Final answer:
The United States' high carbon usage potentially carries greater responsibility for solving carbon emission problems, and a carbon tax could incentivize reduced emissions but must balance economic impacts. The command-and-control policy specifically refers to mandating predetermined technologies.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether the United States has a bigger responsibility to solve the carbon emission problem is rooted in the country's high usage of carbon. The atmospheric carbon issue is global because greenhouse gases mix in the atmosphere, leading to a worldwide impact regardless of the origin of emissions. This makes the responsibility a shared one, but countries with more emissions may feel an ethical imperative to lead in solutions due to their more significant contribution to the problem.
Comparing current total carbon emissions to determine responsibility is misleading because it doesn't account for historical contributions and per capita emissions, which vary significantly between countries. With the United States being one of the largest emitters historically and per capita, some argue it should play a proactive role in carbon reduction.
Regarding a carbon tax, one could argue that it's a powerful economic instrument for reducing emissions by making polluting activities more costly. However, it might also place a disproportionate economic burden on individuals and businesses. The tax would need to be high enough to change behaviors effectively but balanced enough to avoid excessive financial strain. The concept of a carbon tax is complex and requires consideration of both economic impacts and environmental efficacy.
When analyzing policies to reduce CO2 emissions in manufacturing, the first approach that mandates predetermined technologies is the command-and-control policy. This approach contrasts with the second, which involves subsidies for cleaner technologies and gives companies more flexibility to choose how to reduce their emissions.