This paper was written in my fourth year of high school (2019)
Should there be higher taxes on fossil fuels?
Fossil fuels[1] are fuels that are used every day. People who can afford a car or make use of other transportation will be more aware of the fossil fuel problem. However, for many customs’ fossil fuels aren’t that expensive yet. For others, might the price already be their maximum budget. The more customs keep on using fossil fuels, the more the climate will change and that will affect the earth. To halt this problem, a solution can be a higher fossil fuel tax. This will lead to, prices of other alternatives becoming around the same value. More consumers might be purchasing the other substitutions, such as electric cars[2]. On the other hand, leaving the price the same might be more beneficial for people who have a small budget.[3] However, this will lead to more CO2 emission which will be affecting the earth. What is more important, thinking about the earth or about our budget?
In the article from Bernie Sander ‘Why we need a carbon tax’ in HuffPost, reasons are given for higher taxation on fossil fuels. According to Sanders, it’s necessary to have a tax on fossil fuels, since global warming is one of the most discussed topics of the past years. Therefore it’s becoming a more relevant issue. In his article, Sanders states, that a carbon tax will higher the value of fossil fuels, and that might lead to renewable energy and fossil fuels being on the same playing field, based on prices. The cost of renewable energy might drop significantly which might lead to more consumers buying it instead of fossil fuels. Bernie Sander is supporting this method and wants this to become real in the near future. He’s a politician, he has been a candidate to become president several times, but he has been mayor for a longer time. He has also been a merchant, which makes the article more reliable since that’s all about money and making fossil fuel taxes higher. He’s an author and has written several books. To conclude, this article consists of several other sides besides Sander’s point of view. Which might make his article more reliable, since he didn’t only focus on his opinion. The article is about taxes. He has been a merchant which is typically about money and his books contain information that’s included in the article as well. Overall, Sanders has reliable perspectives.
The article mostly includes positive information on taxes, there aren’t any negative thoughts behind higher taxation. Therefore, the balance is unstable which isn’t very reliable. However, he does use many examples, Congress, Budget Office, and he names colleagues. Sanders included many statistics. The reader might find the article more reliable since numbers are given. He didn’t mention many sources; however, he did include many examples, he balanced the two of them. His language is easy to understand, which makes it easier to read the article. Overall, it a fantastic article, although he didn’t have any balance, he did include many examples and statistic. Those are also topics that make the article more reliable, however, if the negative side of taxation was given it could have been even more reliable.
Another article by Richard Matthews, ‘Why a carbon tax is necessary’ in Clean Technica, further arguments are given, that support fossil fuel tax getting higher. According to Richard, putting a price on fossil fuels is the most effective way to tackle global warming.[4] A higher value on fossil fuels will allow market forces to drive down demand for carbon-rich industries like fossil fuels.[5] One of the reasons to be hopeful comes from CDP, which indicate that at least 29 American corporations are preparing for a carbon tax.[6] Matthews truly believes a carbon tax might be there in the upcoming future and states that there won’t be many negative sides behind a carbon tax.[7] Richard is a business development manager, which seems reliable since his text is about taxes and money. As a business manager, money is one of the most discussed topics. Matthews could be an expert, however being a business manager might not make him an expert on fossil fuel topics. Furthermore, his article was published in Clean Technica, this is not a common magazine. Which might lead to the information being biased, since the magazine isn’t as known as the Guardian for example. Overall, Richard is not that reliable, since the article was published in an uncommon magazine and he might not fully be seen as an expert.
In Matthews’s article, many positive features of higher taxes are given. However, he did include some negative sides behind it as well. The most frequent argument against carbon taxes is the cost. The introduction of a carbon tax could cause fossil fuel companies to lose trillions of profits. That’s because a carbon tax drives up costs and decreases demand.[8] His balance is excellent, this makes the article reliable. He didn’t only include the pros of a carbon tax, but he also included negative sides. Something else that’s reliable is the fact that he included several sources, from World Bank, CDP, London School to PIFCIR and the many statistics he used. Because he included many sources, his research becomes more reliable, the reader reads all his evidence and that’s what an article should have to be realistic.[9] Furthermore, Matthews language is easy to understand which makes it very comfortable to read the article. Overall, his article was actually very good. He had an outstanding balance, included both pros and cons on higher taxes, includingmanysources, which makes his research more reliable. Altogether, his content was very reliable, if the article was published in a more common magazine it would have been more reliable.
The third article ‘We must end all subsidies for fossil fuels’ in Sustainability Times, by Daniel T Cross, he believes that it actually isn’t a bad idea to remove/minor subsidies. Because by subsidizing fossil fuels, taxpayers end up paying a lot more for their fuels.[10] On the other hand, when fossil fuels subsidies remain, global warming will drop by 20% and there will be a reduction in air pollution.[11] Considering that not everyone can pay for fuels if the taxes get higher.[12] Some already have a maximum budget with or without subsidies, therefore the best solution might be getting rid/minor fossil fuel subsidies. Dropping subsidies might not only be good for the people who can’t afford more expensive taxes because if their budget, but the households can spend their money on other products.[13] Daniel totally supports this and wants to get rid/minor taxes. Cross is an author, he frequently writes articles. Furthermore, he has written several books. His books are definitely not about the same topic as his articles. His books are about fiction, but this article is about fossil fuels a relevant topic and not about fiction at all. This makes his external perspective biased since he doesn’t frequently write about the same topic. Which might mean he isn’t an expert based on fossil fuel tax. Furthermore, the was article published in Sustainability Times, which isn’t a very popular magazine. This might mean his content is biased. To conclude, his external traits might not be very reliable. In Daniel’s article, he begins by giving arguments for higher taxes on fossil fuels. Although his opinion is about making taxes lower, he included arguments from other perspectives. This makes his article balanced and reliable. Daniel included many sources; UN environmental, Kim, countries, UN and GFS. Almost all the sources he included, he combined it with some statistics to make his research more reliable for the reader. His language was easy to understand; however, his structure was a bit of a mess. In one paragraph Daniel talks about higher taxation, in another, he mentions his own perspective and then back to the previous perspective. His structure is a bit all over the place. If he had put the different perspectives in order, the article might have been more laid-back to read. His content is decent, due to the structure the article is a bit unclear. To sum up, even though Daniel hasn’t a very good internal perspective, his external features are excellent. His content is outstanding; however, the structure makes it unclear, but it doesn’t make the article biased. The article remains reliable, but if there was a better structure it might have been more comforting for the reader.
In the final article ‘Fossil fuel taxes need to go, what about poorer people?’, by Benjamin Sovacool, he believes removing/minor taxes is not a difficult task as it seems to be.[14] Subsidies are not only expensive for poorer households, but also for the government.[15] Subsidies often introduce economic, social distortions and environmental consequences. Since the taxes might be expensive for the government, they may not even achieve their objectives, while introducing harmful outcomes.[16] However, sometimes a tax is the best option, for underdeveloped institutions. [17] Money might be spent on infrastructure and health care instead of food. Benjamin believes that food might be more important than infrastructure, therefore he wants to minor taxes to help poorer households. Dr. Benjamin Sovacool is Professor of Energy Policy at the school of business, management, and economists. He specifically focusses on renewable energy and energy efficiency. Furthermore, is Sovacool leader of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes. Benjamin has a brilliant external perspective. He works on topics that are about climate change and fossil fuels. Since this article is about the same themes as his previous work, his article might be reliable. Sovacool might be an expert based on the environmental sides, but he might not be an expert on economic perspectives. Reducing taxes has an economical side as well. Even though he isn’t an expert on both perspectives, he might be an expert on environmental. Since he balanced the two perspectives his work might be reliable, but if he was an expert on both sides it would have been even more reliable. Furthermore, was the article published in the conversation, which isn’t a common magazine, this might mean his content is biased. Sovacool has reliable content, due to the magazine it makes it less reliable. His article consists of both the pros and cons of higher taxes. Which means the text is balanced and might be reliable. He describes what the taxes mean for poorer households and for the government, but he also says that higher taxes might reduce CO2 emissions. Even though his perspective is about the lower subsidies, he gives for both perspectives’ arguments. That makes an article reliable.[18] Sovacool has included many sources; OECD, IMF, LIHEAP, and institutions. All his sources he included statistics or claims, which makes his research reliable. His language is easy to understand, and his structure is very upright. To conclude, his internal perspective is very decent. He included both pros and cons on the statement, used many sources, included statistics and claims from studies. Even his external perspective was excellent, he is an expert on at least one of the perspectives which makes him a reliable author. Overall, this article only had excellent content and a brilliant author with excellent perspectives.
To conclude (all articles), both for and against sides on higher taxes had their pros and cons. The articles for the idea had great external content, but the articles against had better internal content. The final article had both great external as internal information, which makes that article the most reliable of all. The question was if there should be higher taxes on fossil fuels. At first, I thought no because poorer households can’t pay for higher taxes, but after a lot of research, my opinion changed. When prices become the same value, people start purchasing renewable energy. When everyone uses renewable energy, it might not be seen as the ‘expensive’ product anymore. I want to know; how different prices of taxes can influence the world/customer. To conclude, I reason that the swap to another product is hard, but once you are there you might not want to change back.
Bibliography
Articles I used:
(negative) Benjamin Sovacool, 8 March 2018, Fossil fuel subsidies need to go, The Conversation
(negative) Daniel T Cross, 11 December 2018, Un we must end all subsidies for fossil fuels, Sustainability Times
(positive) Bernie Sanders, 7 September 2014, why we need a carbon tax, Huffington post
(positive)
Richard Matthews, 21 December 2013, Why A carbon tax is necessary, clean techinica, Clean Technica
Extra articles I used:
(negative)
Kevin Watkins, 11 November 2014, why we need to abolish fossil fuel subsidies, We forum
(positive)
Duncan Clark, 17 April 2013, why we can’t quit fossil fuels, The guardian
The information I used from the articles:
- Studies
- Universities
- Experts, colleagues from the author
- Instituut
- Other newspapers
All the references to my articles:
- Fossil fuels are fuels that gets pulled out of the ground/ soil and it is used for transportation
- This statement was claimed by Bernie Sander in the Huff post.
- this was stated by Bernie Sander in Huff Post
- This was stated by World bank and several economists from the London school of economist. Richard agrees with this statement.
- Carbon Disclosure Project has found out that 29 companies are willing to get a carbon tax
- In his article you can find many reasons for the tax, but also some negativities are given
- According to Potsdam Institute for climate Impact Research
- Claimed by Conversation (Magazine) Shutterstock
- Claimed by Daniel T Cross
- Researched in 2015 by the International Monetary Fund and claimed by Joy Kim
- Claimed by David Powell in economics foundation
- Claimed by Daniel T Cross in the ST
- Claimed by Shutterstock in The Conversation
- Mentioned by a senior OECD official
- Mentioned by a senior OECD official
- Claimed by Low income Home Energy Assistance Program
- Claimed by David Powell in economics foundation
[1] Fossil fuels are fuels that gets pulled out of the ground/ soil and it is used for transportation
[2] This statement was claimed by Bernie Sander in the Huff post.
[3] this was stated by Bernie Sander in Huff Post
[4] This was stated by World bank and several economists from the London school of economist. Richard agrees with this statement.
[5] Claimed by World bank
[6] Carbon Disclosure Project has found out that 29 companies are willing to get a carbon tax
[7] In his article you can find many reasons for the tax, but also some negativities are given
[8] According to Potsdam Institute for climate Impact Research
[9] Claimed by Conversation (Magazine) Shutterstock
[10] Claimed by Daniel T Cross
[11] Researched in 2015 by the International Monetary Fund and claimed by Joy Kim
[12] Claimed by David Powell in economics foundation
[13] Claimed by Daniel T Cross in the ST
[14] Claimed by Shutterstock in The Conversation
[15] Mentioned by a senior OECD official
[16] Mentioned by a senior OECD official
[17] Claimed by Low income Home Energy Assistance Program
[18] Claimed by David Powell in economics foundation
Liza Saaed' Blog 