탄소세 도입 방안과 추진에 관한 영어 에세이 (carbon footprint tax)

목차

1. Abstract
2. Introduction: The background and the necessity of carbon tax introduction
3. Counter argument 1: Countries that have not agreed with international engagement
4. Counter-argument 2: Big burden of introducing carbon tax to developing countries
5. Counter-argument 3: Negative effect on economy
6. Resolution 1: Duty to protect the environment based on Environmental Right
7. Resolution 2: Effect on the reduction of green-house gases and increase of economy
8. Resolution 3: Incentive policy
9. Conclusion: Desirable directions for the introduction of carbon tax in Korea
10. Reference
11. Question

본문내용

To be well prepared for green growth of economy, it is necessary for the Korean government to introduce carbon tax and make the people aware of the environment. The main goal of carbon tax is not to increase tax revenues, but to reduce CO₂emission for the environment. Therefore, Korea needs to introduce an environment-friendly tax that can encourage firms and people to reduce carbon footprint emission and lead to protect the environment as well. Introducing a carbon tax is not only to implement the international responsibility, but also the Korean government gives itself the effect of double dividend.

Introduction: The background and the necessity of carbon tax introduction
Carbon footprints are getting so big that it seems necessary to impose a carbon footprint tax, because carbon footprints destroy the planet and the people need to take preventative action to protect the earth from pollution. According to the survey of Market based Instruments in Environmental Policy (2005), the statistics show that CO₂emissions in the world, mainly among greenhouse gases, have risen about 30% from 1970. The major reason for the rise in greenhouse gas emissions is the increase of the consumption of mass fossil fuels, such as coal and oil.

참고자료

· Ekins, P. (2000). Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning: Proposal of environmental fiscal reforms and the obstacles to their implementations. 2, 93-114.
· European Environment Agency(EEA). (2005). Market based Instruments in Environmental Policy in Europe. Copenhagen: EEA.
· EwaKrukowska. (2011, January 31). Organized Crime May Be Behind Carbon Permit Thefts, EU Says. [Online article].
· Hoerner, J. A. (2001). Environmental Tax Reform: The European Experience. Washington: Center for a sustainable Economy.
· Justin, D. (2009, July 16). Why Cap and Trade Could Backfire. Christian Science Monitor, 108, 29.
· James, K. (2008, June 20). The Trouble with Markets for Carbon. New York Times.
· James, H. (2009, May 14). Can We Reverse Global Climate Change? Carbon Tax and Dividend. YaleGlobal. [Online article]
· Margery, A. T. (2008). Urban and regional policy and its effects. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
· Michael, B. G. (2007). Global climate change and U.S. law. Chicago: American Bar Association.
· Norman, M. (2001). How tax dollars can undercut the environment and the economy. Washington, DC: Island Press.
· Stavins, R. N. (2001). Experience with Market-Based Environmental Policy Instruments Discussion. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.
· Kang, S. J (2009). The Effect of Green Growth on Ecnomy. Seoul: Korean Research Institute For Human Settlements.
· Kim, S. H. (2010). The examples of carbon tax in other countries and prospect of Korea. Seoul: Kangnam University.
· Kim, S. R. and Kim, J. Y (2010, December). Tax scheme for green growth and economic effect. Seoul: Hallym University.