Carbon Tax Con Speech

<Intro>
Resolved: The United States federal government should adopt a carbon
tax. This tax would be applied to corporations when they have released a
substantial amount of Carbon emission. In the following speech, I will explain that
this resolution deservers nothing more than a firm negation, with my following three
contentions.
1. Adopting a Carbon tax would damage corporations that rely on Carbon
emissions
2. Adopting a Carbon tax would hurt the economy
3. A Cap and trade policy would be better than a Carbon tax
</Intro>
<Reason 1>
The first contention is that adopting a Carbon tax would damage Carbonbased corporations.
At the birth of Capitalism, diversity was key. Starting shops and markets relied
heavily on providing new products and services that others did not. By accepting a
Carbon tax, we are punishing diversity. We are punishing companies whose core
relies on Carbon.
The NCPA sated in October of 2012, It will hurt the energy industry the most and
energy industry companies will move to other countries, taking their dollars and
jobs with them. Most developing nations will not have a carbon tax because they do
not want to hurt their living standards.
Theres no doubt in my mind that accepting a Carbon tax would affect these
corporations drastically. These million-possibly billion dollar industries could fall. And
when they do, I doubt anyone would praise this resolution.
</Reason 1>
<Reason 2>
The second contention is that adopting a Carbon tax would damage the
economy.
The economy is a sensitive creature. It isnt strong as a bear, nor is it fast as a
cheetah, nor is it wise as an owl. Instead the economy could easily crash at any
time. It should be our jobs as humans to stop this from happening. By going with a
Carbon tax, though, we arent doing that. In fact, were hurting the economy.
The Institute of Energy Research had this to say, Carbon tax implementation would
run into many of the same problems that have plagued cap and trade. Politicians

cannot resist new opportunities to raise tax revenues and dole out our dollars to
favored constituencies, especially when the revenues range from hundreds of
billions to trillions of dollars. Carbon taxes might hold some allure, but ultimately
they are economically destructive.
There are so many different people and organizations that work to keep animals
alive and well. From that, I have to ask the question, Why is there no organization
for the creature thats keeping us alive the most, our economy?
</Reason 2>
<Reason 3>
The third contention is that adopting a Cap-And-Trade style policy would
be better than A Carbon tax
In these speeches we may become too focused on the resolution that we dont stop
to think about other similar procedures that may provide more benefit. We shouldnt
proceed with a Carbon tax, because A Cap and Trade system would be better. What
a Cap and Trade system is, is that corporations have a limit (or cap) on how much
Carbon they can release. If they fail to use all of their limit, they can sell part of it to
other corporations, so they know have a larger Carbon limit.
Many believe that this system would be better than a Carbon tax. According to
Investopedia, President Obama proposed a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon
emissions during his 2008 presidential campaign. A similar cap-and-trade system
was included in the 1990 Clean Air Act, which is viewed by many as being
instrumental in reducing sulfur-related acid rain.
A Cap and Trade system would, unlike a Carbon tax, is good the economy and
corporations, as it leads to increased economic competition and trade with the
addition of limits.
The third contention is that a Carbon tax wouldnt help the environment
Im going to make a prediction about everyone in this room, and that prediction is
that once you heard the resolution for the first time, your mind immediately went to
the topic of how it helps the environment. However, this assumption simply isnt
true.
If we are going to accept a policy, its crucial that we understand what will happen if
and when it goes through. This misconception about the resolution shows that this
isnt the case. The most common thing we associate with the resolution is false.
</Reason 3>
<Conclusion>
I hope that this speech was able to convince the many in this room, that this
resolution deserves a vote in negation, for these three reasons.

1. Adopting a Carbon tax would damage corporations that rely on Carbon

emissions
2. Adopting a Carbon tax would hurt the economy
3. A Cap and Trade system would be better
As I currently have no more to say, I conclude my speech.
Thank you.
</Conclusion>