A Carbon Tax Beats A Vacuum Ban By Slavov Analysis

In his article, A Carbon Tax Beats a Vacuum Ban, Slavov suggests an alternative to the problematic uncontrolled and hazardous release of carbon emissions that pollute the atmosphere, a tax on carbon emissions. He exclusively focuses on the contention around vacuum cleaners and the possible ban of vacuum cleaners using more than 1,600 watts of power, “with the limit slated to be lowered to 900 watts by 2017”. Though seemingly a reasonable ban, Slavov uses logical reasoning, convincing evidence, and strong to have the passage ascertain the magnitude of the problem and those that will be affected, as “the average vacuum cleaner sold… uses 1,800 watts”. Though already a seemingly an imposing problem, Slavov continues and lists multitudinous other regulations throughout the world that could be placed to restrict customer’s choices. From a logical standpoint, he seems to be taking a fallacious and slippery – slope argument (He incorrectly assumes the claim that the vacuum ban will definitely lead to other horrific bans), but later his argument in paragraph two comes to manifest itself as a cautionary effect, rather than what necessarily “would happen”. The audience would react in such a way as to avoid the vacuums in an attempt to stop the …show more content…
Logically, there is a main reason to why vacuums are being banned; vacuums are extremely power-consuming. However, Slavov takes one further step back into the cause, and identifies the real “culprit”, carbon emissions. Rather than place a complete ban on certain energy-consuming products, carbon tax adds an incentive to the consumer and helps the consumer freely choose what they would like; a more powerful vacuum for the steeper price, or a weaker one but at a lower long-term cost. Slovov views this as a major benefit because it still gives the customer an impetus to do the right