During his campaign, President Joe Biden committed to achieving 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035. [1] To do so, he will have to use a significant number of policy tools. To that end, carbon tax represents one of the most discussed proposals for emission control. While the policy can take many forms with different tax rates, it essentially places a tax on carbon-related products to disincentivize emissions. Despite criticism, a carbon tax stands out due to its fiscal, economic, and environmental advantages. Thus, the U.S. Government should adopt a national carbon tax. A carbon tax can serve as a federal revenue source. As the national debt is fast ballooning, a carbon tax can reduce the fiscal deficit. A modest proposal of a carbon tax would generate $88 billion in its first year. The figure would reach $1.1 trillion in a decade and 42.7 in two decades. If coupled with a reduction in other energy subsidies, a carbon tax would reduce the federal deficit by $200 billion in its first ten years. [2] On the other hand, if the government is more concerned about tax burdens than deficit reduction, it can easily offset the burden of the carbon tax through reductions in other taxes. A proportional cut in labor or capital tax can render the carbon tax revenue-neutral, and thus reduces pressure on the private sector. [3] Regardless of the scenarios, carbon tax represents a fiscally responsible and advantageous policy. A carbon tax does not hurt the macro or the micro-economy. Some have objected to the idea of a carbon tax due to its perceived damage to economic growth, the job market, and family finances. This argument fails to hold ground under analysis. A study of a potential carbon tax in 31 European countries finds no significant impact on long-term GDP growth or employment rates. [3] While the tax could potentially mean an additional expense for individual families, these expenses are modest and can be easily managed. According to one estimate, a modest carbon tax would increase retail energy prices by only 5 to 6% and gasoline prices by 19%. If the government reserves about 15% of the tax revenue for impact mitigation, it can offset these burdens for households with income below 150% of the poverty line. [2] Thus, a carbon tax would not cause meaningful damage to the economy. A carbon tax can effectively discourage CO2 emissions. A reasonable carbon tax can cut CO2 emissions by 12% in two decades, meaning 9.2 billion metric tons of CO2. The climate benefits associated with the reduction in such a time frame would equate to approximately $148 billion. [2] Compared with other emission control policies, a carbon tax has the best cost-benefit ratio. [3] Therefore, a carbon tax can serve as an efficient tool to combat climate change. For these reasons, the U.S. Government should adopt a national carbon tax. [1]. Muyskens, John, and Juliet Eilperin. 2020. "Biden Calls For 100 Percent Clean Electricity By 2035. Here’S How Far We Have To Go.". The Washington Post, , 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2020/07/30/biden-calls-100-percent-clean-electricity-by-2035-heres-how-far-we-have-go/?arc404=true. [2]. Morris, Adele. 2013. "Proposal 11: The Many Benefits Of A Carbon Tax". The Hamilton Project. The Brookings Institute. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop11.pdf. [3]. Williams, Robert. 2013. "Taxing Carbon: Potential Deficit And Emissions Reductions". Resources for the Future. https://www.resourcesmag.org/archives/taxing-carbon-potential-deficit-and-emissions-reductions/. [4]. Metcalf, Gilbert, and James Stock. 2020. "Carbon Taxes Do Not Harm Jobs Or Economic Growth". Resources for the Future. https://www.resourcesmag.org/archives/carbon-taxes-do-not-harm-jobs-or-economic-growth/.

**TL;DR - As climate change continues to be a national pressing issue, governments have a responsibility to ensure their country helps to tackle global warming and the US adopting a national carbon tax would be another step in this process.** • A carbon tax is a tax levied on carbon emissions, it is intended to visualise the, otherwise hidden, costs of carbon emissions which are felt in indirect ways like severe weather changes and events. • A nationwide carbon tax in the US would help conserve the environment by forcing companies to cut down, maybe even eliminate, their CO2 emissions. • A recent study, which can be found [here](https://www.sbs.com.au/news/global-study-finds-carbon-pricing-is-effective-could-it-be-adopted-again-in-australia), found that carbon taxation is effective as, in a study of 142 countries, CO2 emissions of countries that did have a carbon tax reduced by 2% while countries that did not have a carbon tax in place experienced a 3% rise in emissions. • A carbon tax would also raise revenue for the government which could then be used to fund government programmes to benefit society. As this [study](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484719302690) demonstrates, a worldwide revenue of $28.3 billion was collected in 2016 from governments that had implemented carbon finance policies and Finland, which have had a carbon tax since 1990, gained a revenue of $800 million in 2013. • Moreover, a carbon tax would help educate the public and, for many, a carbon tax is what American people want and support; for example, according to a 2014 poll, 60% of Americans agree that revenues raised by a federal carbon tax should be used to fund renewable energy programs. [The United States Federal Government Should Adopt a Nationwide Carbon Tax](https://debatenirvana.com/research/topics/the-united-states-federal-government-should-adopt-a-nationwide-carbon-tax/)

**A carbon tax in the US would catalyse steps towards climate-positive legislation in other countries, and places less financial pressure on low income, BIPOC communities than a renewable-energy mandate.** - The United States, India, and China were responsible for the [greatest carbon emissions in 2018](https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/each-countrys-share-co2-emissions), the US coming in second. As a result, these countries each possess major [potential to mitigate the climate crisis](https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/the-case-for-carbon-taxation-and-putting-a-price-on-pollution-parry.htm) and, given evidence in favour of the [emission reducing efficacy of the carbon tax](https://econofact.org/carbon-taxes-what-can-we-learn-from-international-experience), the impact of an effectively implemented carbon tax in the United States would arguably catalyse our progression towards a sustainable human society. _Taking steps in the appropriate direction can both fuel the movement and set in motion similar measures across the globe._ - Earlier attempts to implement a carbon tax in the United States have been met with criticism from both democrats and republicans, as well as the business sector itself. Contemporary opposition remains on the part of several democrats even as [business leaders](https://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-company-leaders-support-carbon-pricing-plan-11616454002) and a [handful of republicans](https://www.wsj.com/articles/support-for-carbon-tax-grows-except-where-it-matters-most-11616590985) begin to show their support, citing that market-based approaches to reducing carbon emissions can disproportionately impact low-income, BIPOC communities. Succinctly put, for example, California climate justice advocates have made the accusation that this this approach will occur at the ["expense of the health and well-being of California’s communities of color.”](http://foe.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-12-2-Nichols-letter.pdf). However, studying the [impacts of air pollution offset markets](https://www.aeaweb.org/aea/2021conference/program/pdf/10927_paper_ABsna8z4.pdf) and [California's carbon market itself](https://www.nber.org/papers/w27205) has revealed that, over time, these approaches have contrarily decreased the pollution concentration gap between lesser and more privileged communities. Thus, the carbon tax itself may present similar potential.