiently or using cleaner fuels)
and/or pass along costs to its customers.
Analysis: You can use all these cards to block an argument that a carbon tax is a good idea. A
carbon tax will increase the cost of energy which will hurt low income households, the coal
industry, and production companies in the US. Moreover, the entire cost of the tax will be passed
off to consumers.
Champion Briefs
248

February 2016
A2 A carbon tax would increase energy prices

Argument: A carbon tax wont increase the cost of energy for consumers.
Warrant: The increased cost of energy can be offset with renewable energy standards.
5 Jan. 2016.
&f=false>.
as renewable energy targets, which tend to lower market prices of power (see below).
Up to a point, energy efficiency and renewable polices also have weaker effects on
energy prices than carbon taxes (as the latter involve the pass through of carbon
payments in higher prices). This may also explain the coexistence of a carbon price
(below its inefficient level) and other energy policies even when those other polices
are less environmentally effective.
Champion Briefs
249
February 2016

Warrant: The Georgia Institute of Technology determined compliance with the EPAs new
Clean Power Plan (aimed at reducing carbon emissions) could be done through the combination
of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. Under this carbon pricing policy, the cost of
lower electricity bills decreased, GDP growth increased, and there were significant reductions in
SO2, NOx, and mercury emissions.
Phillips, Ari. "Obamas Clean Power Plan Will Actually Lower Your Energy Bill,
According To New Study." Think Progress. N.p., 30 July 2015. Web. 05 Jan.
2016. <http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/07/30/3685299/cheapest-way-toreduce-power-plant-emissions-and-save-money-on-electricity/>.
A new study from researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology examines how
states can reduce carbon pollution cheaply while also keeping household energy
prices low. Titled Low-Carbon Electricity Pathways for the U.S. and the South,
the report found that reducing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants a
requirement of the EPAs proposed Clean Power Plan could be done cost
effectively through a combination of renewable energy and energy efficiency policies
as well as a modest carbon price. To minimize costs, the country needs to reduce its
coal consumption more rapidly, continue to expand its gas-fired power plants, but temper
this growth with aggressive policies to increase energy efficiency and renewable energy,
Marilyn Brown, the projects lead researcher and the Brook Byers Professor of
Sustainable Systems in the School of Public Policy at Georgia Tech, told ThinkProgress.
The researchers also found that complying with the Clean Power Plan, which aims
to reduce emissions from U.S. power plants by 30 percent from 2005 levels by
2030, would produce substantial collateral benefits. These include lower electricity
bills, greater GDP growth, and significant reductions in SO2, NOx, and mercury
emissions. The strong push on energy efficiency also enables GDP to rise above the
business-as-usual forecast, said Brown. The U.S. increases its exports and
decreases its imports as a result of being more competitive.
Champion Briefs
250
February 2016

Warrant: Although a carbon tax has distributional outcomes, those changes can be offset that
can be offset by other energy policies such as renewable energy targets which actually lower
energy prices.
5 Jan. 2016.
&f=false>.
as renewable energy targets, which tend to lower market prices of power (see
below). Up to a point, energy efficiency and renewable polices also have weaker
effects on energy prices than carbon taxes (as the latter involve the pass through of
carbon payments in higher prices). This may also explain the coexistence of a
carbon price (below its inefficient level) and other energy policies even when those
other polices are less environmentally effective.
Analysis: The responses to this argument mainly explain that the costs can be offset with other
renewable energy policies. There are a lot of examples of countries where a carbon tax has been
put in place and the cost of energy soon after increases. Its important to point out the structures
of those other economies are different than that of the US so you wouldnt see the exact
response in the US if we adopted a carbon tax. You can also go look at the Pro argument about
how a carbon tax would NOT increase energy prices. There are some cards you can use to turn
the offense.
Champion Briefs
251

February 2016
CON Carbon Taxes will move industry overseas

Argument: Carbon Taxes make it less affordable for carbon intensive industries to operate,
incensing them to move overseas

Warrant: Carbon Taxes do not address the problem of leakage
- IER." IER. Institute for Energy Research, 11 Mar. 2009. Web. 01 Jan. 2016.
High costs of doing business in America will force jobs and economic activity to
leave this country in favor of countries with lower energy prices. China and India
have stated they will not impose burdensome climate regulations on their
citizens. Because not all countries will implement carbon taxes, industries will take
their jobs to countries where taxes do not eat their profits. Despite a huge American
economic sacrifice, global emissions will remain the same.
Champion Briefs
252
February 2016

Warrant: A noncompetitive energy sector incentivizes companies to leave the US

Domestic carbon taxes will force more industries to leave America. Energy costs
are a major expenditure for heavy industry. Americas natural gas prices are the
highest in the world,[24] even though we have the worlds sixth largest proven natural
gas reserves.[25] The high price of natural gas has significantly contributed to the
loss of more than three million manufacturing jobs since 2000. Carbon taxes will
drive up the cost of natural gas because companies would use it as a substitute for
coal in electricity production, which means increased electricity costs for industry
and increased natural gas prices. This is especially troublesome for chemical
companies, all of which use natural gas not only as an energy source, but also as a
feedstock. Higher natural gas prices will force them to pursue options offshore and
overseas, reducing American jobs.
Warrant: Carbon taxes proposed in Oregon illustrate the effect of raised energy prices on
commerce
Columnist, Guest. "Oregon Carbon Tax Would Kill Jobs, Hurt the Poor (OPINION)."
Oregon Live News, 10 Apr. 2015. Web. 02 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2015/04/oregon_carbon_tax_woul
d_kill_j.html>.
Since virtually every product and service produced here includes energy, a
carbon tax will affect every Oregon family and business. Oregon has a strong
manufacturing sector, and low energy costs are critical to maintaining the health
of manufacturing here. A carbon tax will make Oregon's goods and services less
competitive.
Champion Briefs
253
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon Taxes will raise the cost of energy and associated goods
"Options and Considerations for a Federal Carbon Tax | Center for Climate and Energy
Solutions." Options and Considerations for a Federal Carbon Tax | Center for
Climate and Energy Solutions. Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Feb.
2013. Web. 06 Jan. 2016. <http://www.c2es.org/publications/optionsconsiderations-federal-carbon-tax>.
A carbon tax uses the power of market price signals to encourage greenhouse gas
emission reductions from a variety of sources. The predominant greenhouse gas
produced by humans is carbon dioxide (CO2), which results largely from burning fossil
fuels. An upstream carbon tax would impose a charge on coal, oil, and natural gas in
proportion to the amount of carbon they contain. This tax would be passed forward
into the price of electricity, petroleum products, and energy-intensive goods. A more
broad-based carbon tax could also be designed to apply to non-energy sources of CO2
emissions and on other greenhouse gases based on their global warming potential relative
to CO2.
Champion Briefs
254

Warrant: Carbon taxes did not work in the example of Australia
February 2016
Evans, Greg. The National News, 28 July 2013. Web. 2 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.news.com.au/national/carbon-tax-raises-costs-cuts-jobs-australianchamber-of-commerce-and-industry-audit-reveals/story-fnho52ip1226687143830>.
"The carbon tax has slashed hundreds of millions of dollars from company profits
and forced struggling manufacturing firms to shift production - and jobs - offshore.
A national survey of Australia's $110 billion food processing industry has revealed nearly
30 per cent of businesses reported cost increases of 5 per cent or more since the
carbon tax was introduced. And 67 per cent of companies - including many small
businesses - have been unable to pass on these higher costs to their customers. Instead,
they have been forced absorb the price hit on their bottom line. Another audit by the
Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry reveals 82 per cent of businesses report
the carbon tax has reduced profits - a year since the greenhouse scheme was
introduced.
Analysis: This argument interacts well with pro offense. It makes the analysis that climate
change impacts will happen regardless, the only effects are the negative economic externalities
of moving businesses overseas
Champion Briefs
255

February 2016
A2 Carbon Taxes will move businesses over seas

Answer: Carbon Taxes will not force businesses overseas
Warrant: Carbon Taxes, if well designed, will not impact the job sector
The next question is whether that success is bought at the expense of jobs and incomes.
The answer is no. As long as the tax is well-designed, it can cut emissions at little or
no economic cost. And that is a conservative assessment: In practice, a carbon tax has
been shown to provide an economic boost. The reason is that the revenue raised by a
carbon tax can be used to cut other, more damaging, taxes. In general, taxes make
economies less efficient. But some do more harm than others. Taxing "bads," such
as pollution, actually improves the allocation of resources, whereas taxing "goods,"
such as labor, reduces the economy's capacity to produce. In principle, therefore, using
the revenue from a carbon tax to cut other taxes can yield a double benefit: reducing
pollution and expanding the economy.
Champion Briefs
256

Warrant: Historically, Job loss seems inconsequential
February 2016
So much for output; what about jobs? The Netherlands and the U.K., which
introduced some of Europe's narrowest and most targeted carbon taxes, saw no net
impact on employment. Denmark made greater use of green taxes, and saw
employment rise by about 0.5 percent -- again, as compared with projections
assuming no introduction of a carbon tax. In Germany, employment increased an
estimated 0.2 percent. A 2013 review of nine countries by the Institute for European
Environmental Policy found none where a carbon tax had led to job losses.
Analysis: This argument directly addresses the claim that carbon taxes ship jobs overseas.
Remember to explain that even if there is some nominal job loss, there is not necessarily a net
job loss, because of how the taxes encourage activity in other sectors
Champion Briefs
257

Answer: Carbon Taxes are good for the economy in other ways
February 2016
Warrant: Carbon Taxes can generate revenue for the government

"Carbon Tax Good For Climate And Economy, Says US Congressional Budget Office."
CleanTechnica. Clean Technica, 25 May 2013. Web. 01 Jan. 2016.
<http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/25/carbon-tax-good-for-climate-and-economysays-us-congressional-budget-office/>.]
As mentioned in an earlier report, the CBO estimates that a $20 per tonne tax on
carbon dioxide emissions would yield revenue of $1.3 trillion over a period of 10
years. The emissions would also reduce by 8% during this period. The report states that
levying a carbon tax would certainly have an impact on the consumer prices which may
have a cascading effect on the overall national economic growth. However, this damage
can be countered by using the carbon tax revenue to a) reduce the fiscal deficit and b)
reduce income tax and other taxes to support businesses and consumers. Thus, a
revenue-neutral carbon tax may prove beneficial to the environment as well as the
economy.
Champion Briefs
258

Warrant: Carbon Taxes will provide government revenue
February 2016
"U.S. Carbon Tax Could Boost Revenue, Curb Climate Change - Report." | Reuters.
Reuters News, 23 May 2015. Web. 06 Jan. 2016.
<http://mobile.reuters.com/article/governmentFilingsNews/idUSL2N0E323B201
30523>.
"A carbon tax that covered the bulk of (carbon dioxide) emissions or the carbon content
of most fossil fuel consumed in the United States could generate a substantial amount of
revenue," reads the report Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment
released on Wednesday. Specifically, the report points out that a 2011 CBO study found
that a program that set a $20 charge for emitting a ton of carbon dioxide and then
increasing the tariff from there would raise a total of nearly $1.2 trillion during its
first decade.
Analysis: Jobs are only one metric for economic performance. Force your opponents to defend
this as opposed to a holistic analysis of quality of life for all Americans, and make the case that
your side provides the full picture.
Champion Briefs
259

February 2016
CON Carbon Taxes hurt the poor

Argument: Carbon taxes are regressive. Lower income individuals use a higher percentage of
their income on energy and have less of an ability to cope with higher prices
Warrant: The cost of a carbon tax would be passed on to the people by energy corporations
Kolstad, Charles. "Stanford Research Finds Carbon Regulation Burden Heaviest on
Poor." Stanford University. Stanford, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 02 Jan. 2016.
The heaviest burden for climate change regulation costs falls on people especially
lower income groups and not corporations, according to new Stanford research. The
reason is that companies ultimately pass on those costs to people. For the poor, basic
necessities take up a bigger chunk of the budget than for the rich.
Warrant: The Poor spend a disproportionate amount of their income on energy
Households in the lowest income group pay, as a percent of income, more than
twice what households in the highest 10 percent of the income distribution pay,"
wrote economist Charles Kolstad, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic
Policy Research and the Precourt Institute for Energy.
Champion Briefs
260

Warrant: The price increase on the poorest is significant
February 2016
"How Regressive Are Carbon Taxes?" National Bureau of Economic Research, n.d. Web.
02 Jan. 2016. <http://www.nber.org/digest/jan10/w15239.html>.
"Under either a cap-and-trade program that limits carbon emissions or a carbon tax that
imposes an outright tax on these emissions, the poor may be among the hardest hit.
Because they spend a greater share of their income on energy than higher-income
families, households in the lowest fifth of the income distribution could shoulder a
relative burden that is 1.4 to 4 times higher than that of households in the top fifth
of the income distribution, according to a study by Corbett Grainger and Charles
Kolstad. In Who Pays a Price on Carbon? (NBER Working Paper No. 15239), they show
that the burden on the poorest households doubles when a price on carbon is targeted
narrowly on energy consumption (and not other energy uses) rather than broadly across
all industries.
Warrant: Carbon Taxes cut into the income of the poorest severely.

The Congressional Budget OfficeMr. Orszags former roostestimates that the
price hikes from a 15% cut in emissions would cost the average household in the
bottom-income quintile about 3.3% of its after-tax income every year. Thats about
$680, not including the costs of reduced employment and output. The three middle
quintiles would see their paychecks cut between $880 and $1,500, or 2.9% to 2.7% of
income. The rich would pay 1.7%.
Champion Briefs
261

Warrant: Poverty is bad for the environment as well
February 2016
"How Poverty Impacts the Environment - The Borgen Project." The Borgen Project
RSS2. N.p., 02 Oct. 2013. Web. 02 Jan. 2016. <http://borgenproject.org/howpoverty-impacts-the-environment/>.
Air pollution is another way in which poverty contributes to environmental
degradation. As mentioned above, poor communities lack the proper knowledge
when it comes to production techniques. Thus, the ways in which they use resources
to help them survive are harmful to the resources around them, and ultimately the
world at large. Air pollution is one of the major consequences of poor production
techniques while water pollution is a result of poor water management, once again due to
lack of knowledge. Water pollution affects so many things beyond the poor community
itself. Water pollution deprives soil of nourishing elements, kills off fish, and is
extremely harmful to human health.
Analysis: The argument that carbon taxes hurt the poor disproportionately is interesting because
it is weighable on multiple levels. Intuitively, regressive taxes can be called unjust because not
only are they not applied uniformly, but they hurt the people that need the governments help the
most. The harms of taxes are also arguably much more salient than the nebulous benefits of
carbon taxes

Champion Briefs
262

February 2016
A2 Carbon Taxes hurt the poor

Answer: The harms of Carbon Taxes to the poor are likely overstated
Warrant: Policies would likely be put into effect to dampen the harms to the poor
This alleged advantage, however, would never last politically because a carbon tax will
be a visible and ever-increasing new tax. In response to that reality, lawmakers are
likely to execute new, politically popular transfers of wealthall with an eye on
limiting the taxs effect on lower-income families. Sales taxes, for example, could be
uniformly applied across the economy, but in practice, sales taxes vary on certain items,
in part, to help lower-income Americans deal with the increased costs imposed by
them..
Champion Briefs
263

Warrant: Taxes do not inherently hurt the poor
February 2016

This regressivity [regressive nature of carbon taxes] can be addressed through
transfer payments, if and when the U.S. decides to regulate greenhouse gases
leading to climate change," said Kolstad, who researches environmental economics,
regulation and climate change. As an example, he suggests reducing the payroll tax
for lower income groups as a way to make a carbon tax more fair. The study
examined Bureau of Economic Analysis data and used a $15 per metric ton carbon "tax"
as a scenario. In other words, every person or organization (such as a company) that
emits carbon into the atmosphere would pay a tax on the total amount emitted multiplied
by $15 per metric ton of carbon. The researchers looked at how such a hypothetical tax
would hit individual income groups, industries and different regions. Kolstad said that
price and substitution effects may somewhat dampen the regressive nature of such
costs. For example, when prices change, people change what they do. If the price of
heating oil goes up, people may use more electricity or natural gas to warm their
homes.
Warrant: Carbon Taxes do not actually impact very many industries
"The extent to which these industries are ultimately disadvantaged depends on the
extent to which they are able to pass costs on to customers," the research noted. Still,
these most highly affected industries contributed only 1 percent to the total gross
output of the U.S. economy in 2011, according to the study. "This suggests that the
adverse incidence of such a tax can be ameliorated through highly targeted financial
assistance, without reducing the incentive benefits of a carbon tax," the paper stated.
Champion Briefs
264
February 2016

Warrant: Plans for a more progressive carbon tax are more likely to be implemented
Powell, Benjamin. "Sweatshops and Third World Living Standards: Are the Jobs Worth
the Sweat?: Publications: The Independent Institute." The Independant Institute,
27 Sept. 2004. Web. 1 Jan. 2015.
<http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1369>.
Carbon taxes would likely be accompanied by various rebate schemes to soften the
regressive nature of the tax and make it a more progressive tax. This is currently
happening with cap and trade proposals. One plan calls for the government to auction all
emission permits and give each citizen a $700 check every year. Another option is to only
give the rebate checks from auction revenues to lower-income citizens.
Analysis: This argument addresses the specter of a regressive carbon tax with a more realistic
alternative. In the real world it is likely that carbon taxes are implemented in such as fashion that,
or accompanied with, many progressive reforms
Champion Briefs
265

February 2016
CON Carbon Taxes Create Harmful Market Distortions

Argument: The implementation of carbon taxes creates multiple distortions in the market
economy, which results in multiple consequences for consumers, businesses, and the country as a
whole.
Warrant: The carbon tax system in Australia shows that it operates in conjunction with other
distortive command and control policies
Proponents of carbon taxes argue that market mechanisms - cap and trade schemes
and carbon taxes - are superior to direct command and control alternatives. The
conventional economic argument is that introducing a price will allow other more
costly schemes (such as renewable energy targets, green subsidies, efficiency standards
and other forms of regulation) to be abolished.
Firstly, the Australian Government has never actually demonstrated that market
mechanisms are superior to non-market alternatives. Furthermore, many features of the
policies that accompany Australias carbon tax bear a strong resemblance to
command and control policies. Most notably, Australias Renewable Energy Target
has remained in place. In addition, the carbon tax legislation introduced new forms
of intervention, including the Clean Energy Finance Corporation.
In practice, complementary policies have remained in Australia, even after the
carbon tax was put in place. Hence any hypothetical efficiency gains that may have
occurred as a result of eliminating other programs have not materialised.
Champion Briefs
266
February 2016

Warrant: The complementary policies passed in conjunction with carbon tax will prevent the
equality of marginal costs
As discussed in section 2.1 above, the main argument for a carbon tax or cap and
trade scheme is that such instruments in principle allow the marginal costs of
abatement to be equalised across firms and across sectors, which means that overall
abatement is achieved at least cost. Under a carbon tax, equality of marginal costs of
abatement is achieved by levying the same tax on each tonne of emissions, no matter
where it is produced. Under a cap and trade scheme, equality of marginal costs is
achieved by permitting free trade in permits.
The presence of complementary measures such as wind and solar subsidies, the
RET, and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation means that achieving such
equality of marginal costs is unlikely, if not impossible.
Champion Briefs
267
February 2016

Warrant: In Australia, the household compensation packages given to mitigate costs of carbon
tax will likely not cover all the market losses, resulted in higher deficits and public debt
By deliberate design, the Australian Governments household compensation
package was locked in over time and was based on assumptions about the path of
carbon prices and emissions. In practice, emissions are uncertain, and after 2015-16 the
price will fluctuate. This means that there is likely to be a sizeable fiscal gap between
the revenues generated by the tax on the one hand, and the increases in government
spending and tax cuts that accompanied the scheme on the other. In other words, the
carbon tax has actually worsened Australias budget bottom line, leading to higher
deficits and higher public debt than would otherwise have been the case. The carbon
tax has introduced an additional source of volatility into the Australian Governments
tax revenues.
Champion Briefs
268
February 2016

Warrant: Government tax changes have increased marginal tax rates for 2 million Australian
taxpayers, refuting the double dividend theory
Carbon tax proponents often claim that carbon tax revenue can be recycled and
used to reduce marginal income tax rates, thus providing a double dividend. This
is a dubious proposition in theory due to the interaction between the carbon tax and
existing taxes. These interactions were never taken into account in the Governments
modelling.
In Australias case, as part of the compensation package for the carbon tax, the
Australian Government lowered some average income tax rates but actually
increased marginal tax rates for around 2 million taxpayers. Instead of mitigating
the adverse effects of the carbon tax on the labour market, these changes to the
personal tax system have likely exacerbated those effects. The increase in marginal tax
rates is exactly the opposite policy of what a Government would do if it was trying to
capture a double dividend from environmental taxation.
Champion Briefs
269
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon tax would increase production costs, which leads to higher prices for
households
"Effects of a Carbon Tax on the Economy and the Environment." Congressional Budget
Office. 22 May 2013. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
<https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44223>.
By raising the cost of using fossil fuels, a carbon tax would tend to increase the cost
of producing goods and servicesespecially things, such as electricity or
transportation, that involve relatively large amounts of CO2 emissions. Those cost
increases would provide an incentive for companies to manufacture their products in
ways that resulted in fewer CO2 emissions. Higher production costs would also lead to
higher prices for emission-intensive goods and services, which would encourage
households to use less of them and more of other goods and services.
Warrant: Carbon tax would negatively affect peoples earnings and overall investment
Without accounting for how the revenues from a carbon tax would be used, such a tax
would have a negative effect on the economy. The higher prices it caused would
diminish the purchasing power of peoples earnings, effectively reducing their real
(inflation-adjusted) wages. Lower real wages would have the net effect of reducing
the amount that people worked, thus decreasing the overall supply of labor.
Investment would also decline, further reducing the economys total output.
Champion Briefs
270

Warrant: Carbon tax would target lower-income households the most
February 2016
The costs of a carbon tax would not be evenly distributed among U.S. households. For
example, the additional costs from higher prices would consume a greater share of
income for low-income households than for higher-income households, because lowincome households generally spend a larger percentage of their income on emissionintensive goods. Similarly, workers and investors in emission-intensive industries, who
would see the largest decrease in demand for their products, would be likely to bear
relatively large burdens as the economy adjusted to the tax. Finally, areas of the
country where electricity is produced from coalthe most emission-intensive fossil fuel
per unit of energy generatedwould tend to experience larger increases in electricity
prices than other areas would.
Warrant: Carbon tax would exceed 1 million jobs and more than a trillion dollars by 2030
Kreutzer, David W. "Impacts of Carbon Taxes on the US Economy." The Heritage
Foundation. The Heritage Foundation, 16 Sept. 2014. Web. 08 Jan. 2016.
Analyses by both The Heritage Foundation and the Energy Information Administration
project impacts of carbon taxes that show employment losses exceeding 1,000,000 jobs
and income losses (GDP) exceeding a trillion dollars by 2030.
Champion Briefs
271
February 2016

Warrant: The proposed Boxer-Sanders Carbon Tax would have had various negative
consequences on the economy

In 2013 Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) proposed a
carbon tax in their Climate Security Act of 2013.[1] The tax started at $20 per
metric ton and would rise by 5.6 percent per year, reaching $50 per metric ton by
2030 (the endpoint for the Heritage analysis).
Using the Heritage Energy Model (HEM), a derivative of the Energy Information
Administrations National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), Heritage projected what
the economic impacts would have been had the bill become law.[2]
The impacts would have included (dollar values are adjusted for inflation):
GDP loss of $146 billion in 2030
A family of four losing more than $1,000 of income per year,
Over 400,000 lost jobs by 2016,
Coal production dropping by 60 percent and coal employment dropping by more
than 40 percent by 2030,
Gasoline prices rising $0.20 by 2016 and $0.30 before 2030, and
Electricity prices rising 20 percent by 2017 and more than 30 percent by 2030.
Champion Briefs
272
February 2016

Warrant: Gains in the renewable energy industry would not completely cover costs

Though renewable energy grew compared to baseline levels, it wasnt enough to
make up for the lost hydrocarbon energy. In addition it is certain that businesses and
households economized on energy use both by doing without and by employing more
energy efficient technologies. These responses would stimulate employment in certain
sectors, but the net effect is an overall loss in employment. The projected
employment loss for 2016 was 400,000 jobs.
Analysis: This is a pretty straightforward argument. Placing a tax on a crucial element in the
means of production for many industries as well as good used by all American households has
immense consequences for our economy. All judges you present in front of will be able to
understand the consequences. Having some basic economic background (understanding net costs
and benefits to business and consumer welfare) will help you in understanding and explaining
these points. However, make sure that you dont get too stuck in using academic jargon but
instead focus on clearly explaining that these market distortions will put decrease the amount of
money in the pockets of your judges.

Champion Briefs
273

February 2016
A2 Carbon Taxes Create Harmful Market Distortion

Argument: A carbon tax can potentially reduce costs in various sectors
Warrant: There are many uses for the revenue of carbon taxes
The effects of a carbon tax on the U.S. economy would depend on how the revenues
from the tax were used. Options include using the revenues to reduce budget deficits, to
decrease existing marginal tax rates (the rates on an additional dollar of income), or to
offset the costs that a carbon tax would impose on certain groups of people. This
study examines how a carbon tax, combined with those alternative uses of the revenues,
might affect the economy and the environment.
Warrant: Similar program model is estimated to raise 1.2 trillion in first ten years
For example, in 2011, CBO estimated that a cap-and-trade program [which is a
program that would similarly set a price on CO2 emissions] that would have set a price
of $20 in 2012 to emit a ton of CO2 (and increased that price by 5.6 percent each
year thereafter) would raise a total of nearly $1.2 trillion during its first decade.
*Bracket inserted by writer
Champion Briefs
274
February 2016

Warrant: Using carbon tax revenue to deficit spend will help economy in the long run
At least part of the negative economic effect of a carbon tax would be offset if the
tax revenues were used for deficit reduction. Federal budget deficits tend to result in
lower economic output over the long run than would otherwise be the case, by crowding
out private-sector investment. Thus, policies that reduce deficits generally have a
positive effect on the economy in the long run (although they can have a negative
effect in the short term when the economy is weak).
Warrant: Carbon tax revenues can be used to cut marginal tax rates
Lawmakers could also offset some of the negative economic effects of a carbon tax
by using the revenues to reduce the existing marginal rates of income or payroll
taxesa policy known as a tax swap. Existing taxes on individual and corporate
income decrease peoples incentives to work and invest by lowering the after-tax
returns they receive from those activities. Consequently, reducing those marginal
tax rates would have positive effects on the economy.
Champion Briefs
275
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon tax revenues can be reallocated to extend relief measures or limit cuts in
crucial social programs
Rausch, Sebastian, and John M. Reilly. Carbon Tax Revenue and the Budget Deficit: A
Win-win-win Solution? Cambridge, MA: MIT Joint Program on the Science and
Policy of Global Change, 2012. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Aug.
2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<http://globalchange.mit.edu/files/document/MITJPSPGC_Rpt228.pdf>.
While raising taxes is never popular, a carbon tax is potentially a win-win-win solution.
First, carbon tax revenue can allow revenue-neutral relief on personal income taxes,
corporate income tax, or payroll taxes, or could be used to avoid or limit cuts to
social programs (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Food Assistance) or Defense
spending.
Among the revenue raising options evaluated by the CBO was a carbon tax that would
start at $20 in 2012 and rise at a nominal rate of 5.8% per year, approximately 4% in real
terms given the underlying inflation rate they projected. By their estimate it would raise
on the order of $1.25 trillion over a 10-year period. Second, economic analysis has
demonstrated the potential for a double dividend whereby recycling of revenue from a
carbon tax to offset other taxes could reduce the cost of a carbon policy or even
under some circumstances boost economic welfare (Goulder, 1995). The Bush tax
cuts and other temporary tax relief measures are due to expire at the end of 2012. A
carbon tax could allow their further extension. And, third, a carbon tax would lower
fossil fuel use, reducing carbon dioxide emissions; and lowering oil imports.
Champion Briefs
276

Warrant: Carbon taxes would benefit the energy sector
February 2016
2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
The effects of this last win would spread across the energy sector. With the new
requirements for improved vehicle efficiency the higher tax-inclusive gasoline price
would make fuel efficient vehicles more attractive to consumers and thus make it
easier for automobile producers to sell a fleet that meets the efficiency requirements.
With a more efficient fleet, even though gasoline prices would rise, the actual fuel
cost of driving could fall. A carbon tax would also create support for renewable
fuels and electricity.
Warrant: Methodology used for MIT study has been used to investigate energy and climate
policy
2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
To investigate the potential tradeoffs among different strategies for reducing the
deficit we use the MIT U.S. Regional Energy Policy (USREP) model. USREP has
been widely used to investigate energy and climate policy, including interactions
with tax policy, and effects on economic growth, efficiency, and distribution (Rausch
et al., 2010, 2011a,b; Caron et al., 2012).
Champion Briefs
277

Warrant: Carbon tax revenue provides a net welfare benefit
February 2016
2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
First, when we use all of the revenue for tax relief or social programs, we see a net
welfare benefit that over time rises to about 0.02%. Second, the scenarios where half
of the income is used for an investment tax credit show a much different time path. Here
we see initially a net welfare cost of 0.020.04% but this turns into a net benefit by
2025 and that benefit continues to increase over time, with the welfare benefit
surpassing that in the other cases after 2030 or 2035. Third, we see the initially
surprising result that in both the full and half revenue cases, in early years the use of
funds for social programs shows the highest welfare result among the different uses for
the carbon tax revenue.
Warrant: Carbon tax revenue can be used to reduce harms of market distortions
2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
First, why are there positive net benefits when all the funds are used for tax cuts? Use of
the carbon tax revenue to cut distortionary taxes used to fund these transfers
reduces the drag they place on the economy enough to more than offset the cost of
the carbon tax. Thus we see the economic benefit of raising revenue through a carbon
tax as opposed to increases in personal income, corporate income, or payroll taxes.
Champion Briefs
278
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon tax revenue can be made into investment tax credits, which promotes greater
growth and welfare in the country long term
2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Second, why do the cases where half of the tax revenue is diverted to an investment tax
credit show such a different pattern over time? As noted above, annual welfare is defined
as consumption (and leisure). Diverting revenue to investment reduces the amount
available for current consumption, and thus lowers welfare. If used for tax cuts, the
higher disposable income would lead to more consumption and investment, and the
higher consumption is a contribution to current welfare. But higher investment in
the investment tax credit cases leads to a higher capital stock and that makes it
possible to produce more goods in succeeding years. The economy grows a bit faster,
and so with this growth eventually there is more to consume and welfare then
exceeds the cases without the investment tax credit.
Champion Briefs
279
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon tax revenue can be transferred to lower income households
2012. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Third, why is welfare higher when revenue is used for social programs? This occurs
because it is a transfer of income from relatively higher income households to
relatively lower income households. Higher income households save a larger
percentage of their income and so in these transfer cases there is more consumption and
welfare is thus higher. Eventually, the reduced savings and investment reduces capital
stock and the amount of goods that the economy can produce. Thus, while welfare is
higher in early years when carbon tax revenue is devoted to social programs it falls below
the other cases in later years.
Argument: Increased carbon emissions will create greater market distortions in the short and
long term than a carbon tax
Warrant: Greenhouse gas emissions are an environmental externality
2007. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
Concern has grown in recent years over the issue of global climate change. In terms of
economic analysis, greenhouse gas emissions, which cause planetary climate
changes, represent both an environmental externality and the overuse of a common
property resource.
Champion Briefs
280
February 2016

Warrant: The impact of carbon externalities arent currently being considered, which has
societal consequences
"Do Economists All Favour a Carbon Tax?" The Economist. The Economist, 19 Sept.
2011. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/09/climate-policy>.
We expect normal economic activity to maximise social good because each
individual balances costs and benefits when making economic decisions. Carbon
emissions represent a negative externality. When an individual takes an economic
action with some fossil-fuel energy contentwhether running a petrol-powered
lawnmower, turning on a light, or buying bunch of grapesthat person balances their
personal benefits against the costs of the action. The cost to them of the climate change
resulting from the carbon content of that decisions, however, is effectively zero and
is rationally ignored. The decision to ignore carbon content, when aggregated over
the whole of humanity, generates huge carbon dioxide emissions and rising global
temperatures.
The economic solution is to tax the externality so that the social cost of carbon is
reflected in the individual consumer's decision. The carbon tax is an elegant solution
to a complicated problem, which allows the everyday business of consumer decision
making to do the work of emission reduction.
Champion Briefs
281

Warrant: Greenhouse gas emissions are an environmental externality
February 2016
2007. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
The release of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is a clear example of a negative
externality that imposes significant costs on a global scale. In the language of
economic theory, the current market for carbon-based fuels such as coal, oil, and natural
gas takes into account only private costs and benefits, which leads to a market
equilibrium that does not correspond to the social optimum. From a social
perspective the market price for fossil fuels is too low and the quantity consumed too
high.
Champion Briefs
282
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax is a standard remedy for internalizing the externality
2007. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
A standard economic remedy for internalizing external costs is a per-unit tax on
the pollutant. In this case, what is called for is a carbon tax, levied exclusively on
carbon-based fossil fuels in proportion to the amount of carbon associated with
their production and use. Such a tax will raise the price of carbon-based energy
sources, and so give consumers incentives to conserve energy overall, as well as
shifting their demand to alternative, non-carbon sources of energy (which are not
taxed). Demand may also shift from carbon-based fuels with a higher proportion of
carbon, such as coal, to those with relatively lower carbon content, such as natural gas.
Analysis: When responding to this argument, your argument should be two-fold. First, there are
many conflicting numbers about whether or not the costs of carbon taxes can be covered by the
revenue that it makes. Therefore, you can either try and prove why it causes a net benefit to
American citizens or at least try and prove that there is no definitive answer about whether or not
it can. The benefit of negating both impacts is that the judge would have to consider another
impacts. By evaluating the short and long term as well as the environmental impacts of carbon
emissions, you can show that the possible short term harms of carbon taxes are definitively
negated in the long term, which decreases costs to society in the form of negative environmental
(and possibly economic) externalities.
Champion Briefs
283

February 2016
CON Carbon Taxes Reduce Economic Growth

Argument: Carbon taxes prohibit economic growth because carbon is a byproduct of almost all
manufacturing inputs; taxing carbon emissions would increase the cost of production of goods.
Warrant: Carbon is a necessary byproduct in the current US energy system
A carbon tax would impose a new tax on the vast majority of our nations economic
activity. Fossil fuels power our nation and produce 85 percent of the energy we
consume in the United States. Nuclear and hydro power produced an additional 11
percent of our energy. The remaining 4 percent comes from other renewables like
biofuels, wind, and solar. Carbon taxes may make hydro and nuclear power more
attractive, but few sites remain where it is possible to build large hydroelectric dams
and new nuclear power plants face major political obstacles.
Warrant: The implementation of a carbon tax would be very difficult; effective implementation
would require worldwide participation
Even the proponents of carbon taxes, such as Yale University Professor William
Nordaus, find that once there is deviation from worldwide participation, the costs of
achieving environmental global improvements dramatically rise. Nordhaus
economic model shows that an overly ambitious and/or inefficiently structured
policy can swamp the potential benefits of a perfectly calibrated and efficiently
targeted plan
Champion Briefs
284

Warrant: Creating Accurate Models is very difficult
February 2016

A carbon tax would need to be set at an optimal level that accounts for the
economy and climate science. This is an impossible task. One of the greatest insights
of the 20th century was that economically efficient central planning is not possible.
Friedrich Hayek and others demonstrated that central planners cannot aggregate all of the
information necessary to make economically efficient choices. Their insight remains true
today. A planner (or Congress) cannot create an optimal tax because he or she does not
have all of the necessary information. With global warming, the lack of perfect
information is further compounded by partisan politics and uncertain climate
science. This makes it impossible to determine an optimal carbon tax.
Warrant: Inaccurate models could prove costly to the economy
Robert P. Murphy, Rolling the DICE: Nordhaus Dubious Case for a Carbon Tax, p. 20,
June 2008, http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wpcontent/uploads/2008/06/2008-06_rolling_the_dice_murphy.pdf
"Nordhaus optimal plan yields net benefits of $3 trillion ($5 trillion in reduced climatic
damages and $2 trillion in abatement costs). Yet, other popular proposals have abatement
costs that exceed their benefits. The worst is former Vice President Al Gores 2007
proposal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 90 percent by 2050. Nordhaus model
estimates this plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer than if there
were no controls on carbon dioxide.
Champion Briefs
285
February 2016

Warrant: Lack of real alternatives in the energy sector will hurt the economy

Consider automobile use and gas prices. People have begun to transition toward fuelefficient 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. Given current technologies, carbon taxes will
result in less economic output. The graphic below illustrates that point. The implication
is clearthere is a strong correlation between energy use and GDP.
Analysis: This argument is one of the main points opponents use to reduce support for carbon
taxes. The idea that taxation, especially on important input goods, hurts growth is a simple and
intuitive. The impact can outweigh to any marginal benefits of disaster relief in coastal areas
because economic decline affects everyone, having a larger scope.
Champion Briefs
286

February 2016
A2 Carbon Taxes Reduce Economic Growth

Answer: Carbon Taxes do not hurt the economy
Warrant: Carbon taxes can be implemented in a growth neutral manner
Brodwin, David. "A Carbon Tax Everyone Can Love." US News. U.S.News & World
Report, 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 01 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/economic-intelligence/2014/08/29/a-carbontax-can-be-good-for-capital-business-workers-and-the-environment>.

Economist Dale Jorgenson at Harvard offered a solution to both of these challenges in
a recent interview. He argued that a carbon tax can be fully recycled to support the
economy, just like paper, glass and metal are recycled. Recycling a carbon tax
means lowering other taxes by exactly the amount as the carbon tax would raise, so
total taxes collected by the government would remain unchanged. The carbon tax
would generate about $150 billion, which is about 5 percent of the total collected by
the U.S. government, and so other taxes would need to be lowered by $150 billion to
compensate. This recycling program is both politically expedient and, Jorgenson argued,
economically productive.
Champion Briefs
287

Warrant: Carbon Taxes can generate revenue for the government
February 2016
"Carbon Tax Good For Climate And Economy, Says US Congressional Budget Office."
CleanTechnica. Clean Technica, 25 May 2013. Web. 01 Jan. 2016.
<http://cleantechnica.com/2013/05/25/carbon-tax-good-for-climate-and-economysays-us-congressional-budget-office/>.]
As mentioned in an earlier report, the CBO estimates that a $20 per tonne tax on
carbon dioxide emissions would yield revenue of $1.3 trillion over a period of 10
years. The emissions would also reduce by 8% during this period. The report states that
levying a carbon tax would certainly have an impact on the consumer prices which may
have a cascading effect on the overall national economic growth. However, this damage
can be countered by using the carbon tax revenue to a) reduce the fiscal deficit and b)
reduce income tax and other taxes to support businesses and consumers. Thus, a
revenue-neutral carbon tax may prove beneficial to the environment as well as the
economy.
Warrant: Carbon Taxes, if well designed, may not negatively impact the job market
While the argument is often (incorrectly) made that the actions needed to
adequately address greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are too expensive
to realistically be taken, the reality appears to be quite a bit different, as study after
study seems to show. Continuing in that tradition is a recent study from Regional
Economic Models Inc (REMI) that has found that taxing carbon can not
only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also add jobs to the economy.
Champion Briefs
288

Warrant: Unabated climate change is very bad for the economy
February 2016
"Economic Facts Support United States Action to Curb Global Warming." Union of
Concerned Scientists. Union of Concerned Scientists, n.d. Web. 01 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/reduce-emissions/economicsclimate-factsheet.html#.Vobkr0qDGko>.
Recent studies show that implementing available, affordable solutions will cost far
less than inaction. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (2006)
estimates that the international costs of unabated climate change is already at least
five percent of global per capita GDP and will continue at this rate into the future, with
estimates rising to 20 percent of GDP or more when accounting for a wider range of
impacts. A Tufts University report, The Cost of Climate Change: What Well Pay if
Global Warming Continues Unchecked, shows that doing nothing on global warming
could cost the U.S. economy more than 3.6% of GDP (or $3.8 trillion) annually by
2100. .
Analysis: A debater can respond to growth on multiple levels. First, the harms are incidental, not
inherent, second, the tax raises revenue for the government, and third, the alternative of climate
change is far far worse.
Champion Briefs
289

February 2016
CON A Carbon Tax Hurts the Agricultural Sector

Argument: A tax on carbon would increase the price for fossil-fuel intensive energy, which the
agricultural industry relies on heavily.
Warrant: A carbon tax would mean an increase in transportation costs for farmers
Collerton, Sarah. "Farming and the Carbon Tax: What's in Store?" ABC News. N.p., 13
Feb. 2012. Web. 08 Jan. 2016. <http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-15/carbontax-farmers/2795816>.
"Fuel's exempt and off-road vehicles are exempt [from the carbon price] - so that's
looking pretty good for farms," Professor Parton said. But while petrol for farm
vehicles is exempt, the heavy transport industry will be slugged with a fuel excise.
That means transport costs are likely to increase for farmers in time, according to
Professor Snow. "Major transport - shipping, rail, air freight - will be taxed under
the carbon tax scheme. Heavy transport - big trucks - is set for review for inclusion
in 2014. So eventually road transport will be in," he said. "There will be an increase
in the transport costs for farmers in the long term. "Treasury and Farm Institute
modeling shows the average farm commitment might be in the region of $1,000 a year,
but if farmers look for energy savings it is possible they could compensate for those
increased costs."
Champion Briefs
290
February 2016

Warrant: Even if the carbon tax doesnt apply to farms, the estimated output levels on farms is
expected to decrease 8-13% as a result of higher input costs under a carbon tax.
Keogh, Mick. "Carbon Price Impacts on Agriculture Being Overlooked in the
Compensation Scramble." Carbon Price Impacts on Agriculture Being
Overlooked in the Compensation Scramble. The Australian Farm Institute, 11
Apr. 2011. Web. 08 Jan. 2016. <http://www.farminstitute.org.au/ag-
forum/carbon_price_impacts_on_agriculture_being_overlooked_in_the_compens
ation_scramble>.
The reality, of course, is that the input costs faced by farmers will increase as a
consequence of the proposed carbon tax, and farmers operate in a trade-exposed,
price-taker sector that has no opportunity to pass on higher costs to consumers or to
buyers in international markets. Therefore a carbon tax will have a direct bottomline impact on farm business profitability, even without a carbon price being
imposed on agricultural emissions. ABARES modeling of the impacts on agriculture
of the proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2009 projected that within
five years, the economic value of farm production would decline by between 5 and
7% because of the higher cost of farm inputs caused by the carbon price, and a
further 4-5% due to the impact of a carbon price on agricultural processing
industries (assuming all this cost would be passed on to farmers). Economic and
financial modeling carried out by the Australian Farm Institute at that time produced
essentially similar results. In summary, the modeling highlighted an 8-13% reduction
in farm economic output arising solely from the indirect impacts of a carbon price,
even without a cost being placed on farm emissions.
Champion Briefs
291
February 2016

Warrant: Energy-related farm input costs, which can make up 40% of total input costs, are
expected to rise dramatically as a result of a carbon tax
Keogh, Mick. "Carbon Price Impacts on Agriculture Being Overlooked in the
Compensation Scramble." Carbon Price Impacts on Agriculture Being
Overlooked in the Compensation Scramble. The Australian Farm Institute, 11

Apr. 2011. Web. 08 Jan. 2016. <http://www.farminstitute.org.au/agforum/carbon_price_impacts_on_agriculture_being_overlooked_in_the_compens
ation_scramble>.
The end result is the farm sector will be fully-exposed to all the additional costs
arising from the impact of a carbon price on energy and energy-related inputs
(which in some cases make up more than 40% of inputs for a farm business), but
will not be able to generate any offsetting revenue by increasing prices, or be eligible
for any compensation. At the same time, the decision by Government to 'exempt' direct
agricultural emissions, and the promise of revenue from the proposed Carbon Farming
Initiative will neutralize any efforts by the sector to communicate these negative impacts
to the community.
Champion Briefs
292
February 2016

Warrant: Farmers in Australia strongly opposed the carbon tax; modern farm technology is
already helping farmers decrease their carbon footprint.
"Carbon Tax Repeal Welcomed; Farmers Already Leading the Way." National Farmers'
Federation Ltd. N.p., 13 Nov. 2013. Web. 08 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.nff.org.au/read/4303/carbon-tax-repeal-welcomed;-farmersalready.html>.
Agriculture may be excluded from directly paying the tax, but that doesnt mean
that its impact isnt felt by our farmers in fact, agriculture remains a heavily
affected sector due to the flow on costs allocated to electricity and transport, and by
the pass through costs from agricultural processors. Farmers operate in an extremely
competitive marketplace already, and they do so off their own bat, with Australian
farmers receiving one of the lowest amounts of Government subsidies of any OECD
country. Add in the impact of this tax, and our farmers are not only competing against
heavily subsidized farmers from around the world, but also farmers in overseas countries
without a carbon tax. Critically, agriculture recognizes the need for action on the
reduction of carbon emissions, and our sector has been leading the way. We have
already adopted many practices to help improve our carbon footprint: soil
sequestration through minimum till farming; vegetation of land and waterways; the
return of land to the environment for conservation; and methane management of
livestock and effluent ponds, among others. In fact, the former federal Department of
Climate Change has said that Australian primary industries have led the nation in
reducing greenhouse gas emissions - a massive 40 percent reduction between 1990 and
2006.We know that farmers and agriculture can play an important role in
reducing emissions, but we firmly believe that in order for our sector to reach its
potential, greater investment in research and development is needed to develop and
convert carbon science and methodologies into on-farm action. Thats why we
support programs like the Carbon Farming Initiative, and were disappointed when the
former Government cut funding from the Biodiversity Fund and Carbon Farming: both
important programs that help farmers store carbon and continue their work as frontline
environmentalists. Today, we support the Governments move to repeal the carbon
tax legislation, and call on the Government to strategically invest in the agricultural
sector to help it reduce its carbon emissions, Mr Fraser said.
Champion Briefs
293

Warrant: The agricultural sector contributes $789 billion to US GDP
February 2016
Mentzer Morrison, Rosanna, and Lewrene Glaser. "USDA ERS - Ag and Food Sectors
and the Economy." Ag and Food Statistics: Charting the Essentials. USDA ERS,
14 May 2015. Web. 08 Jan. 2016. <http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/agand-food-statistics-charting-the-essentials/ag-and-food-sectors-and-theeconomy.aspx>.
Agriculture and agriculture-related industries contributed $789 billion to the U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP) in 2013, a 4.7-percent share. The output of Americas farms
contributed $166.9 billion of this sumabout 1 percent of GDP. The overall contribution
of the agriculture sector to GDP is larger than this because sectors related to agriculture
forestry, fishing, and related activities; food, beverages, and tobacco products; textiles,
apparel, and leather products; food services and drinking placesrely on agricultural
inputs in order to contribute added value to the economy.
Analysis: This argument is a little unique. The first several cards talk about how a carbon tax
would increase energy-input costs for farmers, which is a very significant amount of their
budget. In other words, a carbon tax would strain farmers budgets. The second to last card
explains that farmers supported a carbon tax ban in Australia, so you can use this to say they
definitely dont support a carbon tax. The last card is meant to demonstrate the economic impact
the agriculture.
Champion Briefs
294

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax Hurts the Agricultural Sector

Answer: A carbon tax doesnt hurt the agricultural sector; in fact, it increases commodity prices
which helps farmers.
Warrant: Empirically, carbon taxes have had little to no effect on the competitiveness of the
agricultural sector
"The B.C. Carbon Tax." (n.d.): 2. Pembina Institute, Nov. 2014. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.pembina.org/reports/lessons-bc-carbon-tax-112014.pdf>.
A study examined the carbon taxs economic impact on B.C.s agriculture sector,
which had expressed concerns about impacts on competitiveness. Using agriculture
trade data, the study compared the economic performance of agriculture sectors
across provinces and found little evidence that the carbon tax was associated with
any statistically significant effects on agricultural trade or competitiveness from
20082011.10
Champion Briefs
295
February 2016

Warrant: The first study using data rather than forecasting, found no changes in patterns of
agricultural trade after the carbon tax was implemented.
Meyer, Robyn. "Agricultural Trade Appears Unaffected by BC Carbon Tax: New Study."
Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions (2014): n. pag. University of British
Columbia, 22 July 2014. Web. 8 Jan. 2016.
<http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/Carbon%20Tax%20Agriculture%2
0July%202014%20.pdf>.
British Columbias carbon tax does not appear to have had a measurable impact on
international agricultural trade, despite concerns it would greatly reduce the BC
industrys competitiveness, according to new analysis commissioned by the Pacific
Institute for Climate Solutions (PICS). The report The Effect of British Columbias
Carbon Tax on Agricultural Trade written by Nicholas Rivers from the University of
Ottawa and Brandon Schaufele from Western University, is the latest white paper from
PICS, a collaboration of BCs research-intensive universities, hosted and led by the
University of Victoria. Click here to read the paper, which the authors say is the first of
its kind to use real data, rather than simulation models, to assess the taxs impact on
the sector. The research used a statistical model to estimate a relationship between
trade in agricultural commodities and the BC carbon tax, using data from Statistics
Canada, Industry Canada and Environment Canada from 1990 to 2011. The model
compared agricultural trade by commodity in BC to that in other provinces to
estimate the effect of the tax, and controlled for other factors that could influence
trade, such as movements in international commodity prices and weather. Coauthor Schaufele says the data do not conclusively reveal changes in the overall
pattern of agricultural trade that can be linked to the arrival of the BC carbon tax
in 2008a result that may be surprising to some. These results are counter to claims
from industry representatives that the tax was devastating agricultural producers, which
no doubt contributed to agriculture carbon tax exemptions being implemented in BC.
Champion Briefs
296
February 2016

Warrant: A carbon tax would actually help farmers as a supply cutback would increase
commodity prices.
Schneider, Uwe E., and Bruce A. McCarl. "Implications of a Carbon-Based Energy Tax
for U.S. Agriculture." Implications of a Carbon-Based Energy Tax for U.S.
Agriculture (n.d.): 278. Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics
Association. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Oct. 2005. Web. 8
Jan. 2016. <http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/10242/1/34020265.pdf>.
Our model suggests only small losses to agricultural producers when carbon taxes
are modest, but show benefits to farmers when carbon taxes induce substantial
energy price increases, with consumers bearing the main burden of these taxes. Two
factors drive these conclusions. First, as agricultural production becomes more costly,
supply cutbacks cause agricultural commodity prices to rise. Thus, higher revenues
will offset a large portion of the farm cost increases. Second, when production of
biofuel feedstocks becomes a profitable business opportunity, additional revenues
are created in the farm sector. Moreover, the diversion of resources to bioenergy
feedstocks lowers traditional production, which further increases traditional crop
prices.
Analysis: The first two answers are empirical responses. The first card explains that a carbon tax
didnt impact the competitiveness of the agricultural sector in Australia. The second card is from
a study in British Colombia, which found no change in agricultural trade after the carbon tax was
implemented. The last card is a turn, offering you offense. It argues that a carbon tax would
actually help farmers as a supply cutback would increase commodity prices.
Champion Briefs
297

February 2016
CON Green Energy is not a good alternative

Argument: Carbon Taxes are meant to steer out economy away from fossil fuels, but this goal
simply is not reasonable given our current technological status and how our economy works
Warrant: Our economy dependent on fossil fuels
A carbon tax would impose a new tax on the vast majority of our nations economic
activity. Fossil fuels power our nation and produce 85 percent of the energy we
consume in the United States. Nuclear and hydro power produced an additional 11
percent of our energy. The remaining 4 percent comes from other renewables like
biofuels, wind, and solar. Carbon taxes may make hydro and nuclear power more
attractive, but few sites remain where it is possible to build large hydroelectric dams and
new nuclear power plants face major political obstacles.
Warrant: Renewable Sources are significantly more expensive than carbon based sources
"Green Energy: Why We're Still Not Using It | Investopedia." Investopedia. N.p., 18 Aug.
2010. Web. 03 Jan. 2016. <http://www.investopedia.com/financialedge/0810/green-energy-why-were-still-not-using-it.aspx>.
The total cost to research, build and operate new green energy plants combined
with storage and transmission expenses is significantly higher than traditional coal
burning plants. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average
cost of solar power is almost four times as much as traditional coal burning electric
generation. The costs are difficult to compare due to the widely disparate nature of
individual technologies but the net result is that startup costs are steep.
Champion Briefs
298

Warrant: The American economy relies on fossil fuels
February 2016
"Fossil Fuel." AccessScience (2015): n. pag. Morgan Group, Nov. 2015. Web. 6 Jan.
2016. <http://www.kindermorgan.com/content/docs/White_Fossil_Fuels.pdf>.
"Despite decades of research and development (R&D) spending, tax credits and
state mandates, renewables still lag far behind fossil fuels as a source of
electricity.20 Yet without substantial breakthroughs in battery technologies, solar and
wind resources are only available when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing. There
may be a time in the future when energy storage and renewable power systems are costcompetitive with natural gas, but today those systems are either expensive, unreliable or
both. The average U.S. residential utility customer uses about 30 kilowatt-hours of
electricity each day21 but the cutting-edge residential battery only puts out 2
kilowatts of continuous power, about enough to run a vacuum cleaner, but not
enough to dry your clothes.
Champion Briefs
299
February 2016

Warrant: The harms of US carbon industries on the environment are highly overstated
"A Carbon Tax Would Harm U.S. Competitiveness and Low-Income Americans Without
Helping the Environment." The Heritage Foundation. N.p., 21 Aug. 2012. Web.
03 Jan. 2016. <http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/a-carbon-taxwould-harm-us-competitiveness-and-low-income-americans-without-helping-theenvironment>.
The Administrator of the EPA testified on July 7, 2009: I believe the central parts
of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2
levels. The analysis showed that even if the U.S. adopted stringent carbon caps under
that legislation and the international community did not, global CO2 concentrations
would decrease 25 parts per million (with concentrations equaling 694 ppm in 2095).
International action, by contrast, would decrease concentrations by 202 ppm. Just as in a
unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade system, a unilateral U.S. carbon tax would likely
further increase foreign emissions because of a phenomenon called carbon
leakage. As energy-intensive industry relocates from the United States to other
nations such as Mexico, Vietnam, or China (already the worlds largest emitter of
greenhouse gases), GHG emissions and toxic pollutants could increase more than
they would if those industries remained in the United States.
Analysis: This argument focuses on the big picture of the American energy sector with and
without carbon taxes. Paint the picture that carbon taxes have a negligible impact on the
environment, and likely will not be significant enough to shift us to green energy, all while
hurting a valuable sector of the economy.
Champion Briefs
300

February 2016
A2 Green Energy is not a good alternative

Answer: Carbon Taxes will trigger a meaningful shift to green energy

Warrant: Carbon taxes offer a significant incentive for a behavioral shift
<http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/19/business/economy/a-carbon-tax-couldbolster-wobbly-progress-in-renewable-energy.html?_r=0>.
If a carbon tax were to be imposed next year, starting at $25 and rising by 5
percent a year, the Energy Information Administration estimates, carbon dioxide
emissions from American power plants would fall to only 419 million tons by 2040,
about one-fifth of where they are today. Total carbon dioxide emissions from energy in
the United States would fall to 3.6 billion tons 1.8 billion tons less than today. By
providing a monetary incentive, economists say, such a tax would offer by far the
most effective way to encourage business and individuals to reduce their use of fossil
fuels and invest in alternatives.
Champion Briefs
301
February 2016

Warrant: Renewables are becoming competitive, and government subsidies exist to augment
the market price of alternative sources
"How Renewable Energy Can Become Competitive." The Economist. The Economist
Newspaper, 03 June 2015. Web. 04 Jan. 2016.
Solar technology has already made significant progress in a short amount of time.
Renewable power is gaining market share against other sources, especially in sunny
and spacious places, and where other fuels are scarce or dirty. For solar, as one might
expect, sun-drenched locations are the most competitive ones; California and Hawaii are
trailblazers). Open, spare tracts of land (or sea) are better for the economics of wind
power. Tax breaks help too: such as the 30% investment credit that Americans get
for installing renewable capacity, for example the booming business of rooftop solar
panels
Warrant: When green energy subsidies are factored against the hidden cost of dirty energy,
green energy become very competitive
Yet opponents of renewables say the level of subsidies involved shows that wind
and solar investments are just boondoggles, salving the conscience of the greenminded and cossetting politically connected companies. That is true up to a point
governments have probably spent too much money on first-generation technology which
is inefficient and expensive compared with what is now becoming available. But all
energy is subsidised one way or another; users of fossil fuels dont pay for the
damage they do to the planet. Subsidies to renewable energy are around $100 billion
a year. A recent IMF working paper estimated the subsidies to fossil fuels (including
the uncompensated costs of air pollution, congestion and global warming) at $5.3
trillion.
Champion Briefs
302

Warrant: The trend is towards acceptance and usage of green energy
February 2016
Perhaps more important, subsidies for renewables are dropping (at least on a per
watt basis); Americas tax credit is being cut, and Britain is ending subsidies for
onshore wind. Meanwhile renewables efficiency is rising fast. Unsurprisingly,
renewable use is growing dramatically. According to the International Energy Agency
(an energy agency created by the OECD, a club of mostly rich countries) renewables
accounted for almost 22% of global electricity generation in 2013, a 5% increase from
2012. China and India are investing heavily in renewables (China, notably, in wind).
Wind used to be the cheapest, but solar is now overtaking it in most markets. That trend
will continue.
Analysis: It is hard to argue that green energy is cheaper than dirty energy, which is why dirty
energy is used so much. However, by analyzing the big picture of government subsidies, overall
market trends, and the effect of a carbon tax on the incentive firms have to use wind and solar
power. You can paint a very strong big picture analysis that green energy going forward can and
will be a viable and necessary alternative to dirty energy.
Champion Briefs
303

February 2016
CON A Carbon Tax Would Hurt Local Economies

Argument: Local economies are not built to withstand a carbon tax.
Warrant: A carbon tax would hurt the already struggling mining industry
Seccombe, Allan. "Chamber of Mines Says Carbon Tax Will Damage Industry."
Business Day Live. N.p., 20 May 2015. Web. 08 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.bdlive.co.za/business/mining/2015/05/20/chamber-of-mines-sayscarbon-tax-will-damage-industry>.
The Chamber of Mines urged the government to not implement a carbon tax next
year, saying it would damage an already financially strained mining industry. In a
speech at the chambers 125 annual general meeting, its president Mike Teke said that
at current prices, 31% of SAs gold mines and nearly 40% of its platinum mines
were making losses. "The mining sector is also faced with other key challenges that
contribute to the binding constraints for growth," Mr Teke said. "One such key
challenge is the absurdity of going ahead with introducing a carbon tax and carbon
budget when SAs existing carbon trajectory is even lower than the governments peak
plateau and decline commitment made in Copenhagen in 2009, and when electricity
prices have increased at a rate that already discourages demand," he said.
Champion Briefs
304
February 2016

Warrant: The carbon tax in Australia cost the mining industry an extra $1.2 billion a year.
Hooke, Mitch. "Australia's Carbon Tax: A Billion Dollar Deadweight On Mining."
Minerals Council Of Australia, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 08 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.minerals.org.au/file_upload/files/media_releases/Carbon_Tax_19_S
ept_2013.pdf>.
The cost of the carbon tax on Australia's minerals industry now exceeds more than
$1.2 billion a year when the price of emissions permits, the impact on diesel fuel and
higher energy charges are included. The net cost of emission permits, the six cents
per litre shadow-carbon price on diesel and the 10 per cent increase in energy prices
as a result of the tax are a massive impost on the minerals sector for no material
environmental dividend. They are simply deadweight costs that none of Australia's
minerals export competitors face. These costs undermine value and reduce Australia's
international competitiveness at a time when all business costs are increasing, commodity
prices are tempering and the dollar remains stubbornly high.
Warrant: The mining industry has been impacted heavily in the past year.
Holodny, Elena. "There's Only One Part of the US Economy Losing Jobs." Business
Insider. Business Insider, Inc, 04 Dec. 2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.businessinsider.com/dark-times-in-the-us-mining-industry-201512>.
However, one struggling American industry continues to bleed jobs: mining.
"Mining and logging lost 11,000 jobs in November. Since reaching an employment
peak in December 2014, the industry has lost 124,000 jobs," according to the BLS report.
Additionally, "over the month, support activities for mining and coal mining lost
7,000 and 1,000 jobs, respectively." Notably, "mining" includes the oil industry
and more specifically, the oil drillers. Over the last year, many have pointed out that
the lower oil prices have made drilling that much more difficult. So, it's not wholly
unsurprising that jobs in that industry were hit hard over the last year.
Champion Briefs
305

Warrant: Mining is a critical part of local economies
February 2016
Sandersfeld, Dave. "Oregon's Gold Future Pause?" Examiner.com. N.p., 8 May 2015.
Web. 09 Jan. 2016. <http://www.examiner.com/article/oregon-s-gold-futurepause>.
A serious lack of mining in 2015 is crippling rural economies. Chuck Chase,
executive director of the 350-member Eastern Oregon Mining Association in Baker
City, said underground mining -- which made up about half of the mining in
northeastern Oregon in the 1960s -- has largely dried up there because "guys are
scared to death of the fines" for federal safety infractions. That's a loss to Baker County,
Chase said, as the county becomes recognized for rich reserves of platinum-group
minerals such as rhodium, iridium and rare earth elements used in communications,
electronic devices and defense technology.
Warrant: The US is already spending money to supplement lost income in local areas
dependent on the coal industry.
Volcovici, Valerie. "U.S. Offers over $35 Million for Hard-hit Coal Communities."
Reuters. N.p., 12 May 2015. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-appalachiaidUSKBN0NX09M20150512>.
The United States has released $35.5 million to help communities hit hard by the
decline in coal mining to diversify their economies and retrain displaced miners,
U.S. Labor Secretary Thomas Perez said on Monday. Perez announced the move at
the Shaping our Appalachian Region (SOAR) summit in eastern Kentucky, a region
hard hit by the downturn in the U.S. coal industry. He said funds would be available
to "communities that have laid the groundwork" by launching initiatives to jumpstart new
industries and opportunities to branch out from coal mining. "I have an unrelenting sense
of optimism about what the future can be," he said. The announcement is part of a federal
effort to help the Appalachian region adapt its economy to a sharp drop in coal
production, growing unemployment and a loss of population.
Champion Briefs
306
February 2016

Warrant: In some areas of Colorado, the coal industry contributes $428 million to local
economies
Bastasch, Michael. "Coal Miners Fight To Save Their Jobs At EPA Carbon Rule Field
Hearings." N.p., 31 July 2014. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://dailycaller.com/2014/07/31/coal-miners-fight-to-save-their-jobs-at-epacarbon-rule-field-hearings/>.
The environmental extremists war on coal is really a war on prosperity, Moffat
County Commissioner John Kinkaid told EPA officials in Denver. Kinkaid represents a
coal-heavy area of Western Colorado, where mines contribute $428 million a tear to
the local economy. This isnt some abstract bureaucratic exercise to the people of
Northwest Colorado. To us, this is personal, Kinkaid said. More than 2,000 pro-coal
union members rallied ahead of the EPAs field hearing in Pittsburgh on Wednesday.
Union members and miners were joined by Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett, a
Republican, and West Virginias Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin.
Analysis: This argument is fairly unique. The first few cards talk about how the coal industry
will be hurt if a carbon tax is adopted. While most of the cards are talking about the mining in
industry in Australia, you can extrapolate the link to the US. If you think about it logically, a
carbon tax would increase the cost of production for mining companies. Empirically, weve seen
that this hurts the mining industry (look to Australia.) Then you argue this is particularly bad for
the US because the mining industry supports small, rural economies, which have already been
impacted by stricter regulations from the US government.
Champion Briefs
307

February 2016
A2 A Carbon Tax Would Hurt Local Economies

Answer: A carbon tax wont kill the coal industry/local economies. It will incentivize the
innovation and research into clean coal, which would help the US economy.
Warrant: In Australia, the carbon tax didnt push out investors in the coal industry or lead to the
overall destruction of the coal industry; the country actually saw an increase in coal investors
after the tax was passed since they saw the potential profitability of clean coal,
Gelineau, Kristen. "Australia's Carbon Tax Won't Kill Coal Industry, Says Julia Gillard."
The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 July 2011. Web. 09 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/12/australia-carbon-tax-coalindustry_n_895417.html>.
SYDNEY -- Australia's prime minister on Tuesday touted a $5 billion bid for one of
the nation's coal miners as proof an unpopular new tax on the country's worst
polluters won't cause the collapse of Australia's lucrative coal industry. Prime
Minister Julia Gillard said U.S. coal company Peabody Energy Corp. and
steelmaker ArcelorMittal's joint bid for Queensland state's Macarthur Coal Ltd.
shows companies are not scared off by the tax. It will force the country's 500 worst
polluters to pay 23 Australian dollars ($25) for every metric ton of carbon they emit.
"We are seeing the biggest takeover bid in Australian history for a coal company,"
she told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio. "You couldn't get a better indication
that business people see a good future in coal mining in this country."
Champion Briefs
308
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon capture technology is too expensive for plants to implement; without a carbon
tax theres no incentive to research the technology and find a way to reduce its cost.
For years, Americans have seen commercials touting clean coal, while politicians on
both sides of the aisle have extolled its promise. The technology to capture carbon
emissions from coal-fired power plants has been tried and tested. Yet today almost
none of the nations coal-fueled plants are clean. Why the delay? The biggest
problem for clean coal is that the economics dont work. Carbon capture and
storage, or CCS, is extremely expensive. That gives the power industry little
incentive to implement it in the absence of a substantial carbon tax.
Warrant: Currently, US companies do not research or use carbon capture and storage (CCS)
technology because theres isnt an incentive to do so. A carbon tax would provide this incentive.
Exchange Monitor Publications & Public Forums 9.8 (n.d.): 6. Exchange Monitor. GHG
Reduction Technologies Monitor, 28 Feb. 2014. Web. 4 Jan. 2016.
<http://www.exchangemonitor.com/PDFs/GHG-vol-9-no-8.pdf>.
In a separate panel at the ARPA-E Summit, NRG Energy President and CEO David
Crane said the U.S. power industry doesnt expect a price on carbon in the near-term. As
a human being and a father of five, I do believe that climate change is the single greatest
issue that mankind faces, he said. But lets not delude ourselves. The power industry
in America today is not solving for carbon because no one has told them to solve for
carbon and no one has put [out] a carbon price incentive, whether it be cap-andtrade or a carbon tax. No one has put that on the table, and no one I know believes
its coming anytime soon. He added that although NRG Energy started pricing carbon
into its forward models in 2008 when President Obama came into office, it since took it
out in the last few years, which he said is really sad.
Champion Briefs
309
February 2016

Warrant: Carbon taxes incentivize and fuel innovation in green technology.
Lastly, carbon taxes may benefit the global effort in preventing climate change without
requiring participation from all countries. Carbon taxes that fuel innovation in the
leading industrialized countries like the United States, Denmark, Germany, Japan, and
Canada can spur clean technologies to the point of economic scale when distribution
to less industrialized countries becomes cost effective. Just as Chinese automakers are
aiming to skip the current technology of gas-powered vehicles by jumping to newer
electric technologies,177 many countries that lag technologically can make a virtue of a
liability. Emerging market powers like India, Brazil, and China may have the option of
implementing new solar and wind technologies without ever investing in conventional
grid infrastructure. Furthermore, given the size of these markets, even modest
adoption rates of solar, wind, and other renewables could result in significant global
reductions in clean tech costs.178 China, for example, despite its poor environmental
track record and reputation for polluting, just overtook the United States as the worlds
third largest producer of solar panels, after Germany and Japan.
Champion Briefs
310
February 2016

Warrant: The US is currently not the leader in green technology; in order to become the leader,
the US must foster the green tech industry.
Pernick, Ron, and Clint Wilder. Clean Tech Nation: How the U.S. Can Lead in the New
Global Economy. New York: HarperBusiness, 2012. Journal of High Technology

Law. Suffolk University Law School, 2012. Web. 5 Jan. 2016.
<http://host.joemoakley.com/documents/jhtl_book_reviews/Hollister12.pdf>.
Clean Tech Nation: How the U.S. Can Lead in the New Global Economy analyzes patent
filing data to determine what cities and countries are poised to succeed as the clean
technology sector expands. Authors Ron Pernick and Clint Wilder make it clear from the
outset that the United States is not in the lead when it comes to clean technology. In
order to win the race to global supremacy in clean technology, Pernick and Wilder
write, the U.S. must make a concerted effort to foster and grow the clean technology
industry. Some of the most important tools available to the United States when it comes
to clean technology are the robust patent-protection laws and unparalleled venture
capital networks. After analyzing the geographic dispersion of clean technology patents
and the current hodgepodge of policies in place Pernick and Wilder set out a sevenpoint action plan to solidify the American clean technology industry.
Analysis: For the answer sector, theres a few different ways you can go. The first card talks
about how a carbon tax wont destroy the coal industry and gives an empirical example of when
Australia implemented a carbon tax, their coal-based industrial power plants actually traded
hands to a different company. In other words, the potential for green technology or clean coal
was seen as very profitable investment. The rest of the cards talk about how a carbon tax
encourages and incentivizes research into green/clean tech. The last card talks about how
innovation in green technology is critical for the US to become a leader again in technology. You
can admit that a carbon tax might hurt the coal industry and local economies, but in the long term
its much more fiscally beneficial for the US to enact the tax and encourage R&D into green
tech/clean coal.
Champion Briefs
311

Carbon Tax Brief

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carbon Tax Brief

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Champion Briefs

Resolved: The United

Copyright 2016 by Champion Briefs, LLC

Interpretation, Original Oratory, Extemp,

The Evidence Standard

Topic Analyses ............................................................................................. 8

General Information ............................................................................... 34

Pro Arguments with Con Responses ................................................. 51

Lowered Dependency on Foreign Fuels .............................................................................. 117

Carbon Taxes are not Popular ................................................................................................ 227

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

implementation difficulties whatsoever to be passed. By the same token, it would be

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Maria LaBella

About Maria LaBella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Breaking Down the Resolution

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Beln Mella

About Beln Mella

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Topic Analysis by Jakob Urda

Effects of Global Climate Change

billion. Comparatively, the nonprofit Sierra Club Foundationwhich funds organizations in

Pro Arguments with

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

PRO US has a Moral Obligation to Combat Climate Change

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

A2 US has a Moral Obligation to Combat Climate Change

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

PRO A Carbon Tax Would Increase Economic Revenue

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Kopp, Molly K. Macauley, Richard D. Morgenstern, Karen L. Palmer, Anthony

Pro Arguments with Con Responses

Pro Arguments with Con Responses