GED Essay Example: Carbon Tax
As concerns about climate change grow, the idea of implementing a carbon tax often appears in GED writing prompts. This GED essay carbon tax example guides you through examining various perspectives, using evidence to support your stance, and crafting a well-organized, high-scoring response for the RLA test.
Read the prompt and task instruction below. Your task is to write a well-organized extended response of at least 300 words in 45 minutes, as shown in the Model Response that follows.
GED Essay Samples by Topics
Task Instruction
Analyze the arguments presented in the two speeches. In your response, develop an argument in which you explain how one position is better supported than the other. Incorporate relevant and specific evidence from both sources to support your argument. Remember, the better-argued position is not necessarily the position with which you agree. This task should take approximately 45 minutes to complete.
Why a Carbon Tax Could Help Save the Planet
By Dr. Robert Chen, Environmental Economics Professor
Carbon taxation represents one of the most effective policy tools available to combat climate change while promoting economic innovation. By placing a price on carbon emissions, governments can harness market forces to reduce pollution and encourage businesses to develop cleaner technologies. This approach has proven successful in multiple countries, including Sweden and British Columbia, where carbon taxes have reduced emissions without harming economic growth.
The fundamental principle behind carbon pricing is simple: when polluting costs money, companies naturally seek alternatives. Rather than relying on complex regulations that dictate specific technologies or methods, carbon taxes allow businesses the flexibility to choose how they reduce emissions. Some companies might invest in renewable energy, while others might improve efficiency or develop new clean technologies. This market-driven approach typically produces faster and more cost-effective results than government mandates.
Research from the International Monetary Fund demonstrates that carbon taxes generate substantial revenue that governments can use for various purposes. These funds can be returned to citizens through tax rebates, invested in clean energy infrastructure, or used to reduce other taxes. Many economists argue that carbon taxes can be “revenue neutral,” meaning they don’t increase the overall tax burden on families and businesses.
Carbon taxation also addresses the problem of “externalities” – costs that polluters impose on society without paying for them. When factories emit carbon dioxide, they contribute to climate change that affects everyone through extreme weather, rising sea levels, and agricultural disruption. Carbon taxes force polluters to pay for these social costs, creating a fairer system where those who cause environmental damage bear responsibility for the consequences.
Furthermore, carbon taxes provide certainty for business planning. Unlike regulations that can change with new administrations, a consistent carbon price allows companies to make long-term investments in clean technology. This predictability encourages innovation and helps businesses transition gradually rather than facing sudden regulatory shocks.
Critics often argue that carbon taxes hurt economic competitiveness, but evidence suggests otherwise. Countries with carbon pricing have maintained strong economies while reducing emissions. The tax encourages domestic innovation in clean technologies, potentially creating new export industries and jobs in growing environmental sectors.
All things considered, carbon taxation offers a practical, flexible approach to reducing emissions while generating revenue and promoting innovation. The policy allows market forces to find the most efficient solutions to climate change, making it both economically smart and environmentally necessary for addressing one of humanity’s greatest challenges.
What Is a Carbon Tax? A Closer Look at Its Economic Drawbacks
By Lisa Rodriguez, Economic Policy Analyst
Carbon taxation imposes significant financial burdens on working families and threatens economic stability without delivering meaningful environmental benefits. While supporters claim these taxes reduce emissions, the reality is that carbon pricing often shifts production to countries without environmental regulations, resulting in no net reduction in global emissions while damaging domestic industries and employment.
The regressive nature of carbon taxes creates the most serious concern. Low-income families spend a larger percentage of their income on energy, transportation, and basic goods – all of which become more expensive under carbon pricing. While wealthy households can afford electric vehicles, energy-efficient appliances, and home improvements, working families have limited options for reducing their carbon footprint. They face higher heating bills, gas prices, and grocery costs without viable alternatives, making carbon taxes essentially a penalty on poverty.
Historical evidence from carbon tax implementations reveals significant economic disruption. When British Columbia introduced its carbon tax in 2008, many businesses relocated to neighboring provinces, taking jobs and investment with them. Manufacturing companies, in particular, face unfair competition from countries like China and India that have no carbon pricing. This “carbon leakage” not only fails to reduce global emissions but also weakens domestic industrial capacity and worker wages.
Small businesses and rural communities suffer disproportionately under carbon taxation. Rural residents often drive longer distances and have fewer public transportation options, making them vulnerable to fuel price increases. Small business owners lack the resources to quickly adopt expensive clean technologies, putting them at a disadvantage compared to large corporations that can more easily absorb compliance costs. Many family farms and local businesses operate on thin profit margins that cannot accommodate additional tax burdens.
The administrative complexity and costs of carbon tax systems also create significant problems. Governments must build extensive bureaucracies to monitor emissions, collect taxes, and distribute rebates. These administrative expenses reduce the net revenue available for other priorities like education, healthcare, and infrastructure. The complexity also creates opportunities for fraud and tax avoidance that undermine the system’s effectiveness.
Moreover, carbon taxes often become permanent revenue sources that governments rely on, creating perverse incentives. If carbon taxes successfully reduce emissions, the revenue base shrinks, forcing governments to either raise tax rates or find new revenue sources. This dynamic encourages governments to maintain emission levels rather than truly pursuing environmental goals.
International coordination challenges further limit carbon tax effectiveness. Without global cooperation, unilateral carbon pricing puts domestic industries at competitive disadvantages while failing to address climate change as a worldwide problem. Countries that implement carbon taxes risk economic self-harm without environmental benefits.
Taken together, carbon taxation creates more economic problems than environmental solutions. The policy burdens working families, threatens domestic industries, and fails to meaningfully address global emissions. Rather than imposing costly taxes, governments should focus on targeted investments in clean technology research and development that can create genuine solutions without penalizing ordinary citizens and businesses.
Model Response on GED Essay Carbon Tax Topic
Both authors present important points about carbon taxation, but Rodriguez makes a stronger argument by focusing on real-world impacts and practical problems that Dr. Chen’s position doesn’t fully address.
Dr. Chen makes good points about market flexibility and business planning. His argument about letting companies choose how to reduce emissions makes sense. However, his examples are limited and don’t prove that carbon taxes work everywhere. When he mentions Sweden and British Columbia as success stories, he doesn’t explain what made them different or whether those results could work in other places.
Rodriguez provides a more realistic picture of how carbon taxes actually affect people. Her point about low-income families spending more of their income on energy is particularly strong. While wealthy people can buy electric cars and efficient appliances, working families are stuck paying higher prices without good alternatives. This shows a major fairness problem that Dr. Chen doesn’t really address.
The issue of carbon leakage that Rodriguez raises is also convincing. If businesses just move to countries without carbon taxes, then we haven’t actually solved the environmental problem. We’ve just moved it somewhere else while hurting our own workers and economy. Dr. Chen claims that carbon taxes don’t hurt competitiveness, but Rodriguez gives specific examples like British Columbia where businesses actually did relocate.
Rodriguez also makes a strong point about rural communities and small businesses. These groups often can’t easily change how they use energy, so they end up paying more without being able to reduce their carbon footprint. Dr. Chen’s argument assumes everyone has equal ability to adapt, which isn’t realistic.
Dr. Chen’s argument about using carbon tax revenue for rebates sounds good in theory, but Rodriguez shows why this might not work in practice. The administrative costs and political pressures could prevent fair distribution of benefits.
Overall, Rodriguez presents a more complete argument because she considers how carbon taxes affect different groups of people and provides concrete examples of problems. While Dr. Chen focuses on economic theory, Rodriguez looks at real-world consequences. Her argument shows that carbon taxes might create more problems than they solve, especially for the people who can least afford them.
(357 words)
