o HOLLAND_ClimateChangeNegative

Running head: CLIMATE CHANGE: NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES & GOVERNMEN 1
Overall; Strong Effort
You wrote a very strong paper of 1,000-1,250 words that addresses the influence of
environmental politics on economic policy. You made an excellent attempt of reconciling the
articles by Lindzen and Hayward and evaluated the “accepted” notion of global warming. In
fact, you dissected and tri-sected whether there in fact is an issue with global warning. I am
always looking for critical thinking, critical assessments and critical analyses. You will need all
in your dissertation research, especially in your Chapter 2, Literature search where you compare
and contrast experts ideas, thoughts, concepts and beliefs to come up with gaps voids and
omissions in the research—the basis for your generation of your research questions.
You critically assessed whether and to what extent the government should or should not
intervene with policies, rules, procedures, laws and guidelines for use based on the reconciliation
model you presented. Namely, you discussed in a clear and consistent manner how your
identified arguments may be beneficial when leading to an end state approach to governance.
Furthermore, you provided a detailed and comprehensive statement of the potential economic
effects of your proposed level of government intervention or nonintervention that you
recommended. This shows flexibility and agility. You personalized just what the benefits and
challenges are of using an economic policy leadership approach in an integrative and synthesis
manner. Finally, you discussed in a persuasive manner how these benefits and challenges might
affect your own personal leadership style and possible be the path to effective change
management in global warming.
Finally, you indeed critiqued in a very critical fashion whether President Obama’s plan is in fact
a viable alternative. You provide performance measures and criteria to help with that decision-
making process. In this regard, I was clearly able to see your framework for over evaluation.
This shows flexibility and agility. You personalized just what the benefits and challenges are of
using economic policy leadership in a strong integrative and synthesis manner. Finally, you
discussed in a very persuasive manner how these benefits and challenges might affect your
personal leadership style and possible be the path to effective change management.
I have noted before in class and in assignment 1, what I am after all the time in your paper—that
is the use of peer reviewed materials to support your own assertions and opinions and now how
you would lead. Continue to use references fully throughout the paper to the maximum extent
and support your points. As a doctoral student, you need to develop a keen facility to explore all
the facets of research supporting expert opinion and knowledge based on your peers. Hence, it is
both writing style and content that has to be in synchronization. This assignment once again
allows you to exercise skills to assess the reliability, consistency and validity of studies matched
to your own text.
Remember, I must always be able to fully understand your reasoning and argumentation pattern
and flow as it unfolds in a systematic and integrative fashion. Always strive for providing a
“roadmap” that the Reader can follow in a close knit way—use headers as a way of doing this
effectively. What the headers say is just as important as their placement in your text. In APA
there are five layers of headers---use them all for practice in thesepapers.

You showed once again excellent technique by interlocking research with your own opinions –
do this in well developed paragraphs that have a number of citations. You had very few
grammatical or APA formatting errors—continue to become an expert in APA.
Watch for flow and design—make sure to look at all the pieces-- the upfront material, the body
and the ending. Use visuals only if you get the opportunity as a picture or “model” is worth a
thousand words. Models also help with the visualization of models, concepts and theories. Your
paper, once again, shows maturity of thought and understanding and you obviously continue to
learn a lot in doing this assignment and in this class overall.
Continue to challenge yourself. Thank you. Make sure to follow my guidelines for saving files—
the main thing is to include your name (last only) as the first item in your filename. If you did,
thank you. If you did not, please do so.
Dr.K
------------------------------------------
Climate Change: Negative Externalities & Government Climate-Policy Debate
Lynn Allan Holland
Grand Canyon University
DBA
815
General (RET) Krell
September 01, 2015

CLIMATE CHANGE: NEGATIVE EXTERNALITIES & GOVERNMEN 3
Climate Change: Negative Externalities & Government Climate-Policy Debate
In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations
Environment Program (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC). The IPCC was tasked with preparing, based upon peer-reviewed, scholarly scientific
research, regular assessments of all aspects of climate change. Initially outlined in UN General
Assembly Resolution 43/53, the IPCC was to prepare recommendations for action based on the
prevailing scientific evidence on climate change, summaries of the impact of climate change on
social and economic systems, and response strategies for future international conventions on
climate change (IPCC, 2014).
Today, 27-years after creation of the organization’s original charter by the United
Nations and 8-years after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the IPCC’s mission is as follows:
…to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific,
technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of
risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation
and mitigation (IPCC, 2015, para. 1).
Despite the innocuous, prescriptive nature of the IPCC’s mission statement, skeptics have
challenged the IPCC’s fundamental message on climate change: “Human influence on the
climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic [human] emissions of greenhouse gases are the
highest in history” (IPCC, 2014, p. 2). Additionally, critics of the IPCC’s fundamental message
have accused the organization of “data manipulation” and “suppression of information and
opposing viewpoints” on the causes of global climate change (Lindzen, 2010, para. 1).
The three purposes of this paper are: first, to reconcile two representative articles by
critics, Lindzen and Hayward, of the IPCC’s accepted viewpoint on the significance and causes

of global climate change; second, based on the reconciliation, to state the role that government
should play in the mitigation of anthropogenic (human) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG);
and third, to explicate the potential economic effects of prescribed government climate policies.
By the end of this paper, readers will understand the pressing concerns of global climate change,
the government’s role in mitigating global warming, and the costs and benefits of two significant
government climate policies. Additionally, this paper will present the argument that the Obama
administration’s support for a market-based approach to reducing carbon-based consumption,
known as cap-and-trade, must be implemented immediately to reduce the overall level of
carbon-based emissions.
Reconciling Criticism of the IPCC’s View on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
Hayward ( 2010, March 15) and Lindzen (2010, April 22) are two critics representative
of the opposition to the IPCC’s statement linking human activity to global climate change. Both
authors have written numerous opinion pieces in newspapers and online journals berating the
IPCC. Specifically, Hayward and Lindzen have implied that the IPCC’s conclusions on
anthropogenic global climate change are biased, alarmist, and based upon models with
unrealistic, contrived assumptions. Reconciling Hayward’s and Lindzen’s representative
criticism might reveal latent political bias and motives that are mostly self-serving and not based
upon authoritative, peer-reviewed scientific evidence.
Separately, Hayward and Lindzen argue from their positions of expertise, that the science
linking human activity to global warming is not settled science. Both writers challenge the
IPCC’s comment that “2,500 of the world’s top climate scientists” agree with global climate
change (Hayward, 2010, para. 10). In fact, two separate authoritative, peer-reviewed research

projects found that the consensus on the global climate change is much greater than what the
IPCC initially stated.
The first study, Cook et al. (2013) found that 97.1% of all the peer-reviewed articles
published in scholarly journals supported the IPCC’s conclusion that human activity was causing
global warming. Additionally, in 2014, Tol, an economist who had a long history of skepticism
regarding global warming, conducted another research review of all peer-reviewed journal
articles on global climate change. Tol found that 90.1% of the articles supported the causal link
between human activity and global warming (2014). In the conclusion of the research paper, Tol
wrote, “There is no doubt in my [Tol’s] mind that the literature on climate change
overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans” (2014, p.
704). In fact, both Cook et al. and Tol contradict Hayward and Lindzen’s repeated denials of the
consensus, the settled science, supporting anthropogenic global climate change.
This evidence begs the question regarding the motives of representative criticism from
skeptics like Hayward and Lindzen, if the evidence of anthropogenic global climate change is
overwhelmingly supportive of the IPCC’s claim, then why do critics argue the contrary position?
In order to answer this question, both Hayward’s and Lindzen’s arguments must be considered in
the context of where their comments were published, their respective qualifications as experts on
global climate change, and the pathway of the scientific method.
First, both Hayward (2010) and Lindzen (2010) published their criticisms as opinion
pieces in newspapers. Neither Hayward nor Lindzen published the referenced statements in peer-
reviewed, scholarly journals, as one would expect given the authoritative tone of their combined
statements denying the causes of global warming. Opinion articles are not considered a part of
the body of knowledge of a particular field without appropriate citation of supporting facts

(Watson, 2013). Critical thinkers should always challenge deductive and inductive conclusions
based on statements unsupported by peer-reviewed, scholarly sources (Elder & Paul, 2010).
Second, what qualifications do Hayward and Lindzen have as experts on global climate
change? Hayward’s curriculum vitae (CV) lists his educational background as a B.S. in business
administration and a Ph.D. in American History; in addition, Hayward claims his profession is as
an author and political commentator (retrieved from https://www.aei.org/scholar/steven-f-
hayward/). On the other hand, Lindzen’s CV is indicative of his expertise on the science of
climate change. Lindzen’s educational background includes a Bachelor’s degree in physics and a
master's and Ph.D. in applied mathematics (retrieved from http://www-
eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen.htm). Lindzen has published over 240-authoritative papers in peer-
reviewed journals. All of Lindzen’s scholarly work has been on the topics of meteorology and
physics of the Earth’s climate. While avoiding a logically-dismissable ad hominem fallacy,
critical thinkers must question arguments made from expert opinion by asking and answering
four important questions: first, is the person making the statement an expert in the relevant field;
second, is the expert a personally reliable source; third, what did the person assert that implies
the conclusion; and fourth, is the person a credible expert (Watson, 2013). These criteria support
a summary dismissal of Hayward’s arguments found in the representative critical analysis from
2010. However, how do critical thinkers reconcile Lindzen’s expert opinions criticizing the
IPCC’s synthesis report on global climate change?
Third, Lindzen’s contrarian viewpoints are endogeneous theories already present in the
scientific consensus on anthropogenic global climate change. The method of science is one that
includes all relevant literature, the results of previous empirical studies, and conjoined theory-
based conclusions that have been evaluated and confirmed by peer analysis (Butin, 2010).

Critical thinkers and climate scientists give appropriate deference to Lindzen’s dissenting
opinion; however, the IPCC’s 2014 consensus statement prevails because Lindzen’s research has
not dissuaded the majority of climate scientists.
In conclusion, assuming that Lindzen and Hayward expressed the representative
dissenting opinion that global warming cannot be explained by human activity, then the
arguments offered in this paper support the conclusioin that Lindzen and Hayward are incorrect.
Hayward has neither scientific expertise in climate science nor has Hayward published research
supporting the dissenting opinion in peer-reviewed, scholarly journals. Lindzen is a highly
qualified expert in the physics of the Earth’s climate, and Lindzen’s arguments are endogeneous
in the body of knowledge on global climate change. However, Lindzen’s dissenting opinion on
the anthropogenic causes of global climate change have been discredited and supplanted by
science that supports the IPCC’s conclusion that human activity is causing global climate
change.
The IPCC’s Reconciled Statements on Anthropogenic Global Climate Change
After dismissing Hayward and Lindzen’s representative arguments against the majority
opinion expressed in the IPCC’s synthesis reports,we list below the IPCC’s three scientifically
supported summary statements. First, a summary for policy makers (SPM1), “Human influence
on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of green-house gasses are the
highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural
systems” (IPCC, 2014, p. 2). Second, SPM2, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal,
and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia.
The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea
level has risen” (IPCC, 2014, 2014, p. 2). Third, SPM3, “In recent decades, changes in climate

have caused impacts on natural and human systems on all continents and across the oceans.
Impacts are due to observed climate change, irrespective of its origin, indicating the sensitivity of
natural and human systems to changing climate” (IPCC, 2014, p. 6). The IPCC’s SPMs 1-3
explicitly connect human activity, global climate change, and deleterious impacts on ecosystems
across the entire planet. Acceptance of these fully reconciled statements by the global body of
climate scientists motivates productive discussions on government climate policies that will
mitigate the long-term impact of global warming. Critical thinkers debate the costs and benefits
of government climate policies and collaboratively work with the member countries of the
United Nations to design effective policies that restrict the emission of global greenhouse gasses.
Government Climate Policies to Reduce Anthropogenic Emissions of GHG
The science of how burning carbon-based fuels emits greenhouse gasses is easily
understood (retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html ).
Hydrocarbons, the general classification for various types of carbon-containing fuels (e.g.,
methanol, ethanol, gasoline, diesel, and coal), when ignited as a source of energy, whether
powering automobiles, manufacturing plants, trains, or coal-fired power plants, produce what are
collectively called greenhouse gases (GHG) which are comprised of carbon dioxide (CO2) and
water as a vapor (H2O). Additionally, burning some hydrocarbons produces methane (CH4) and
nitrous oxide (N2O). The resulting emission of GHG traps energy from the sun inside the Earth’s
atmosphere, causing the temperature of the Earth to increase (IPCC, 2014).
The IPCC summarized the deleterious impacts of global warming caused by emissions of
greenhouse gases as follows: “Continued emission of greenhouse gases will cause further
warming and long-lasting changes in all components of the climate system, increasing the
likelihood of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.” (IPCC,

2014, 2014, p. 8). Exploring the specific effects of global warming are beyond the scope of this
paper, but critical thinkers can find reliable scientific explanations of the adverse impacts in the
IPCC 2014 synthesis report. Climate scientists posit that immediate, substantial, and sustained
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required to mitigate future deleterious effects from
global climate change (Bartelmus, 2015). Again, the situation begs the question: What steps
must be taken to substantially reduce greenhouse gasses? Two complementary government
climate policies are urgently needed to correct problems in the marketplace for fossil-based fuels.
Government Climate Policy Recommendation: Carbon Taxes and Cap and Trade
Emissions of GHG create adverse impacts that are not factored into the market price that
consumers pay for their fuels. Economists define these types of negative impacts as negative
externalities. Hubbard and O’Brien (2015) described negative externalities as, “cost[s] that affect
someone who is not directly involved in the production or consumption of a good or service” (p.
138). Government interventions, generally called command and control policies, can reduce
economic efficiency, but in the case of negative externalities, government command and control
policies are needed to “enhance the well-being of society” and “increase economic efficiency”
((Hubbard & O’Brien, 2015, p. 138). Leading economists, climate scientists, and policy
advocates generally agree that two types of command and control policies are needed to quickly
and efficiently reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions (Jiang, Ye, & Ma, 2014; Song,
Zhang, & Qiu, 2015; IPCC, 2014). The two climate policies are the implementation of a carbon
tax on fossil fuels and the establishment of a market-based carbon trading system, known as cap-
and-trade.
Government Climate Policy Recommendation: A Carbon Tax on Fossil Fuels

Theoretically, the economic costs and benefits of imposing a tax on the carbon content of
fossil fuels have been long-understood within the context of micro- and macro-economics
(Hubbard & O’Brien, 2015). Peer-reviewed, scholarly journal articles modeling the impact of a
carbon tax on the United States’ gross domestic product (GDP), the amount of greenhouse gas
emissions, employment, and wages are relatively new to the body of knowledge. GDP is widely
accepted as the broadest measure of the overall economic output of a nation; GDP is defined as,
“ the value of all the final goods and services produced in the country” (Hubbard & O’Brien,
2015, p. 142). Critical thinkers should ask themselves, if the government imposes a carbon tax
based on the carbon content of fossil fuels, then what will be the overall impact on the economy
and CO2 emissions?
McKibbin, Morris, Wilcoxen, & Yiayong (2015) modeled the impact of a carbon tax of
$15 per ton of CO2 emissions (excised based upon the relative carbon contents of fuels) over a
25-year period in the United States. The researchers made the following conclusions based upon
their model:
Investment rises, employment and wages rise, and overall GDP is significantly above its
baseline level through year 25. Thus, adopting a carbon tax and using the revenue to
reduce capital taxes would achieve the dual goals of reducing CO2 emissions
significantly and expanding employment and the economy (McKibbin et al., 2015, p.
153).
McKibbin et al., made two assumptions: first, the $15 per ton tax would increase by 4% annually
to maintain the real terms of the tax; and second, the revenue from the carbon tax would be used
for investment in clean (non-GHG producing), sustainable alternative means of providing energy
(2015).

In summary, a government climate policy that creates a carbon tax based upon the comparative
rates of CO2 produced by burning different fossil fuels will reduce GHG emissions, change
consumer behavior because of the increased price of carbon-based fossil fuels, and increase
innovation and investment in technology as revenue from the carbon tax is used to spur
investment in clean, green, sustainable alternatives to hydrocarbons (McKibbin et al., 2015).
Government Climate Policy Recommendation: Cap-and-Trade
The second government climate policy recommendation, cap-and-trade, is at its
foundation a command and control policy. President Barrack Obama has strongly advocated for
a cap-and-trade system of tradable emissions allowances as an efficient means of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases and capping the total amount of GHG emissions. President
O’Bama argues that the United States has a successful track record with cap-and-trade systems
of tradable emissions allowances. A cap-and-trade system was implemented in the United
States, between 1990 and 2013; its goal was to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, the cause of
acid rain (Hubbard & O’Brien, 2015). The United States successfully attained its goals of
reducing total sulfur dioxide emissions by 2010.
Critical thinkers might ask, how do cap-and-trade schemes create positive economic
incentives when command-and-control policies usually fail to achieve efficient results? Cap-and-
trade systems incorporate market-based trading as a means of achieving a reduction in the
quantity of GHG and creating financial incentives that reward innovations that reduce carbon
usage. Cap-and-trade is a type of emissions trading scheme (ETS) that operates in the following
manner: based on a maximum acceptable level of carbon-based emissions, the federal
government gives carbon-emissions allowances to industrial-sized operations that burn carbon-
based fossil fuels, either directly or indirectly, in the production of their goods and services

(Hubbard & O’Brien, 2015; Jiang et al., 2014; Song et al., 2015). The organizations are then free
to buy, sell, or trade their carbon-emissions allowances on an active market exchange like the
Chicago Merchantile Exchange (Hubbard & O’Brien, 2015). If an organization replaces its use
of carbon-based fossil fuels with non-carbon emitting alternatives and produces fewer GHG-
emissions than its allowance, then the organization can sell the unused portion of its allowances
to another organization. The price of the carbon-emissions allowance units is determined by the
supply of and demand for allowance units on the Chicago Merchantile Exchange. Revenue
earned from selling allowances creates an incentive for organizations to reduce their output of
carbon-based emissions to the economic-optimal level where the marginal benefit of reducing
the last unit of emissions is equal to the marginal cost of the last unit eliminated (Hubbard &
O’Brien, 2015).
The economic impact of ETS systems, cap-and-trade, have been mixed but show
encouraging results because of the inclusion of open-market places for trading allowances.
Shenzhen was the first of seven pilot markets for carbon trading in China. Researchers have
shown that when the Shenzhen pilot was expanded from one to seven geographically proximate
provinces, then the market price for carbon-emissions allowances closely approximated the
optimal, market-clearing price for carbon emissions (Jiang et al., 2014). Also, Song et al.,
concluded from their research of ETS in the European Union that “firms in an intertemporal
trading system that hold [emission] permits are satisfying the principle of profit maximization.
This [result] confirms the intertemporal trading system as valid” (2015, p. 133).
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has presented strong, well-cited support for three important
topics: first, we reconciled two representative articles by critics, Lindzen, and Hayward, of the

IPCC’s accepted viewpoint on the significance and causes of global climate change; second,
based on that reconciliation, we stated the role that government should play in the mitigation of
anthropogenic (human) emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG); and third, we explained the
potential economic effects of prescribed government climate policies. At the end of this paper,
readers have developed an advanced understanding of the pressing concerns arising from global
climate change, the government’s role in mitigating global warming, and the costs and benefits
of two significant government climate policies.

References
Bartelmus, P. (2015, January 6). How bad is climate change? Journal of Environmental
Development, 14(2015), 53-62. Retrieved from
http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=edselp&AN=S2211464515000044&site=eds-live&scope=site
Butin, D. W. (2010). The education dissertation: A guide for practitioner-scholars. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Cook, J., Nuocitelli, D., Green, S., Richardson, M., Winkler, B., Painting, R., ... Skuce, A.
(2013). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific
literature. Environmental Research Letters, 8(2013), 1-7.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/812/024024
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2010). The art of asking essential questions. United States: Foundation
for Critical Thinking Press.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Climate change in the United States: Benefits of
global action. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Atmospheric
Programs, 430-R-15-001, 1-96. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/cira/downloads-
cira-report
Hasselmann, K. (2013). Detecting and responding to climate change. Tellus: Journal of the
International Meteorological Institute, 65(2013), 1-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/tellusb.v65i0.20088
Hayward, S. F. (2010, March 15). In denial. The Weekly Standard, 15(25), 18-23. Retrieved
from

https://library.gcu.edu:2443/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/233009700?ac
countid=7374
Hubbard, R. G., & O’Brien, A. P. (2015). Economics (5th ed.). Retrieved from https://lc-
grad2.gcu.edu/learningPlatform/externalLinks/externalLinks.html?operation=redirectToE
xternalLink&externalLink=http%3A%2F%2Fgcumedia.com%2Fdigital-
resources%2Fpearson%2F2014%2Feconomics_ebook_5e.php
IPCC, 2014. (2014). Climate change 2014: Synthesis report. Contribution of Working Groups I,
II, & III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 1-151. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
IPCC. (2015). History of the IPCC. Retrieved from
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
Jacobs, J. R. (2014). The precautionary principle as a provisional instrument in environmental
policy: The Montreal Protocol case study. Environmental Science & Policy, 37(161), 1-
11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.09.007
Jiang, J. J., Ye, B., & Ma, X. M. (2014, February 18). The construction of Shenzhen’s carbon
emission trading scheme. Energy Policy, 75(2014), 17-21.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.02.030
Lindzen, R. S. (2010, April 22). Climate science in denial: Global warming alarmists have been
discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day. Wall Street
Journal (Online). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/237988914?accountid=7374
McKibbin, W. W., Morris, A., Wilcoxen, P., & Yiayong, C. Y. (2015). Carbon taxes and US
fiscal reform. National Tax Journal, 68(1), 139-155. Retrieved from

http://library.gcu.edu:2048/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true
&db=ofs&AN=101359761&site=eds-live&scope=site
Song, M. L., Zhang, W., & Qiu, X. M. (2015). Emissions trading system and supporting policies
under an emissions reduction framework. Annals of Operations Research, 2015(228),
125-134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10479-012-1152-z
Tol, R. S. (2014). Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature:
A re-analysis. Journal of Energy Policy, 73(2014), 701-705. Retrieved from
www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2015). Causes of climate change. Retrieved
from http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/causes.html
Watson, D. (2013). Methods of Argumentation. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

o HOLLAND_ClimateChangeNegative

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Semelhante a o HOLLAND_ClimateChangeNegative

Semelhante a o HOLLAND_ClimateChangeNegative (20)

o HOLLAND_ClimateChangeNegative