Advertisement

Sustainability Science

, Volume 13, Issue 4, pp 1167–1174 | Cite as

Inequality, poverty, and the carbon intensity of human well-being in the United States: a sex-specific analysis

  • Andrew K. Jorgenson
  • Thomas Dietz
  • Orla Kelly
Technical Report
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Concepts, Methodology, and Knowledge Management for Sustainability Science

Abstract

Sustainability requires reducing the carbon intensity of human well-being (CIWB): the level of anthropogenic carbon emissions per unit of human well-being. Here, we examine how multiple forms of inequality affect sex-specific measures of CIWB using data for the 50 US states, while taking into account the effects of other socio-economic and political factors. Results from longitudinal models indicate that state-level female CIWB and male CIWB are both positively associated with (1) income concentration, measured as the income share of the top 10%, and (2) the percent of the population at or below the poverty line. Overall inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, has no net effect on male CIWB or female CIWB. These findings suggest that reducing forms of inequality, especially poverty and the concentration of income among the most affluent, are potential pathways to sustainability.

References

  1. Allison P (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ambrey C, Daniels P (2017) Happiness and footprints: assessing the relationship between individual well-being and carbon footprints. Environ Dev Sustain 19:895–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Boyce J (1994) Inequality as a Cause of Environmental Degradation. Ecol Econ 11:169–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cameron C, Trivedi P (2009) Microeconometrics using stata. Stata Press, College StationGoogle Scholar
  5. Dietz T (2015) Prolegomenon to a structural human ecology of human well-being. Sociol Dev 1:123–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dietz T, Jorgenson A (2014) Towards a new view of sustainable development: human well-being and environmental stress. Environ Res Lett 9:031001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dietz T, Rosa E, York R (2009) Efficient well-being: rethinking sustainability as the relationship between human well-being and environmental impacts. Hum Ecol Rev 16:113–122Google Scholar
  8. Dietz T, Rosa E, York R (2012) Environmentally efficient well-being: is there a Kuznets curve? J Appl Geogr 32:21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dietz T, Frank K, Whitley C, Kelly J, Kelly R (2015) Political influences on greenhouse gas emissions from US States. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:8254–8259Google Scholar
  10. Feng J, Yuan J (2016) Effect of technology innovation and spillovers on the carbon intensity of human well-being. Springer Plus 5:346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank M, Sommeiller E, Price M, Saez E (2015) Frank–Sommeiller–Price series for top income shares by US States since 1917. Methodological notes, The World Top Incomes Database. http://www.wid.world/. Accessed 6 Aug 2015
  12. Givens J (2016) Urbanization, slums, and the carbon intensity of well-being: implications for sustainable development. Hum Ecol Rev 22:107–128Google Scholar
  13. Givens J (forthcoming) World society, world polity, and the carbon intensity of well-being, 1990–2011. Sociol DevGoogle Scholar
  14. Jorgenson A (2014) Economic development and the carbon intensity of human well-being. Nat Clim Change 4:186–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jorgenson A (2015) Inequality and the carbon intensity of human well-being. J Environ Stud Sci 5:277–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jorgenson A, Dietz T (2015) Economic growth does not reduce the ecological intensity of human well-being. Sustain Sci 10:149–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jorgenson A, Givens J (2015b) The changing effect of economic development on the consumption-based carbon intensity of well-being. PLoS One 10(5):e0123920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jorgenson A, Alekseyko A, Giedraitis V (2014) Energy consumption, human well-being and economic development in central and eastern European nations: a cautionary tale of sustainability. Energy Policy 66:419–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jorgenson A, Schor J, Huang X (2017) Income inequality and carbon emissions in the United States: a state-level analysis, 1997–2012. Ecol Econ 134:40–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Knight K (2014) Temporal variation in the relationship between environmental demands and well-being: a panel analysis of developed and less-developed countries. Popul Environ 36:32–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Knight K, Rosa E (2011) The environmental efficiency of well-being: a cross-national analysis. Soc Sci Res 40:931–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lamb W, Steinberger J (2017) Human well-being and climate change mitigation. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Change.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.485 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lamb W, Steinberger J, Bows-Larkin A, Peters G, Roberts T, Wood FR (2014) Transitions in pathways of human development and carbon emissions. Environ Res Lett 9:014011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mazur A (2011) Does increasing energy or electricity consumption improve quality of life in industrial nations?” Energy Policy 39:2568–2572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mikkelson G, Gonzalez A, Garry D, Peterson (2007) Economic inequality predicts biodiverstiy loss. PLoS One 2(5):e444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mohai P, Pellow D, Roberts T (2009) Environmental justice. Annu Rev Environ Resour 34:404–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Montez J, Karas A, Zajacova, Hayward M (2016) Explaining inequalities in women’s mortality between US states. SSM Popul Health 2:561–571Google Scholar
  28. Nilsson M, Griggs D, Visbeck M (2016) Map the interactions between sustainable development goals. Nature 534:320–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pickett K, Wilkinson R (2015) Income inequality and health: a causal review. Soc Sci Med 128:316–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pongiglione F (2015) The need for a priority structure for the sustainable development goals. J Glob Eth 11:37–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reddy S, Kvangraven IH (2015) Global development goals: if at all, why, when and how?. SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2666321. Accessed 12 Oct 2017
  32. Rudel T (2009) How do people transform landscapes? A sociological perspective on suburban sprawl and tropical deforestation. Am J Sociol 115:129–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruggles S, Genadek K, Goeken R, Grover J, Sobek M (2015) Integrated public use microdata series: version 6.0 [Machine-readable database]. University of Minnesota, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  34. Steinberger J, Roberts T (2010) From constraint to sufficiency: the decoupling of energy and carbon from human needs, 1975–2005. Ecol Econ 70:425–433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Steinberger J, Roberts T, Peters G, Baiochi G (2012) Pathways of human development and carbon emissions embodied in trade. Nat Clim Change 2:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sweidan O (2017) Economic performance and carbon intensity of human well-being: empirical evidence from the MENA region. J Environ Plan Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1332986 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sweidan O, Alwaked A (2016) Economic development and the energy intensity of human well-being: evidence from the GCC countries. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 55:1363–1369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Tencza C, Stokes A, Preston S (2014) Factors responsible for mortality variation in the United States: a latent variable analysis. Demogr Res 21:27–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Torras M, Boyce J (1998) Income, inequality, and pollution: a reassessment of the environmental Kuznets curves. Ecol Econ 25:147–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wang H, Schumacher A, Levitz C, Mokdad A, Murray C (2013) Left behind: widening disparities for males and females in US county life expectancy, 1985–2010. Popul Health Metr 11:8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-7954-11-8****CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wilmoth JR, Boe C, Barbieri M (2011) Geographic differences in life expectancy at age 50 in the United States compared with other high-income countries. In: Crimmins E, Preston S, Cohen B (eds) International differences in mortality at older ages. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, pp 333–368Google Scholar
  42. World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. York R (2012) Residualization is not the answer: rethinking how to address multicollinearity. Soc Sci Res 41:1379–1386CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Boston CollegeChestnut HillUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations