Who Wins from Emissions Trading? Evidence from California

Article

Abstract

Researchers and environmental policy advocates have raised questions regarding the distributional impacts of emissions trading programs, a.k.a. “cap-and-trade”. While previous research has been careful to identify the causal effect of emissions trading on emissions reductions (Fowlie et al. in Am Econ Rev 102(2):965–993, 2012, hereafter FHM), we argue that existing estimates of differential impacts on demographic groups have relied on unrealistic assumptions regarding pollution dispersion. In this paper, we estimate the emissions reduction due to the RECLAIM cap-and-trade program in Southern California following the identification strategy of FHM, but we relax the assumption of uniform dispersion surrounding point sources. We model the transport of effluents using a state-of-the-science dispersion model to determine the areas impacted by emissions from each source. Importantly, conditional on race and ethnicity, we find that higher income areas receive larger reductions in pollution under cap-and-trade. Furthermore, conditional on income (or poverty rates), we find that Blacks benefit while Hispanics lose relative to whites under RECLAIM.

Keywords

Cap-and-trade Emissions trading Environmental justice Distribution Pollution dispersion 

References

  1. Abadie A, Imbens GW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74(1):235–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baker J (2010) A cluster analysis of long range air transport pathways and associated pollutant concentrations within the UK. Atmos Environ 44(4):563–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Banzhaf HS, Walsh RP (2008) Do people vote with their feet? An empirical test of Tiebout. Am Econ Rev 98(3):843–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banzhaf HS, Walsh RP (2013) Segregation and Tiebout sorting: the link between place-based investments and neighborhood tipping. J Urban Econ 74:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burtraw D, Szambelan SJF (2009) US emissions trading markets for \(\text{SO}_{2}\) and \(\text{ NO }_{x}\). In: Resources for the future discussion paper (09-40)Google Scholar
  6. Cameron AC, Miller DL (2015) A practitioner’s guide to Cluster–Robust inference. J Hum Resour 50(2):317–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Card D, Mas A, Rothstein J (2008) Tipping and the dynamics of segregation. Q J Econ 2:177–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Conley Timothy G (1999) GMM Estimation with Cross Sectional Dependence. Journal of Econometrics 92:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. de Nevers N (2010) Air pollution control engineering. Waveland Press, Long Grove, IllinoisGoogle Scholar
  10. Draxler RR, Hess GD (1997) Description of the HYSPLIT4 modeling system. In: NOAA technical memorandum ERL ARL-224. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
  11. Draxler RR, Hess GD (1998) An overview of the HYSPLIT4 modeling system of trajectories, dispersion, and deposition. Aust Meteor Mag 47:295–308Google Scholar
  12. Draxler RR (1999) HYSPLIT4 user’s guide. In: NOAA technical memorandum ERL ARL-230. NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MDGoogle Scholar
  13. Fowlie M, Holland SP, Mansur ET (2012) What do emissions markets deliver and to whom? Am Econ Rev 102(2):965–993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fullerton D (2011) Six distributional effects of environmental policy. Risk Anal 31(6):923–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fullerton D, Heutel G (2007) The general equilibrium incidence of environmental taxes. J Public Econ 91(3):571–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gebhart KA, Schichtel BA, Malm WC, Barna MG, Rodriguez MA, Collett JL Jr (2011) Back-trajectory-based source apportionment of airborne sulfur and nitrogen concentrations at Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado, USA. Atmos Environ 45(3):621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grainger C (2012) The distributional effects of pollution regulations: do renters fully pay for cleaner air? J Public Econ 96(9–10):840–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grainger C, Kolstad C (2010) Who pays a price on carbon? Environ Res Econ 46(3):359–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Junker C, Wang J-L, Lee C-T (2009) Evaluation of the effect of long-range transport of air pollutants on coastal atmospheric monitoring sites in and around Taiwan. Atmos Environ 43(21):3374–3384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jacobson MZ (2012) Air pollution and global warming: history, science, and solutions, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parry IW, Sigman H, Walls M, Williams RC III (2006) The incidence of pollution control policies. Int Yearb Environ Resour Econ 2006(2007):1–42Google Scholar
  22. Ringquist EJ (2011) Trading equity for efficiency in environmental protection? environmental justice effects from the \(\text{ SO }_2\) allowance trading program. Soc Sci Q 92:297–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sethi R, Somanathan R (2004) Inequality and segregation. J Polit Econ 112:1296–1321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sullivan, DM (2016) The true cost of air pollution: evidence from house prices and migration. In: Working paper. Available http://heep.hks.harvard.edu/files/heep/files/dp69_sullivan.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin – MadisonMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations