Boston College study the first to link income inequality and growth in carbon emissions at the state level
Chestnut Hill, Mass. (4/6/2017) – Across the U.S., state-level carbon emissions are higher in states where income is more highly concentrated among the wealthiest residents, according to a new study by two Boston College researchers.
On a global level, the connection between national wealth and carbon emissions has been well documented. The study, by sociologists Andrew Jorgenson and Juliet Schor, is the first to link income inequality and carbon emissions within and across the individual U.S. states.
The study found that state-level carbon emissions between 1997 and 2012 were positively associated with the income share of the top 10 percent of a state’s population, according to the findings, published online and in the April edition of the journal Ecological Economics.
Using the 2012 state data for carbon emissions, and based on the statistical analysis reported in the research article, a one percent increase in the income share of the top 10 percent of a state’s population results in tons of additional carbon emissions, led by:
1. Texas – 812,325 to 934,174 metric tons
2. California – 437,035 to 502,590 metric tons
3. Pennsylvania – 284,980 to 327,728 metric tons
4. Florida – 269,030 to 309,395 metric tons
5. Illinois – 261,170 to 300,966 metric tons
6. Ohio – 260,622 to 299,716 metric tons
7. Louisiana – 246,618 to 283,611 metric tons
8. Indiana – 232,886 to 237,819 metric tons
9. New York – 196,234 to 225,670 metric tons
10. Michigan – 184,835 to 212,560 metric tons
South Carolina was the median in the analysis, with income share growth adding 89,175 to 102,551 metric tons of carbon emissions in 2012. The District of Columbia saw the lowest growth in carbon emissions at an increase of 3,251 to 3,738 metric tons for each 1 percent increase in wealth.
The findings come as states are increasingly taking the lead in their own environmental protection. California Gov. Jerry Brown recently pledged the state would maintain its broad environmental regulations, regardless of any federal shift toward deregulation.
“We think it is safe to say, in terms of environmental policy and action, it is going to be much more active at the state level than the federal level,” said Jorgenson, a professor of sociology and environmental studies. “Given the uncertainty of the regulatory environment at the federal level, states like California are saying they will not move away from their policies even if the federal agenda on climate change makes a 180-degree turn from the prior administration.”
Spending power drives carbon-intensive consumerism. But so do the political clout and economic power of the wealthiest individuals, according to Jorgenson and Schor, whose analysis with co-author and BC graduate student Xiaorui Huang employed established economic models that assess the political and economic influence of individual wealth on society.
“First, income concentration leads to concentrated political power and the ability to prevent regulations on carbon emissions,” said Schor, a professor of sociology. “Second, high income consumers are disproportionate carbon polluters.”
The researchers tested the influence of a well-established statistical measure of income inequality, known as the Gini coefficient. That analytical tool reports inequality in a general sense, but doesn’t show where inequality exists, said Jorgenson. So the researchers turned to a measure that captures the top 10 percent of a state’s population.
“What we find here in the context of income inequality and carbon emissions is that it’s about the concentration of income at the top of the distribution,” said Jorgenson. “In our statistical models, where the Gini coefficient is non-significant, across the board the wealth of the top 10 percent is. That tells us that it really is about income concentration at the top end of the distribution.”
In addition to income, the analysis weighed additional factors – some already well-established as contributors to carbon emissions – such as population size, per capita gross domestic product, urbanization, manufacturing as a percentage of state GDP, fossil fuels production, and the level of state’s commitments to environmental regulation.
The researchers drew from a broad array of sources, including statistics from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the League of Conservation Voters, and databases including the U.S. State-Level Income Inequality Database at Sam Houston State University and the internationally supported World Wealth and Income Database.
In addition to advancing the understanding of the factors that force changes in the climate, Jorgenson said the findings contribute to a more expansive view of the harmful effects of income inequality, which has been shown to foster poor outcomes in measures such as health and well being.
“Equalizing incomes has all kinds of potential benefits,” Jorgenson said. “This suggests a holistic view of sustainability, equalizing income distribution within the U.S. can have social and environmental benefits. And they can have a global benefit too, since the U.S. is such a significant contributor to climate change.”
###
Income Inequality and Carbon Emissions in the United States: A State-level Analysis, 1997–2012 (paywalled, so don’t bother with the link)
Andrew Jorgensona, Juliet Schorb, Xiaorui Huangb
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between U.S. state-level CO2 emissions and two measures of income inequality: the income share of the top 10% and the Gini coefficient. Each of the inequality measures, which focus on unique characteristics of income distributions, is used to evaluate the arguments of different analytical approaches. Results of the longitudinal analysis for the 1997 to 2012 period indicate that state-level emissions are positively associated with the income share of the top 10%, while the effect of the Gini coefficient on emissions is non-significant. The statistically significant relationship between CO2 emissions and the concentration of income among the top 10% is consistent with analytical approaches that focus on political economy dynamics and Veblen effects, which highlight the potential political and economic power and emulative influence of the wealthy. The null effect of the Gini coefficient is generally inconsistent with the marginal propensity to emit approach, which posits that when incomes become more equally distributed, the poor will increase their consumption of energy and other carbon-intensive products as they move into the middle class.
h/t to Charles Rotter
It just goes to show that prosperity is directly tied to energy consumption & that any attempt to reduce energy consumption will decrease quality of life for all …. which is why curbing emissions is a non starter
Beat me to it! It takes energy to efficiently produce more stuff that sells and creates wealth in so doing. And it has to happen in that order – more jobs doesn’t create wealth, selling stuff does. Therefore it stands to reason that as wealth is created, more folks get rich(er). Energy is used to multiply the wealth creating effect of making something therefore as more energy is used – for productive (wealth creating) purposes – more wealth flows to those who organized the efforts and expect to be rewarded. Along the way many more people participate and also accumulate – and spend – wealth.
I haven’t done an ‘academic study’, I’ve just watched and listened to rich people. They make noise about raising their own taxes, but congress and state legislatures are also made up of rich people. They make laws to raise taxes, but make sure rich people don’t actually pay more. Since poor people can’t, that leaves the middle class to pick up the tab.
As the rich get richer, the poor aren’t getting poorer. It’s the middle class that’s rapidly losing ground.
The top 1% of income earners pay about 20% of all income taxes.
The top 10% of income earners pay about 70% of all income taxes.
The bottom 50% of income earners pay about 1% of all income taxes.
Juliet B. Schor: “The Overspent American: Why We Want What We Don’t Need”
Karl Marx: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”, where “needs” are defined by the state with the help of socialist college economics professors like Schor and Jorgenson.
hat-tip to Charles Rotter?
Where has he been. We miss you around here you know.
Correlation does not prove causation. Don’t they even know that?
Since that is the basis of the whole AGW scam, I’d say the answer to your question is “No.”
Even worse, the correlation they are relying on is very, very weak.
Lets not confuse cause and effect. More energy consumption leads to a higher standard of living, not the other way around.
This has to be the most contrived version of “Make the Rich Pay!” that I have ever seen.
Damn. We should have voted in Hillary. The resulting wide spread poverty would have stopped global warming.
Annnnd……that’s the point.
I would expect no less from Schor, who is a sociologist and so far to the left she makes Stalin look like a John Bircher. She is a deeply silly woman, who believes she knows something about climate. She is a science illiterate. This is a so what study. What does it demonstrate? And, of course, the point of the exercise is to come up with a left wing solution to a non-existent problem.
One thing I have noticed about left wing academics. They are almost to a man, 100% convinced that they are world class experts in every subject.
Just because you find that states with more income inequality have higher emissions (and I agree with the commenters above that this study proves no such thing) does not mean that lowering inequality will decrease emissions. For aught we know, there is no causal relation between the two phenomena. Just remember the first day of Stats 101. Correlation does not mean or prove causation.
Yawn – “carbon emissions” (as if anyone emitted carbon!) is a completely harmless and probably beneficial side effect of living.
Take any two time dependent processes. No matter that there is no relationship between them. They will appear to correlate, simply because they both correlate with time.
Thus we find that whenever you tune the TV to your favorite sports team, they will immediately be scored on by the opposition. Because it is you that have jinked them. If you stop watching, they will win the game.
You’ve noticed that to.
And as the debt gets worse the lessons are ignored…..
https://www.pv-tech.org/news/chicago-to-become-first-major-us-city-to-use-100-renewable-energy-for-publi
It’s not like they have anything else to worry about.
They city plans to achieve this usage:
“through a combination of renewable energy credits (RECs) and renewable energy procured through the state of Illinois’ renewable portfolio standard (RPS), and on-site generation in Chicago.”
They are addressing the situation with accounting practices and on-site generation?
Will the public schools will replace physical education classes with stints on the treadmills to keep the generators operating. Hmm…might reduce the obesity issue.
This is why we must end prosperity at all costs.
Except for a few elites, of course.
Talking of money to burn, how about a 4.3 million dollar solar road that makes enough electricity to power a single microwave oven:
http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/03/idahos-4-3-million-solar-road-generates-enough-power-to-run-one-microwave/#ixzz4duKKDzAs
“carbon emissions”
Please, don’t insult my intelligence …