This dissertation considers how different segments of the American population are contributing to climate change via their consumption patterns, and how each of these segments of the population will in turn be impacted by measures implemented to address climate change, particularly an emissions cap-and-trade policy. This is important because the prevailing scientific evidence suggests anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emission is largely responsible for climate change. This in turn means it will likewise require an ‘anthropogenic response’ (climate change policy) to address this daunting challenge. The dissertation is organized into three independent but thematically related refereed journal-style essays.
The first essay, reported in Chapter 2, considers the relationship between environmental-friendliness and social class on the one hand and ecological footprints on the other. In this essay, the relative strengths of the effects of these variables (environmental-friendliness and social class location) on ecological footprints are assessed. The second essay, reported in Chapter 3, considers how energy efficiency improvement and social class are related to residential energy (electricity and natural gas) consumption. This essay also considers the comparative salience of energy efficiency improvement and social class as covariates of residential energy consumption. The final essay uses data on the 2005/2006 increase in energy prices as a ‘natural experiment’ to model how potential adverse effects of climate change policy (such as increased energy and other commodity prices) will be distributed across the social spectrum. The paper assumes that climate change policy, especially an emissions cap-and-trade policy, will lead to increased energy costs, at least temporarily.
The data suggest respondents from wealthier households (measured by higher home values), those with higher education, and respondents from higher income households were more likely to have higher ecological footprints. The analysis also suggests that wealthier households significantly consume more electricity and natural gas than less wealthy households (Chapters 3). Further, wealthier households seem to consume more embodied energy than the less wealthy ones. These findings simply suggest that households and individuals that are socioeconomically well off contribute significantly more to climate change via their consumption patterns and levels than socioeconomically disadvantaged households and individuals.
Besides being more likely to suffer disproportionately from the direct effects of climate change, results from this study suggest that economically disadvantaged and other vulnerable subpopulations (such as women, seniors, children, and rural residents) stand the highest risk of suffering from potential adverse consequences of climate change policy. I relate these findings to the theoretical concept of environmental justice, proposing some new perspectives for understanding and applying the concept.