1. ECO105Y Micro Op-Ed Exemplars 2016-2017
1
1
Much Ado About Nothing:
Rabid Reactionaries and Environmentalist Extremists Lash Out
over PM Trudeau’s
Altogether Lacklustre National Carbon Strategy.
Prime Minister Trudeau's comments in the House of Commons
early last October concerning a
national carbon strategy sparked perhaps the greatest drama in
recent Canadian politics.
Provincial environment ministers very publically, and somewhat
melodramatically, walked out of
negotiations with Ottawa saying they were being subverted and
strong-armed. Since then, the
slinging of proverbial muck has only grown more intense,
especially after the PM finally used the
dreaded word “tax.” Scandalous. What critics from the left and
right fail to understand is that
carbon pricing is premised on basic economic concepts of
negative externalities and
internalization. Carbon pricing will not pull the rug out from
under the Canadian economy. And
what government would pursue policies that would self-
sabotage?
If we could all tone down the political rhetoric, we can attempt

2. to premise this debate on facts.
Industrial activity and pollution will always have negative
repercussions for society. The cost of
cleaning up environmental messes and the additional burden to
health-care systems are negative
externalities of pollution. Negative externalities are costs which
stem from a lack of defined
ownership concerning common goods, in this case the
environment. There have been no
mechanisms for ensuring that individuals pay their fair portion
of environmental damage as no
individual can claim ownership over the environment. Until
now, that is. The entire point of carbon
pricing mechanisms is to divvy up those costs and impose, or
internalize, them onto polluters so
that society is not left with the bill.
The method of carbon pricing suggested by Trudeau is an
emissions tax. Ideally, the price per
tonne of emissions set by the tax equals the cost of the negative
externalities of pollution.
Trudeau's plan only begins to reflect the full cost, beginning at
10$ per tonne to 50$ in 2022. This
is where radical environmentalists believe Trudeau is being too
weak. Alternatively, provinces can
implement a cap and trade system. This mechanism creates a
market for emissions in which the
government auctions permits for producers to pollute, with the
total amount of emissions allowed
by the permits equal to the province’s emissions target. Some
environmentalists disapprove of
this because selling “permission” to pollute is unseemly to
them.
Brad Wall, the firebrand premier of Saskatchewan, epitomizes
the conservative stance. He

3. argues that carbon pricing hinders business and growth while
rendering Canada uncompetitive in
the world market. This is quite exaggerated. The tax only seeks
to reflect the true costs of doing
business, which most people would agree the businesses
themselves should pay. If carbon
pricing just barely covers the cost of pollution, it won’t restrict
competitiveness and will incentivise
businesses to cut costs and approach the economy in a new way.
The economy and the environment are about trade-offs, one
without the other is unsustainable.
A certain degree of pollution is necessary for the economy to
function, and if we balance it with
modest proposition such as carbon pricing, we can insure that
the environment and the economy
can move forward into the millennium stronger than ever.
(499 words)
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/10/03/justin-
trudeaus-liberals-unveil-plan-to-price-
carbon.html
ECO105Y Micro Op-Ed Exemplars 2016-2017
2
2
Take the High Road, Canada

4. With an incoming Trump administration comes an expected
resurgence in the American fossil
fuel industry. The timing is less than opportune for Canada, as
the liberal government has taken a
tough stance on the oil and gas industry, and instead has pushed
for increased research into
sustainable resource development. Although Financial Post’s
Joe Oliver argues that Canadians
should abandon their stance of “morally superior denial,” I
resolve that Americans are in fact
those who are in denial; by ignoring the very real threat of
climate change and inherent negative
externalities caused by resource extraction, the Trump
administration will cause irreversible
damage that future generations will be forever indebted to.
Canada should be commended for
their morally superior stance on this issue.
The environmental and societal impact of climate change cannot
be ignored. Unlimited resource
extraction will lead to vast expenses burdened onto both current
society and future generations.
From an economic standpoint, these inherent costs felt by a
third party are called negative
externalities. The negative externalities associated with
resource extraction are extensive; by
continuing to make this resource widely accessible on a global
scale, we are responsible for
increasing carbon dioxide levels within the atmosphere. This
leads to a rise in global
temperatures and declining air quality, cites Environmental
expert and University of Toronto
professor, Andrea Olive. The costs of these worsening global
conditions cannot be
underestimated, and will leave nobody untouched.

5. One could argue that our industry will not remain competitive
against pro-oil states, and the short-
term economic repercussions will be too great. Trudeau’s
response to this particular point is that
Canada will face great opportunity for investment within a few
years time. Although Oliver may
label this as a naïve stance, I commend Canada’s foresight
within this sector. Through their
support of sustainable resource development, the Canadian
economy is undergoing changes
now that other countries will be forced to make in the coming
years. The potential for future
investment is truly significant.
Finally, Oliver makes the point that all other resource-rich
affluent nations are proceeding without
caution, so why not Canada. This ignores the fact, however, that
such nations will be held
financially and socially accountable for their actions all the
same. Canada is simply one step
ahead on the global stage; by phasing out resource extraction,
we are doing now what other
countries will be forced to do in years ahead. Though choosing
this path presents drastic
challenges at the present, the end result will most certainly be
worthwhile. Taking the high road is
never easy after all.
(Word count: 416)
Source: http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/joe-
oliver-as-u-s-energy-prepares-to-roar-
canadas-liberals-cling-to-their-morally-superior-denial

6. ECO105Y Micro Op-Ed Exemplars 2016-2017
3
3
Lower income tax, higher paycheques - Is it as good as it
sounds?
Michigan state representative Lee Chatfield has announced a
new bill to reduce personal income
tax starting from 2018 and bring it down to zero over next 40
years. However, does making
individual residents wealthier by the cost of cutting state
income benefit everyone? Lost state
revenue must be made up in other ways, which may not be
pleasing to all.
The biggest portion of Michigan’s revenue is the income tax,
generating more than $9 billion
annually. This is the money used by the government to build
roads and schools, improve
transportation systems, fund college students and other projects
that are aimed to better the life
for the residents of the state. If such a large chunk of money
stops flowing into the state budget,
government initiatives will be put under risk of not being
approved for the lack of financial support.
This may slow down infrastructure development and
improvement, making the state a less
desirable place to live.

7. The officials are claiming that the Michigan state economy is on
the rise and there is a budget
surplus, which allows them to make this decision. The
expectation is that lower income taxes will
attract more residents and businesses that will create more jobs.
State Senator J. Brandenburg
has said that influx of people will result in higher tax revenues
for the state. However, this is only
an expectation and the state hasn’t announced a clear plan on
how to make up for the lost
revenue, so the whole idea sounds less convincing.
This bill is not a new practice - 7 states currently have no
income tax. Methods to make up for the
revenue loss are simple - raise other taxes. Tennessee has the
highest sales tax in US and New
Hampshire has one of the highest property taxes. Other states
have high gasoline and natural
resources taxes. This all results in a higher than average cost of
living in these states, which
includes prices on housing, food, health care, etc. Residents are
earning more, but they also end
up spending more money on everyday needs. Current tax burden
(amount of money deducted for
taxes from one’s paycheque) for the lowest 20% of the income
class is around 11% and top 1%
of the population is at 5%. Higher taxes on food, gas, and
property will hit the poor, who earn just
the minimum wage, harder than the others.
As seen from the practice of the aforementioned states, this
method of raising wages does not
necessarily make residents wealthier in the long run. Kansas is
an example of things going wrong
- tax cuts from businesses and individuals have resulted in
budget shortfalls and slow job growth.

8. A comprehensive study must be conducted and presented to
answer questions like: how likely
are businesses to move to the state? or what is the current
wealth distribution among residents?
Cutting income tax simply shifts the tax from paycheques to
bills and it is not necessarily a good
thing.
(495 words)
Original article: “Michigan Republicans Roll Out Plan To
Eliminate Income Taxes” from
01/11/2017 at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/michigan-
income-
tax_us_5876e4d0e4b092a6cae54bcd
ECO105Y Micro Op-Ed Exemplars 2016-2017
4
4
What Goes Around, Comes Around on the Autobahn
For decades, the slogan “Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger” (Free
driving for free citizens) lingered
throughout German society. There was always an implicit
agreement between citizens and their
leaders in regards to free-of-charge public highways. In 2013,
however, a new law was passed by
German transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt, enforcing
payment for the use of the Autobahn

9. motorway. As millions of travelers entered the Autobahn from
Austria and Switzerland annually,
they were now required to pay 8.90€ for 10 days of usage or a
yearly price of 86.40€.
Subsequently to the charges, immediate disputes broke out
throughout Europe. Recently, the
Austrians made a claim that they regard this law as a friendship
betrayal from their neighboring
country. They teamed up with the Netherlands, intending to sue
Germany in the European Court
of Justice for “discriminating against the citizens of other
[European Union] member states”.
Nevertheless, Germany’s actions were based on economical-
thinking and well developed smart-
choices.
Generally, free motorways produce positive externalities, or
benefits that are enjoyed by parties
other than the providers of the roads. In this case, the
externalities were simple: foreigners used
the public Autobahn without paying for any land taxes,
construction costs, or maintenance fees.
A free-rider problem arose when non-paying drivers benefited
from the actions and investment of
the government. Although the public enjoys receiving free
benefits, the parties involved in
providing them often lose motivation to continue their work
without appropriate compensation.
When this occurs, all parties, including drivers on the
Autobahn, must consider the smart social
choice as a priority over the smart private choice of the free-
riders.
Consequently, the German government used smart economic
thinking to fix the issue. They
established property rights for the motorway. By charging tolls

10. for entrance, they were able to
remind the free-riders that there is ownership to the road and
that its benefits need to be paid for.
Through this lens, Germany aims for an outcome that is both
efficient, in regards to getting paid
for externalities, and equitable. Prior to the road-tolls, Germans
were required to pay similar
prices for entering the Austrian and Swiss Alpine motorways.
Now, Germany is also charging a
toll, and is able to achieve an equitable solution by treating the
Austrian citizens the same way
that they treated German travelers.
Recently, Austrians protested new German tolls that only apply
to foreign “free-riders” of the
Autobahn. Still, to pay for the externality domestically and
reach the socially responsible
equilibrium, Germans increased their carbon tax for German
citizens.
Regardless, the Austrians are appealing to the European Union
because they fear that the tolls
will decrease their citizens’ demand to travel. This fear
translates into a lack of confidence and
balance between the needs of citizens and their influence on the
Austrian government. In fact,
Austria initiated the controversy by charging their own
motorway fees. Therefore, it should be no
surprise for the Austrian government, as well as the European
Union, when Germany introduces
and enforces tolls on the Autobahn.
(Word Count: 496)
Another european crisis; motorway charges. (2017, Jan 07). The
Economist, 422, 24-43.
Retrieved from

11. http://myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/login?url=http://search.proq
uest.com/docview/1856037446?ac
countid=14771
ECO 105Y L9901 Prof. Avi J. Cohen
Fall/Winter 2019/20 Winter 2020
1
MIcroeconomic Op-Ed Writing Assignment
(15% of course grade – 90 marks)
PURPOSE
One goal of this course is to help you understand
and apply basiceconomic concepts to dailylife.
Part of
your role as an informed citizen involves making
sound argumentsabout economic issues that
matter to
you and communicating theseargumentseffectively to
others. This assignment will give you practice
developing a convincing written argument about
an economic issuefor a general audience.
TASKS

12. 1. On the Quercus module How to (Re-)Write an
Op-Ed, watch the video How to (Re-)Write
an Op-Ed,
which builds on the videos you must have
watched already — How To Read Critically and
How to (Re-)Write an Abstract.
2. Your assignment is to writean Op-Ed, which
refers to the section of a print
newspaper that is
opposite the editorial page and devoted to opinion
and commentary rather than straight news.
3. Choose an article, editorial or opinion piece in
a recent (published since1 September
2019) online
publication that involves a controversial
microeconomic issuethat interests you. [You may NOT
use
any article discussed in lectures or Economics
Out There.] The economic issuecan be Canadian or
international.
4. In response, writeyour own commentary in which
you take a position on the issue,
supporting your position by making an argument
based on sound economic reasoning.
• Complete the Draft/Revise/Edit stages for your
Op-Ed (see How To (Re-)Write an Op-Ed)

13. and submit your Draft 4 to peerScholar on
Quercus by the 1st Deadline.
• Provide feedback to classmates about their Op-Eds
by the 2nd Deadline.
• Incorporate your classmates’ feedback and submit a
final draft on Quercus to both turnitin and
peerScholar. On peerScholar, also include your
reflection on what you learned from the writing
and assessment process. Submit all by the 3rd
Deadline.
FORMAT
• Your commentary must be 300-500 words or
you will lose marks.
• Include right after your Op-Ed a word count (not
including title) in parentheses,
e.g. “(490 words).”
• Submit your Op-Ed to peerScholar on Quercus by
copying and pasting into a text box.
ECO 105Y L9901 Prof. Avi J. Cohen
Fall/Winter 2019/20 Winter 2020
2

14. DUE DATES & SUBMISSION STEPS
1) 1st Deadline — 22 January 2020 (Wednesday)
— The first submission of your Op-Ed to
peerScholar on Quercus for ECO105Y.
Yourdraft must be complete and written in full
sentences. You will lose marks for submitting
an outline or pointform draft. No pictures or
graphs can be included. All words.
Copy and pasteyour draft into the text box in
the CREATE step, including: 1) YourTitle; 2)
Your
Op-Ed (with word count- excluding title - in
parentheses at end);3) Leave somespace; 4)
Put in
some cut-and-paste form of the original article.
This could be just a URL, or text from
the
article. If the original article is a print-
only source, provide a complete reference. When in
doubt,
include more original article material rather
than less. Save a copy of your draft.
If you submit by this deadline, you are eligible
to earn up to 15 marks for assessing your
peers’
Op-Ed assignments. If you miss this deadline, you
will miss the assessments in 2) and so lose

15. the 15 marks for assessments. You also lose the
benefit of getting feedback from classmates
that might improve your final draft. Without
feedback from classmates you also lose on the
Reflection — the highest grade you can get on
the Reflection is 6 marks instead of 9.
2) 2nd Deadline — 29 January 2020 (Wednesday)
— Submit threeassessments of your fellow
students’ abstracts in peerScholar. For each,
give:a Rating (out of 5 stars); List 1
thingdone
well; List 1 thingneeding improvement; an
Overall Rating paragraph. You can also
comment
on specific sections of your peer’s assignment
using the Highlight and Comment feature.
Address your suggestions to the writer, not to
the Professor/TA.
If you submit by this deadline, you receive a
maximum of 15 marks, according to this grading
Rubric for Assessment
15 Strengths and weaknesses for each assigned paper,
with specifics
10 Fair attempt but weak, lacking specifics
5 No real effort
0 Missed 22 January 2020 deadline, or did
not attempt assessments

16. 3) 3rd Deadline — 5 February 2020 (Wednesday)
— Yourfinal submission and your reflection on
what you learned from the writing and
assessment process. Finaldraft must be submitted
on Quercus to both peerScholar and turnitin. If
you submit by this deadline, you receive
a maximum of 66 marks for the final draft
(marked according to the rubric below) and a
maximum of 9 marks for the
reflection (6 marks if missed assessments). If
you miss this
deadline, you lose all 66 marks as well as
the 9 marks for reflection. Avoid this
fate by
at least submitting your first draft the day this
submission opens, the resubmitting a
final draft.
Rubric for Reflection
9 Thoughtful and detailed, refers to peer
comments, incorporated revisions
6 Fair attempt but lacking specifics — maximum if
missed assessments
4 No real effort
0 No reflection
ECO 105Y L9901 Prof. Avi J. Cohen
Fall/Winter 2019/20 Winter 2020

17. 3
AUDIENCE
Youraudience is the general reading public. Assume
your audience has someeducation and
background in current affairs and understands
basiceconomic concepts, but is not knowledgeable
about the details of economic theory or policy.
In otherwords, you’ll need to explain any
economic
concepts and specialized vocabulary in a way
that keeps their interest and respects their
intelligence.
Youraudience is not the professor or the TAs. You
need to writemore like a journalist than an
academic.
WRITINGSTRUCTURE ANDSTYLE
1. You are writing for a public forum where
otherwriters and readers can debate and
comment on
issues so you must present a clear, concise,
and interesting argument that uses evidence to
support your position
2. Choose a catchy title to capture your audience’s
attention and tell your reader what your main
pointis. Do this AFTER you’ve written a draft so
you actually know what your pointit. Read a

18. few articles in The Economist to see examples of
catchy titles.
3. Make your main pointearlyon: introduce your issue
and pointof view in your first paragraph.
Unlike an essay you don’t need a long
introduction.
4. Organize your sentences into shortparagraphs (about
3-5 sentences each): As this assignment
is only 1-2 pages, you should have 3-6 paragraphs.
Do not use one-sentence paragraphs.
5. Make clear any economic reasoning on which your
argument is based.
6. Support each pointwith evidence whether in the
form of a statistic, an example, or economic
reasoning.
THE ECONOMIST STYLE GUIDE
If you want additional advice on writing, see the
StyleGuide of The Economist Magazine posted
on
Quercus. The Economist is widely recognized as
the world standard for economic journalism.
NEWS ARTICLE SOURCES
To find news articles to comment on, try the
following sources. Other sources are also
acceptable.

19. Globe and Mail Report on Business
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/
Financial Post
http://www.financialpost.com/index.html
Toronto Star Business
http://www.thestar.com/business
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/
ECO 105Y L9901 Prof. Avi J. Cohen
Fall/Winter 2019/20 Winter 2020
4
Economist Magazine
http://www.economist.com/
You can access The Economist through Robarts
Library at http://go.utlib.ca/cat/7704354 . Click
on any
link beside the word “Web” to browse by issues,
or use the search box to find a specific
topic.
OP-ED SOURCES
For otherexamples of commentaries you might use as

20. models for you own commentary, or use as
articles to comment on, try the following sources.
Globe and Mail
Report on Business Commentary
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/commentary/
The Star Opinion Pages
http://www.thestar.com/opinion
Financial Post Opinion FPComment
http://business.financialpost.com/category/opinion
Wall Street Journal
The best source for conservative (hands-off)
opinions on economic issues, but you must pay
for access.
http://online.wsj.com/home-page
New York Times Economix Blog
https://www.nytimes.com/section/opinion
Lookfor the economics articles in all sections.
EVALUATION
The final draft of your op-ed will be evaluated on
how well you make reasoned economic arguments

21. and writeclearly, convincingly, correctly, and concisely. In
addition, your participation in the peer
assessment and reflection processes is worth 24
of the 90 marks, based on the rubrics
above for
assessment and reflection.
Here is a sample rubric that will be used in
marking your final draft, worth 66 marks.
A 0 – 100% scale
is rarely used for writing assignments, as it is
impossible to discriminate that finely
between papers.
Letter grades are more commonly used.
Since we have to integrate the score on this
assignment with your othernumerical scores, your
grade
will be based on the marks you earn in each
category of the rubric below. You will receive
a numerical
mark (for Excellent, Good, Competent, Problematic) in
each of the four categories, which will be
added
to get a score out of 66 marks. For
example, if you get the top (Excellent) score
in each category, you
score will be (13+27+14+7 =) 61/66 = 92%.If
you get the second (Good) score in each
category, your
score will be (11+22+12+6 =) 51/66 = 77%.
With the lowest score in each category, your
score will be
(7+12+8+4 =) 32/66 = 47%.

22. ECO 105Y L9901 Prof. Avi J. Cohen
Fall/Winter 2019/20 Winter 2020
5
Excellent Good Competent Problematic Pts
Title, Intro,
Audience,
Background
Information
13
Title/intro get
reader’s attention.
Aimed at
appropriate
audience.
Right amount of
background
information.
11
Clear title/intro, but
could be more
interesting.
Mostly aimed at
appropriate audience

23. .
Some background
information.
9
Boring title and/or
too long/short intro.
Appropriate audience
questionable.
Minimal or excessive
background
information.
7
Unsatisfactory or
missing title and/or
intro.
Wrong audience.
Missing relevant
background
information. 14
Economic
Argument,
Reasoning,

24. Counter-
argument,
Evidence
27
Clearly stated
argument, use of
economic reasoning.
Presents and
effectively refutes
counterargument.
Reader convinced by
at 1-2 solid reasons
or examples.
22
Fairly clear,
convincing argument.
Adequate use of
economic reasoning.
Adequate use of
counter-argument
and refutation.
1-2 reasons or
examples, although
may leave questions
for reader.
17
Somewhat confusing
argument. Weak in

25. applying economic
reasoning.
Missing counter-
argument or
refutation.
Weak or no
supporting reasons or
examples.
Reader left confused.
12
No clear argument.
Confused/no use of
economic reasoning.
Confused/no use
counter-arguments.
Poor quality and few,
if any, supporting
reasons or examples.
Reader unconvinced
and/or put off. 29
Structure,
Closing
14
Logical order of
ideas. Excellent

26. paragraph structure
(very clear topic
sentence & 1 main
idea per paragraph).
Closing gives a clear
and convincing call
to action.
12
Mostly logical order
of ideas. Good
paragraph structure
(fairly clear topic
sentence & mostly 1
main idea per
paragraph).
Closing gives a fairly
clear and convincing
call to action.
10
Somewhat logical
order of ideas. OK
paragraph structure
(topic sentence and
attempt to structure
each paragraph
focused on 1 main
idea).
Closing gives a call to

27. action, although not
well supported.
8
Confusing order of
ideas. Illogical or
inconsistent
paragraph structure
(confusing or missing
topic sentences and
paragraphs no clear
focus).
No clear or
convincing call to
action at close. 15
Quality of
Writing
[minus 2 from
any score for
not meeting
word count]
7
Pleasure to read.
Writing enhances
understanding and
interest.

28. Clear, correct,
concise sentences
with active voice.
Very few errors and
none that impede
meaning.
6
Mostly easy to read.
Mostly clear, correct,
concise sentences
with active voice.
A few errors that
slightly impede
meaning, if at all.
5
Some problems with
clarity, concision, and
correctness at the
sentence level.
Some passive voice
and/or jargon.
Some errors that
impede meaning.

29. 4
Many problems with
clarity, concision, and
correctness at the
sentence level.
Considerable passive
voice and/or jargon.
Many errors that
impede meaning.
8
Total 66
ECO 105Y L9901 Prof. Avi J. Cohen
Fall/Winter 2019/20 Winter 2020
6
Rating (out of 5 stars)
Comments
List 1 thing done well:

30. List 1 thing needing improvement:
Overall assessment – one general paragraph of constructive
comments assessing the op-ed
overall: