Geographical Disparities in Carbon Emissions and Political Leanings Assessed in New...

Geographical Disparities in Carbon Emissions and Political Leanings Assessed
in New Analysis Highlights Challenges of Implementing National Climate Change
Regulation

CAMBRIDGE, Mass., May 19 /PRNewswire/ -- In a report released Friday by the
National Bureau of Economic Research, economist Michael Cragg of The Brattle
Group and professor Matthew E. Kahn of the UCLA Institute of the Environment
analyze how, absent mitigation, regulation for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions will impose extremely different per capita costs across geographical
regions in the United States. The study documents the resulting challenges
faced by the Obama Administration in passing climate legislation and
demonstrates an important set of constraints for economists to consider when
making policy evaluations or recommendations.

The report, "Carbon Geography: The Political Economy of Congressional Support
for Legislation Intended to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Production," utilizes
several independent data sets to compare the geography of carbon emissions
across the U.S. to the geography of voting patterns on recent congressional
legislation intended to address climate change. The report uncovers three key
facts, which will likely play an important role in constraining climate
legislation:

1. Low-carbon, environmentalist states, such as California, would bear
less
of the incidence of climate change regulation than high-carbon
Midwestern
states. The differences are quite pronounced, with high-carbon regions
emitting five times the amount of carbon than low-carbon areas. Many
of
the carbon-intensive states are also rural, more politically
conservative, and less affluent than the low-carbon regions, which are
typically coastal, urban areas.
2. Based on past voting records for environmental policies,
representatives
from states or counties where per capita carbon emissions are higher
are
likely to vote against climate change mitigation legislation;
representatives whose districts are wealthier and less carbon-intensive
are likely to vote for climate change mitigation legislation.

3. In the 111th Congress, the Energy and Commerce Committee consists
mostly
of members who represent high-carbon districts. These geographical
facts
suggest that the Obama Administration and the Waxman Committee will
face
distributional challenges in building a majority voting coalition in
favor of internalizing the carbon externality.

The findings of this report have direct implications on the need for a climate
policy that controls carbon emissions while addressing the distributional
effects across space of new carbon regulation. It is a political necessity
that any climate legislation be designed to in some way compensate those
states that will bear the higher costs.

"We anticipate that our analysis will motivate economists to consider the
theory of the second-best in helping to design policies to tackle carbon
emissions. They must also take into account the constraints imposed by the
existing carbon emitting infrastructure," noted Dr. Cragg.

The report can be found on the National Bureau of Economic Research's website
at http://www.nber.org/papers/w14963 or at www.brattle.com.

The Brattle Group provides consulting and expert testimony in economics and
finance to corporations, law firms, and public agencies worldwide. Areas of
expertise include utility and regulatory planning, antitrust and competition,
and valuation and damages. For more information, please visit
www.brattle.com.

The UCLA Institute of the Environment generates knowledge and provides
solutions for regional and global environmental problems, and educates the
next generation of professional leadership committed to the health of the
planet. For more information, please visit http://www.ioe.ucla.edu/about/.

SOURCE The Brattle Group

Laura A. Burns of The Brattle Group, +1-617-864-7900, laura.burns@brattle.com