Hey guys :) I tried to take on a very academic approach to this one, not sure if it's boring...
this is only my first draft. please give some feedback!!
PROMPT: Stanford students are widely known to possess a sense of intellectual vitality. Tell us about an idea or an experience you have had that you find intellectually engaging.
My pursuit for knowledge led me to Professor Michael Tomz's international relations course at Stanford last summer, marking my first glimpse into the interdisciplinary world of contemporary economic policy making. In addition to the course content, my final project exposed me to the intricacies of establishing well-intentioned economic policy.
I had recently read an article in the New York Times about the deadly consequences of climate change on American national security, drawing yet more emphasis on the need to reduce global carbon emissions. Assigned to write a brief to President Obama offering a course of action relating trade or the environment, I proposed a carbon tariff on products from countries that exceed a level of annual carbon emissions. The tariff would diminish American demand for foreign "carbon products," acting as an incentive for countries to adopt environmentally friendly standards. I decided that I had discovered a key to solving the headache of environmental protection. At least, I did for the time being.
Soon after establishing my policy, however, I discovered that, in this complicated world where global integration often conflicts with environmental protection, well-intentioned solutions often lead to new problems. My proposed tariffs, crafted with the good intention to reduce carbon emissions, would nonetheless portray America as a bully imposing tariffs to hinder developing countries' economic expansion. This perception, in turn, would damage U.S. relations with rapidly developing countries, particularly India and China, and would affect the willingness of economic competitors to cooperate at the Copenhagen negotiations in December 2009. Would America be willing to risk its reputation as a world power and possibly even ignite a global trade war for environment protection? Unlikely.
My summer experience taught me that economic policy involves more than an education in economics alone. Protecting the environment while supporting developing countries is one of the thorniest dilemmas of our time and one cannot hope to dig into any one discipline for a solution. Thankfully, an answer to my tariff impasse came with President Obama's domestic "cap-and-trade" carbon tax plan, which, by proving American dedication to emission reduction, would simultaneously reduce anti-American sentiments abroad. Skillful politics had weaved itself in to save my proposal. As the intricacies among the economic, environmental, and political aspects of our global age become evermore pressing, the task of future economists is to combine these elements in just the right way.
this is only my first draft. please give some feedback!!
PROMPT: Stanford students are widely known to possess a sense of intellectual vitality. Tell us about an idea or an experience you have had that you find intellectually engaging.
My pursuit for knowledge led me to Professor Michael Tomz's international relations course at Stanford last summer, marking my first glimpse into the interdisciplinary world of contemporary economic policy making. In addition to the course content, my final project exposed me to the intricacies of establishing well-intentioned economic policy.
I had recently read an article in the New York Times about the deadly consequences of climate change on American national security, drawing yet more emphasis on the need to reduce global carbon emissions. Assigned to write a brief to President Obama offering a course of action relating trade or the environment, I proposed a carbon tariff on products from countries that exceed a level of annual carbon emissions. The tariff would diminish American demand for foreign "carbon products," acting as an incentive for countries to adopt environmentally friendly standards. I decided that I had discovered a key to solving the headache of environmental protection. At least, I did for the time being.
Soon after establishing my policy, however, I discovered that, in this complicated world where global integration often conflicts with environmental protection, well-intentioned solutions often lead to new problems. My proposed tariffs, crafted with the good intention to reduce carbon emissions, would nonetheless portray America as a bully imposing tariffs to hinder developing countries' economic expansion. This perception, in turn, would damage U.S. relations with rapidly developing countries, particularly India and China, and would affect the willingness of economic competitors to cooperate at the Copenhagen negotiations in December 2009. Would America be willing to risk its reputation as a world power and possibly even ignite a global trade war for environment protection? Unlikely.
My summer experience taught me that economic policy involves more than an education in economics alone. Protecting the environment while supporting developing countries is one of the thorniest dilemmas of our time and one cannot hope to dig into any one discipline for a solution. Thankfully, an answer to my tariff impasse came with President Obama's domestic "cap-and-trade" carbon tax plan, which, by proving American dedication to emission reduction, would simultaneously reduce anti-American sentiments abroad. Skillful politics had weaved itself in to save my proposal. As the intricacies among the economic, environmental, and political aspects of our global age become evermore pressing, the task of future economists is to combine these elements in just the right way.