- 2016年06月07日17:33 来源：小站整理
- 参与（6） 阅读（4929）
Environmental protection should be more than a catchy phrase. Though awareness of its importance runs high, intrusive measures, like a vacuum ban, are ineffective and potentially counterproductive. In this article, the author first voices strong criticism of the currently employed, simplisitc measures, and then proposes a new solution, namely a carbon tax. By employing clear reasoning, strong evidence and effective stylistic elements, the author makes a compelling case for imposing a carbon tax.
The reasoning in the whole passage is clear enough to support the policy of carbon tax. By running through a list of undue restrictions on consumer products already in place, the author highlights the absurdity of the status quo. Then the author explains the rationale behind what he proposes as an alternative measure, which can make consumers either reduce carbon footprint or pay higher prices. At the same time, consumers do not have to sacrifice their freedom of choice. The expected benefits form a stark contrast to the problems associated with the traditional approach mentioned in the first 3 paragraphs. Readers can feel at ease and be satisfied with the new policy. Then in paragraph 6, the author uses comparison and contrasts to illustrate the benefits of targeting a carbon tax. After that, the author cites a poll of leading economists as his support. The author’s logic runs coherently and shows the readers that a carbon tax is more feasible and effective than the current bans in place.
Strong evidence plays an equally important role in this article. In paragraph 6, the term “rebound effects” may sound unfamilar to readers. So the author uses some everyday experience, like the use of vacuum cleaners and cars, to illustrate the concept that because of behavioral responses, expected gains from technologies that increase the efficiency of resource use may in fact lead to reduction. Hence the carbon tax without the “rebound effect” is better aimed. In paragraph 7, in order to emphasize that the carbon tax approach is comprehensive “along every dimension”, the author cites a hypothetical scenario in which a Prius driver that drive a lot could end up paying more than an SUV driver that seldom drives, so that the real culprit, carbon emission, is targeted. In addition, the authoritative ideas from some leading academic economists in paragraph 8 are presented to show the author also has strong theoretical framework and support from academic circles. The combination of these two types of evidence lends credibility to this article.
Furthermore, some stylistic and persuasive elements are employed. In paragraph 2, the author uses parallel structures to show the absurdity and intrusiveness of current bans to make his view resonate with readers. In paragraph 3, there are some rhetorical questions intended to lend force to the author’s argument and bring readers along in his opposition to bans. These questions can strike a chord with readers and win them over to the author’s side. Besides, in paragraph 7, the word choice “real culprit” is worth contemplating. By using this emotionally charged phrase, the author forcefully targets the real problem, that of global warming and climate change. With this metaphor, readers know that carbon tax is urgently needed to address the problem.
To conclude, reasoning, evidence and stylistic elements are woven into a cohesive argument to help convince the readers of the need to support a carbon tax over “a vacuum ban”.