Essay Justice Environment

Would a tax on pollution, or an offset mechanism be a just proposal?
Human activities are major producers of pollution that threatens the environment and the wellbein” rel=”nofollow”>ing of people. Carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and methane are some of the most
common pollutants. Pollution threatens the present and future wellbein” rel=”nofollow”>ing of people. There is also consensus among scientists that carbon dioxide emissions due to anthropogenic activities are a
significant cause of global climate change that have been worsenin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the livin” rel=”nofollow”>ing standards of many people and will contin” rel=”nofollow”>inue worsenin” rel=”nofollow”>ing them. Given the effects of pollution, would it be just if there
were compensations for pollution, a tax on products and services that produce pollution, or another fiscal mechanism that would require those who pollute to offset their pollution? The purpose of
these fiscal mechanisms would be to discourage pollution of all kin” rel=”nofollow”>inds, and to support non-pollutin” rel=”nofollow”>ing and renewable services and products.

examin” rel=”nofollow”>ine in” rel=”nofollow”>in the light of conceptions of justice due to Nozick or Rawls whether a (a) fin” rel=”nofollow”>inancial compensation for pollution or a (b) pollution tax or (c) other fin” rel=”nofollow”>inancial mechanism would be just. Your
goal is to offer a moral argument for or again” rel=”nofollow”>inst the tax/fin” rel=”nofollow”>inancial offset by applyin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the conception of justice by either Nozick or Rawls to this problem. That is, examin” rel=”nofollow”>ine whether it would be just
accordin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to Rawls or Nozick to in” rel=”nofollow”>introduce such a tax or offset mechanism. Examin” rel=”nofollow”>ine in” rel=”nofollow”>in detail how would Nozick or Rawls reply to that argument. A clarification. If you choose to apply, say, Nozick’s
argument to the issue of carbon/pollution tax, consider how would Rawls reply to that argument. Conversely, if you apply Rawls’s conception of justice, examin” rel=”nofollow”>ine how Nozick would reply. Evaluate both
the argument and the reply.

1. Intro, consistin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of maximum 3 brief sentences, which succin” rel=”nofollow”>inctly state your argument. The in” rel=”nofollow”>intro should articulate the thesis of your essay and its supportin” rel=”nofollow”>ing reasons. E.g., I argue that …..
Nozick’s conception does not address ….

2. Explain” rel=”nofollow”>in how a certain” rel=”nofollow”>in type pollution endangers the wellbein” rel=”nofollow”>ing of people and how a pollution tax, or offset mechanism might, if possible, help remedy the situation. Document your sources.

3. Explain” rel=”nofollow”>in the view of Rawls or Nozick on justice.

4. Formulate a moral argument for or again” rel=”nofollow”>inst requirin” rel=”nofollow”>ing pollution offset mechanism, compensation or tax in” rel=”nofollow”>in light of the view on justice by Rawls (or Nozick).

5. What would Nozick (or Rawls) reply? Explain” rel=”nofollow”>in the view on justice that you will be usin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to formulate the reply.

6. Do you agree with Nozick’s and Rawls’s arguments? Justify.

find the cost of your paper