“Carbon Geography”: Do Per-Capita Emissions Predict Trouble for Waxman-Markey?
The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA) has been voted out of the Energy and Commerce Committee; next it heads to the House floor and possibly for debate before July 4th. Now questions surrounding the bill turn to the magic number—218, the “yes” votes needed to gain the bill’s passage. Ultimately, despite near unanimous Republican opposition to date, geography may be more important than political party in determining where the “yes” votes come from. A recent paper co-authored by researcher from the Brattle Group and UCLA, “Carbon Geography: The Political Economy of Congressional Support for Legislation Intended to Mitigate Greenhouse Gas Production” (pdf), attempts to shed light on the relationship between geography, per-capita emissions and a pro- or anti-carbon regulation stance.
The study found wide variations in the per-capita emissions of carbon. For example, coastal, urbanized states with access to hydro or natural gas have considerably lower per-capita emissions than did midwestern and southern states, which depend on coal generation for much more of their baseload power generation. In fact, extent of coal mining was one of the highest correlating factors for per-capita emissions; sectors like residential and commercial had much less affect on the overall distribution of emissions.
Emissions, Income, Ideology
The researchers investigated not only the geographic distribution of these emissions, but also the correlations between per-capita carbon emissions, per-capita income and ideology (the ideology measure goes beyond environmental votes to encompass all contested votes). Higher emissions correlated strongly with a decrease in per-capita income and an increase in across-the-board political conservatism.
This dichotomy—richer, more liberal and relatively decarbonized areas vs. poorer, conservative, carbon-intensive ones—informs the battle over the ACESA bill. Simply put, those areas that both face greater burdens in reducing emissions (due to more carbon-intensive economies) and less economic wherewithal in adapting to those changes (due to lower per-capita incomes) are far less likely to support making those emissions reductions in the first place. This holds for both Houses of Congress.
What this means for Waxman-Markey
Examining the various data, the authors suggest that three outcomes are most likely in the crafting of emissions control legislation:
- Deadlock and watered down legislation.
- Price offsets for carbon intensive regions or sectors, such as free allocation of pollution allowances.
- Anti-regressive policies to protect sensitive consumers.
Congressmen Waxman and Markey seem to have used the second and third strategies to craft a bill that could be passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. While the study authors list some downsides to these policies (including wealth transfer without changing behaviors), others have disputed this, saying that “freely allocating allowances does not influence firms’ production and emission reduction decisions.”
Interestingly, this study seems to indicate that ACESA has already cleared the most difficult hurdle (at least in the House). According to the study’s examination of the 111th Congress, districts represented by members of the Energy and Commerce Committee—both Democrats and Republicans—have higher per-capita emissions than the average emissions district by district in the Congress as a whole. Districts represented by members of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee have even higher per-capita emissions. Districts represented by House members likely to have critical roles in passage of a bill, such as Collin Peterson Chairman of the Committee on Agriculture, have “carbon geography” scores suggesting that support may be difficult to achieve.
Regional Agreements
Another interesting corollary to the concept of carbon geography is the prevalence of regional greenhouse gas reduction agreements, such as the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), or the northeast’s Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). As the maps developed by the researchers show, not only do per-capita emissions vary wildly across the country, those emissions also vary considerably across sectors. This wide variation in sectoral and geographical emissions means that regional agreements can bring areas of the country with common interests—or sectors with common interests—together to achieve emissions control results that might not be possible under a national standard, where addressing regional disparities takes more primacy.
The Brattle/UCLA research paper suggests that carbon geography may produce political tensions that could prove difficult to resolve. Unless key swing Congressmen decide that ACESA adequately addresses these regional disparities, the bill will have a difficult time passing through Congress. The make-up of the Committee on Energy and Commerce provides at least some hope that the bill will be more palatable for the House as a whole.
For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.


Recent Comments