IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/teepxx/v9y2020i1p97-110.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Assessing the US sulfur reduction programme in Massachusetts from an environmental justice framework: is there evidence of disproportionality?

Author

Listed:
  • Devon Lynch
  • Chad J. McGuire
  • Joy A. Smith

Abstract

This study reviews the impact of a sulfur cap-and-trade programme on distributions of sulfur from commercial electricity utility generators within Massachusetts from 1990 thru 2014. The results indicate that sulfur reductions occurred throughout Massachusetts that were proportional, including a targeted study area within the state that meets the operational definition of a marginalized community. While the target study community disproportionately produced more sulfur emissions than surrounding communities, the overall reductions through cap-and-trade were consistent throughout the entire state. Other factors, beyond cap-and-trade, are identified as possible reasons why all areas of the state saw proportional reductions. But aside from those additional factors, the results indicate that cap-and-trade resulted in substantial and proportional reductions of sulfur throughout Massachusetts. This result informs more recent studies at the national level in the United States which show cap-and-trade programmes have the potential to create disproportional impacts, particularly when looking at sulfur emission distributions.

Suggested Citation

  • Devon Lynch & Chad J. McGuire & Joy A. Smith, 2020. "Assessing the US sulfur reduction programme in Massachusetts from an environmental justice framework: is there evidence of disproportionality?," Journal of Environmental Economics and Policy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 97-110, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:9:y:2020:i:1:p:97-110
    DOI: 10.1080/21606544.2019.1605623
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/21606544.2019.1605623
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/21606544.2019.1605623?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:teepxx:v:9:y:2020:i:1:p:97-110. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/teep20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.