原田英語の英検二次面接 ぜんぶ攻略くん
AI採点

英検1級 二次 予想トピック 1 ・ 🌱 環境・エネルギー ・ Should ~?

Should every country introduce a carbon tax?

すべての国が炭素税を導入すべきか。

このトピックを選ぶべき人

税や経済の話が得意で、価格で人の行動が変わる例を出せる人向け。

骨組み理由3つ（どちらの立場でも話せる）

賛成（Yes）で話すなら

I believe every country should introduce a carbon tax, because putting a price on pollution is one of the most effective ways to cut emissions.

  1. price signalA carbon tax makes polluting more expensive, so companies and consumers naturally choose cleaner options. For example, when fossil fuels cost more, firms have a clear reason to invest in energy-saving equipment.
  2. revenue for a fair transitionThe money raised can be used to support renewable energy or to help low-income households. Some countries return part of the revenue to citizens so that the tax does not hurt ordinary families.
  3. level playing fieldIf every country taxes carbon, companies cannot escape the rules simply by moving their factories abroad. The European Union has already introduced a charge on carbon-intensive imports, which shows that a global approach is becoming necessary.

反対（No）で話すなら

I don't think every country should be required to introduce a carbon tax, because it can place an unfair burden on poorer nations and households.

  1. burden on the poorA carbon tax raises the cost of fuel, heating, and food, which hits low-income families hardest. In France, for example, a planned increase in fuel taxes led to large protests in 2018.
  2. developing countriesPoorer countries need cheap energy to grow their economies and reduce poverty. It would be unfair to ask them to pay the same price as rich nations that have polluted for over a century.
  3. other toolsRegulations, subsidies, and investment in new technology can also reduce emissions. For instance, strict fuel-efficiency standards have pushed carmakers to develop cleaner vehicles.

模範スピーチ賛成の立場で2分（265語）

序論Thank you. I'd like to talk about whether every country should introduce a carbon tax. I believe that it should, for three reasons: it changes behavior, it raises money for a fair transition, and it creates a level playing field. 理由1First, a carbon tax sends a clear price signal. When fuels that produce carbon dioxide become more expensive, companies and consumers naturally look for cleaner options. For example, a factory facing higher energy bills has a strong reason to install energy-saving equipment or switch to renewable power. This approach uses the market, instead of telling every business exactly what to do. 理由2Second, the tax raises money that can be used wisely. Governments can invest the revenue in public transportation and renewable energy. In addition, some countries return part of the money to households, so that low-income families are not left behind. In this way, the tax can reduce emissions and protect people at the same time. 理由3Third, a carbon tax works best when every country takes part. If only some countries tax carbon, companies may simply move their factories to places without such rules. The European Union has already introduced a charge on carbon-intensive imports, which shows that the world is moving toward a common approach. 譲歩Admittedly, a carbon tax can be a heavy burden for developing countries. However, the tax rate does not have to be the same everywhere, and richer nations can offer financial support during the transition. まとめIn conclusion, because a carbon tax changes behavior, funds a fair transition, and prevents unfair competition, I believe every country should introduce one. Thank you.

和訳

ありがとうございます。すべての国が炭素税を導入すべきかについてお話しします。私は導入すべきだと考えます。理由は3つ、行動を変えること、公正な移行のための資金を生むこと、そして公平な競争条件をつくることです。 第一に、炭素税ははっきりした価格のシグナルを送ります。二酸化炭素を出す燃料が高くなれば、企業も消費者も自然とよりクリーンな選択肢を探します。例えば、エネルギー代が上がった工場には、省エネ設備を入れたり再生可能エネルギーに切り替えたりする強い理由ができます。これは、すべての企業に細かく指示するのではなく、市場の力を使うやり方です。 第二に、この税は賢く使えるお金を生みます。政府はその税収を公共交通や再生可能エネルギーに投資できます。さらに、税収の一部を家庭に還元し、低所得の家庭が取り残されないようにしている国もあります。こうすれば、排出を減らしながら人々の暮らしも守れます。 第三に、炭素税はすべての国が参加してこそ最もよく機能します。一部の国だけが課税すれば、企業はそうしたルールのない国へ工場を移すだけかもしれません。EUはすでに、炭素を多く排出してつくられた輸入品に課金する仕組みを導入しており、世界が共通のやり方へ向かっていることを示しています。 確かに、炭素税は途上国にとって重い負担になりえます。しかし、税率はどこでも同じである必要はなく、豊かな国が移行期間に資金面で支援することもできます。 結論として、炭素税は行動を変え、公正な移行の資金をまかない、不公平な競争を防ぐので、すべての国が導入すべきだと考えます。ありがとうございました。

想定質疑面接委員はこう突っ込んでくる

QWouldn't a carbon tax hurt Japan's economy, especially manufacturing?

That's a fair point. Admittedly, some energy-intensive industries would face higher costs in the short term. However, the tax could be introduced gradually, and part of the revenue could help those industries invest in cleaner technology. So I still believe it would make Japanese manufacturing more competitive in the long run.

Q：炭素税は日本経済、特に製造業に打撃を与えませんか。
A：もっともなご指摘です。確かに、エネルギーを多く使う産業は短期的にはコストが上がるでしょう。しかし、税は段階的に導入できますし、税収の一部でそうした産業のクリーン技術への投資を支えることもできます。ですから、長い目で見れば日本の製造業の競争力を高めると、やはり考えます。

QDo you think people would accept a new tax like this?

It wouldn't be easy, because nobody likes paying more tax. That's why the government needs to explain clearly how the money will be used. If people can see the revenue going back to households or into public transportation, I think they would be much more willing to accept it.

Q：人々はこうした新しい税を受け入れると思いますか。
A：簡単ではないでしょう。税金が増えるのを喜ぶ人はいないからです。だからこそ、政府はお金の使い道をはっきり説明する必要があります。税収が家庭に戻ったり公共交通に使われたりするのが見えれば、ずっと受け入れやすくなると思います。

QWhich is more effective, a carbon tax or stricter regulations?

I think both are necessary, but a carbon tax is more flexible. Regulations tell companies exactly what to do, while a tax lets each company find the cheapest way to cut emissions. That said, in areas such as building standards, clear rules may work better than prices.

Q：炭素税と規制の強化では、どちらが効果的ですか。
A：両方必要だと思いますが、炭素税の方が柔軟です。規制は企業にやるべきことを細かく指示しますが、税なら各企業が最も安い方法で排出を減らせます。とはいえ、建物の基準のような分野では、価格よりも明確なルールの方が効くかもしれません。

語彙このトピックで使える表現