Project 2 Peer Review- Paul Fernandez Who is the audience and what is the purpose for this piece of writing? Offer a suggestion if either the audience or purpose is not clearly established. The letter is addressed “To whom it may concern” meaning the letter is addressing almost anyone who is pertinent to the topic at hand. The purpose of the writing is to discuss carbon tax as possible solutions for reparations for citizens suffering from the effects of pollution. Discerning your purpose was difficult to do from the letters introduction but I was able to figure out your problem as I continued to read. What are 2-3 strengths of the draft? Why? -the author does an excellent job of portraying the problem as a serious one and one that needs addressing asap -The author does a good job at making the problem applicable to not just one community but all communities individually and the world as a whole. What are 5-6 areas/criteria that need to be revised? Why? Offer specific examples/suggestions for improvement for each area/criterion that you have identified. -A reference page -connect ideas with transition words, seems slightly choppy -when discussing the best solution relate back to other possible solutions previously discussed and why this idea is better. -don’t end your memorandum so abruptly, give a quick recap of focal points you want the audience to focus on as they finish reading -Connect your introduction more clearly to the main body or find a way to clearly state your problem. Which medium and genre did the writer choose for presenting his/her work? Is the medium and genre appropriate, or would you suggest an alternative? I believe the medium the author chose was a memorandum which seemed appropriate given the topic up for discussion however I believe it should have been directed at a more specific group or audience. What questions do you have for the writer? I have no lurking questions for the author, just a desire to see their revisions and how they progress within the assignment. What has this draft taught you about what you should do, or shouldn’t do, in your own draft? This draft has taught me to be more clear about the problem and solutions I am discussing as well as to write my essay as if I were trying to target a specific group in order to make it more effective. To: Whom it may concern From: Paul Fernandez Date: February 15, 2018 Subject: Carbon Tax A negative externality is defined as a cost that is suffered by a third party due to an economic transaction. Pollution is an example of a negative externality, which would be created by places such as factories or cars. What would make pollution a negative externality is that people that would live around these factories would suffer from ill health. According to Perera (2017), “In many studies, exposure to air pollutants, including PM2.5, O3, and NO2, in childhood has been clearly linked to reduced lung function.” (p. 143). Another negative externality that pollution would cause is climate change. According to Perera (2017), “The direct effects of climate change include increased illness, injury, and deaths from heat stress, floods, drought, and increased frequency of intense storms.” (p. 143). Considering these negative externalities that pollution causes, we must take its costs into account and reduce it so that we could create a more socially optimal future. Alternate Solutions One proposed solution to pollution is to tax pollution according to cost per case or death averted. Although this solution sounds like an efficient way to reduce pollution to a manageable level, it has unintended consequences when put into practice. According to Perera (2017), “For example, the value per life saved and the costs of healthcare in the United States are significantly higher than in most other countries and may not translate to lower-income countries.” (p. 145). Therefore, to tax pollution according to cost per case or death averted would only pass the cost of the pollution to people with lesser income. This makes this solution lacking in equity and would not be the solution that most people would look for. Another currently used solution in countries such as Norway is to tax only the domestic demand for fossil fuels in order to reduce pollution. However, according to (Fæhn et al., 2017) they, “... find that a majority of measures should be implemented on the supply side, that is, by reducing Norwegian extraction of oil” (p. 96) and “...about 2/3 of the emission reductions should come through supply side measures.” (p. 77). Therefore, the burden of the tax must be shared by both suppliers and consumers in order to most efficiently reduce pollution. Best Solution I believe that the best solution that would reduce pollution to a manageable level is a carbon tax. This solution is most likely the most effective. According to (Pereira & Pereira, 2017), when a carbon tax of 15 Euros per ton of CO2 is in place in Portugal the average percent change of carbon dioxide emissions created by fossil fuels is 9% (Pereira & Pereira, 2017, p. 1842). This solution has some detractors. People would tend to be against carbon tax especially if they think that the government care about them. According to (Baranzini & Carattini, 2017), “When earmarking is not specified, we expect people distrusting the government to be less likely to approve carbon taxes.” (p. 199). A carbon tax could be seen as a cash grab by the government instead of a genuine solution to an actual problem. This distrust could be addressed by providing incentive for people to trust the government’s judgement on carbon tax, such as revenue recycling the received taxes as dividend payouts to citizens. According to Halstead, “The answer is to return all the money raised directly to citizens, in the form of equal monthly dividends. This would transform an unpopular carbon tax into a popular and populist solution, and it would also solve the underlying psychological barrier that we discussed, by giving everyone a concrete benefit in the here and now.” Carbon dividends will provide a short term incentive for people to support carbon tax, along with the long term incentive of better health and environment. Another problem that the carbon tax that would be attributed to carbon tax is that it makes the economy less competitive. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment