Abstract
Market-based policies to address fossil fuel-related externalities including climate change typically operate by raising the price of those fuels. Increases in energy prices have important consequences for a typical U.S. household that spent almost $4,000 per year on electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline in 2005. A key question for policymakers is how these consequences vary over different regions and subpopulations across the country—especially as adjustment and compensation programs are designed to protect more vulnerable regions. To answer this question, we use non-publicly available data from the U.S. Consumer Expenditure Survey over the period 1984–2000 to estimate long-run geographic variation in household use of electricity, fuel oil, natural gas, and gasoline, as well as the associated incidence of a $10 per ton tax on carbon dioxide (ignoring behavioral response). We find substantial variation: incidence from the tax range from $97 dollars per year per household in New York County, New York to $235 per year per household in Tensas Parish, Louisiana. This variation can be explained by differences in energy use, carbon intensity of electricity generation, and electricity regulation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anselin L (1988) Spatial econometrics: methods and models. Kluwer, Dordrecht
Anselin L, Florax RJGM, Rey S (eds) (2004) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools, and applications. In: Advances in spatial science series, p 513, ISBN: 978-3-540-43729-1. Springer
Baker P, Blundell R (1991) The microeconometric approach to modeling energy demand: some results for UK households. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 7(2):54–76
Bernard J-T, Bolduc D, Belanger D (1996) Quebec residential electricity demand: a microeconometric approach. Can J Econ 29(1):92–113
Borenstein, S (2007) Planet’s woes? Blame coal: Texas leads in carbon emissions overall; Wyoming is tops per capita. Associated Press
Burtraw D, Palmer K (2006) “Shifting the burden and spreading the wealth: who bears the cost of climate policy in the electricity sector?” RFF discussion paper 06–52 (July). Available at www.rff.org
California Air Resources Board (CARB) (2002) Reducing climate change emissions from motor vehicles, vol 2004. Sacramento, California Air Resources Board. Available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ccfactsheet.pdf
Dahl C (1993) A survey of energy demand elasticities in support of the development of NEMS. ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/elasticitysurvey/elasticitysurvey_dahl.pdf
Dinan T (2000) Who gains and who pays under carbon-allowance trading? The distributional effects of alternative policy designs. Congressional Budget Office, Washington
Dubin JA, McFadden DL (1984) An econometric analysis of residential electric appliance holdings and consumption. Econometrica 52(2):345–362
Fotheringham AS, Brunsdon C, Charlton ME (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, Chichester
May C, Brown R, Banwell P, Foery K, Offutt S, Wilson A (1996) Increasing the use of energy-efficient HVAC equipment in homes through the use of voluntary and profitable pollution prevention programs. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACEEE summer study on energy efficiency in buildings. American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, Washington
Mufson S (2007) Climate change debate hinges on economics; lawmakers doubt voters would fund big carbon cuts, p A01. Washington Post
Nadraya EA (1964) On estimating regression. Theory Probab Appl 15:134–137
Neumayer E (2002) Can natural factors explain any cross-country differences in carbon dioxide emissions? Energy Policy 30:7–12
O’Neill, BC, Chen BS (2002) Demographic determinants of household energy use in the United States. In: Population and development review 28, Supplement: population and environment: methods of analysis, pp 53–88
Osborn J, Marnay C, McMahon J (1999) Modeling the effects of appliance standards through geographic analysis. 1999 ESRI user conference proceedings. http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc99/navigate/proceed.htm
Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, Gurgel AC, Metcalf GE, Sokolov AP, Holak JF (2007) Assessment of U.S. cap-and-trade proposals, report #146. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, Cambridge, MA
Raupach M, Marland G, Ciais P, Le Quéré C, Canadell JG, Klepper G, Field CB (2007) Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. PNAS 104(24):10288–10293
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) Staff working group (2005). In: RGGI memorandum of understanding. RGGI Staff Working Group, Albany
Rose A, Zhang ZX (2004) Interregional burden-sharing of greenhouse gas mitigation in the United States. Mitig Adapt Strategies Glob Change 9(3):477–500
Silverman BW (1986) Density estimation for statistics and data analysis. In: Cox D, Reid N, Rubin DB, Silverman BW (eds.) Monographs on statistics and applied probability, vol 26. Chapman and Hall, London
Stone M (1974) Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions (with discussion). J R Stat Soc B 36:111–147
Watson GS (1964) Smooth regression analysis. Sankhya Ser A 26:359–372
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
“One issue for U.S. lawmakers is that the impact of greenhouse gas restrictions would vary by region...” in “Climate Change Debate Hinges On Economics” Washington Post, July 15, 2007.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.
About this article
Cite this article
Pizer, W., Sanchirico, J.N. & Batz, M. Regional patterns of U.S. household carbon emissions. Climatic Change 99, 47–63 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9637-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9637-8