Sebastian Southworth
// Implemented, the proposal will create consequences worse than those of climate change //
If the U.S. imposes a carbon tax, the economy and environmental safety will suffer negative consequences. An idea made popular by environmentalists and economists, such a tax seeks to combat climate change by holding major carbon-emitting companies accountable. The tax has grown in popularity and has been implemented in over 27 countries. Sadly, the tax would only harm the poorest Americans by increasing prices on energy-intensive goods. It would indirectly increase the amount of nuclear waste America produces, which would be stored improperly if standards for nuclear waste storage are not changed soon. The most concerning fact is that a carbon tax, despite bearing such risks, would in no way diminish the effects of climate change.
A carbon tax would disproportionately harm the lower class by increasing their cost of living. A study by the Brookings Institution and the American Enterprise Institution found that a carbon tax burden would account for 3.5% of the lowest decile’s income but only 0.6% of the highest decile. This means that the poorest 10% have to pay approximately 7 times more than the richest 10%. This is not an expense most families can afford, as seventy-eight percent of Americans live paycheck-to-paycheck and already have no money for other costs.
Additionally, a carbon tax would cause an excess of nuclear waste. By taxing carbon emissions, companies would instead switch to the next cheapest energy source: nuclear energy. For instance, in 2014, Japan had zero active nuclear reactors, but six years after the country introduced its carbon tax, it had commissioned eight nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy has many downsides, the most severe of which is nuclear waste. If America fails to safely store excess nuclear waste, it could potentially leak into our water supplies and harm many communities. Currently, nuclear waste storage facilities in America are few and ineffective at containing nuclear waste. America has only one permanent storage facility for nuclear waste, and the facility has already experienced numerous incidents concerning its safety. In 2014, a nuclear waste drum in the facility was found to be stored incorrectly, and the facility had to be shut down for three years to clean up the escaped radioactive material. Nuclear waste would harm the environment and humanity itself, making one consider whether the damage it causes to the environment is worth the impact it has on climate change.
Even if such a tax could eliminate half of America’s emissions, climate change would still present a global threat. America accounts for 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. If America were to follow a similar course to Japan’s carbon tax, it would only decrease America’s global emission from 14.24 tonnes of CO2 to 13.29 tonnes; making the change in emissions significantly lower than half. To reverse the effects of climate change, a global effort is required. Therefore, any solution to the problem will have to be done in conjunction with a plan that reduces foreign emissions or prevents them altogether. Otherwise, America can only risk economic harm without any prospects of a positive outcome.
Lastly, the means of taxation harms the economy and environment because of the U.S.’ mismanaged budget. A government must ensure the carbon tax would not impact businesses too severely and use the tax income to fund green energy that would aid businesses in the transition. However, this seems unlikely: instead of meeting demands in education, infrastructure, or healthcare, over 700 billion US tax dollars go to the defense budget, and tax dollars also subsidize large CO2 emitting companies. Carbon taxes must be used effectively to help ease the financial burden on impoverished Americans or help businesses transition to green energy. Americans shouldn’t rely on their carbon tax income being invested in beneficial ways, which is necessary for the carbon tax to not have negative repercussions.
The carbon tax is not an effective solution to climate change. It will target low-income families and increase nuclear waste. Other nations would still produce enough CO2 to make climate change still a pressing problem no matter how effective the tax is at reducing American CO2. Moreover, America cannot guarantee that revenue from the tax will be spent productively . Therefore, politicians should not implement a carbon tax.
The homelessness outbreak in California 
Chernobyl Exclusion Zone
