Risky business: Cap-and-trade, public health, and environmental justice

Abstract

At the global scale, the advent of a market-based, cap-and-trade approach to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions globally has been met with skepticism by some observers, who raise equity-based concerns over who will bear the costs of slowing climate change. Since California’s passing of the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32) in 2006, the “co-benefits” of climate policy - or health benefits that will accrue with a decline in the harmful pollutants that accompany GHGs (“co-pollutants”) - and how they relate to current patterns of environmental disparity have been added to the debate. A key concern is that while GHGs may fall statewide, the decline may not be evenly distributed, and co-benefits could wind up eluding the low-income communities and communities of color who need them most. This chapter takes an empirical look at the relationship between GHG reductions, co-pollutants, and geographic inequality in California to better understand whether cap-and-trade could actually worsen the pattern of environmental disparity. We find that there is indeed a cause for concern and offer some policy suggestions to insure that environmental justice communities are better protected.