As you read the passage below, consider how Sita Slavov uses
evidence, such as facts or examples, to support claims.
reasoning to develop ideas and to connect claims and evidence.
stylistic or persuasive elements, such as word choice or appeals to emotion, to add
power to the ideas expressed.
A Carbon Tax Beats a Vacuum Ban
By Sita Slavov
P1 Starting in September, the European Union will ban vacuum cleaners using
more than 1,600 watts of power, with the limit slated to be lowered to 900 watts
by 2017. This ban won't just affect a handful of the worst offenders. According
to the European Commission, the average vacuum cleaner sold today uses
1,800 watts.
P2 Intended largely to reduce carbon emissions, the vacuum cleaner ban joins
numerous other regulations throughout the world that severely restrict
consumers' choices. Want an incandescent light bulb? Too bad – they're
banned. How about a gas guzzling car? Sorry – they're being squeezed out by
tighter fuel economy standards.
P3 Rules like these rub many people the wrong way because they represent
government intrusion into even the most minute of personal decisions. Do we
really want the government telling us what kind of vacuum cleaner or light bulb
to buy? Don't policy makers have better things to think about? Backers of such
regulations counter that, when people buy powerful vacuum cleaners and
incandescent bulbs, they don't take into account the spillover costs they impose
on others by contributing to climate change.
P4 Fortunately, there's a better solution. A carbon tax – set to reflect the
spillover costs of carbon emissions – would eliminate the need to micromanage
the kinds of vacuum cleaners and light bulbs that people can buy. Instead, the
tax would provide consumers with an incentive to act in a socially responsible
manner by ensuring that those who operate such products pick up the tab for
the climate harm they cause.
P5 The main advantage of the carbon tax is that it leaves consumers free to
decide whether to buy energy-efficient vacuum cleaners and light bulbs or
whether to reduce their carbon footprint in other ways. That's a big improvement
over the regulatory approach because individual consumers are in a better
position than government bureaucrats to figure out the least painful way to
reduce their contribution to climate change.
P6 A carbon tax is also better targeted than vacuum cleaner bans and other
regulations. Some critics of the EU's new rule claim that consumers will need
to run their less powerful vacuum cleaners for longer periods of time to achieve
their desired level of cleanliness, which might actually increase the amount of
electricity they use. Similarly, improving fuel economy through tighter standards
may increase the amount of driving that people do. These "rebound effects"
might not be big enough to actually cause a net increase in emissions, but they
still reduce the effectiveness of the regulations.
P7 A carbon tax avoids these problems by directly targeting the real culprit –
carbon. Under a carbon tax, there's an incentive to cut back on carbon
emissions along every dimension. In other words, because tax payments are in
line with actual emissions, a Prius owner who drives a lot could very well pay
more than an SUV owner who hardly ever drives.
P8 Economists of all political stripes agree on these points. In a 2011 poll of
leading academic economists representing a variety of demographic
backgrounds and political views, 90 percent agreed with the statement: "A tax
on the carbon content of fuels would be a less expensive way to reduce carbondioxide emissions than would a collection of policies such as 'corporate average
fuel economy' requirements for automobiles." There's no doubt that economic
advisers offer similar advice when policy makers consider regulations like the
vacuum cleaner ban. Unfortunately, these misguided policies often turn out to
be more politically feasible than a carbon tax.
P9 That may change going forward, however. As policy makers look to trim
budgets and find additional sources of revenue, a carbon tax could represent a
good compromise between conservatives and liberals – a way to address
climate change while protecting consumer freedom and raising revenue that
can be used to lower other taxes.
Write an essay in which you explain how Sita Slavov builds an argument to persuade her
audience that the government should institute a carbon tax. In your essay, analyze how
Slavov uses one or more of the features listed in the box above (or features of your own
choice) to strengthen the logic and persuasiveness of her argument. Be sure that your
analysis focuses on the most relevant features of the passage.