Good afternoon honorful judges and proposing team members…

My name is Amarjargal and I am the first speaker from the opposing team.
The topic of our today’s debate is ‘This house … would tax every organization on
their carbon emission to combat climate change’
And We the opposing team strongly believe that this statement is inaccurate.
First of all, I would like to refute the first speaker of the proposition team she/he
mentioned some informations such as ( childrens sake , animal habitat, this
statement encourages to solve solution such as solar energy)and we agreed this
point is incorrect because running a business and carrying a organization is not a
short term activity so paying a tax to the government for a long time is even worser
and more expensive than handling their own carbon emission.
Before we come to our argumentation let us first define some important terms in this
topic.
What is taxation, it is imposition of compulsory levies on individuals or entities by
governments. Taxes are levied in almost every country of the world, primarily to raise
revenue for government expenditures, although they serve other purposes as well.
Next one Carbon dioxide which is Earth’s most important greenhouse gas: a gas
that absorbs and radiates heat. Without carbon dioxide, Earth’s natural greenhouse
effect would be too weak to keep the average global surface temperature above
freezing.
Most importantly we must have to mention a key word that is given in the topic which
is ‘this house’ actually it can be any organization such as companies however our
team discussed that this word stands for government the reason is taxing other
organization requires a lot activity and authority so we agreed that it is better to
choose a law enforcement agency.
So, what we want to confirm is that taxing carbon emission to conflict the climate
change is not a best option for sure. This will bring up more issues that is hard to
deal with especially for finance.
According to a new study by the Fraser Institute ‘Global carbon taxes are ineffective
because their main purpose is to raise government revenues, not lower industrial
greenhouse gas emissions linked to human-induced climate change’.
Once again, the New York Times has published an article named ‘why a carbon tax
is still a bad idea’ written By Kenneth P. Green.
Early studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated that a
carbon tax of up to $80 per metric ton of emissions – a tax that might raise gasoline
prices by 70 cents a gallon – would eventually result in climate stability. But because
recent estimates about global warming have become more pessimistic, stabilization
may require a much higher tax. How hard would it be to live with a tax of say $300 a
ton?
For instance some countries with unstable economic conditions such as Burundi and
South sudan.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that a carbon tax will be useful.
When demand is not elastic in a market for carbon-based fuels, then the tax rate for
the carbon emissions must be extremely high. It is the cost of the product which
reduces demands. If consumers feel that the benefits of purchasing carbon outweigh
the negatives of doing so, then the government will make more while greenhouse
emissions also rise. British Columbia is already off-the-pace in meeting its reduction
goals for this very reason – and the province currently has the strictest carbon tax in
the world.
Our second speaker will give you more specific details that caused by this statement.