Ambitious bill leads to 40% cut in emissions, models show.

But more action is needed to reach Biden's pledge to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

How will EPA regulate the power sector?

As threats from climate change become more urgent, the US Supreme Court has responded by erecting a new roadblock to effective climate policy. Last month, it struck down the Clean Power Plan, the Obama administration's never-implemented regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from existing power plants. The ruling [West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] is a blow to climate action and could signal the court's hostility to a wide range of future regulations within and beyond the climate and environmental sphere, including those related to consumer protection and worker safety. Although the immediate effects on US climate policy aren't pervasive, EPA now needs to evaluate the emissions-reduction potential and legal risks of alternative regulatory approaches for the power sector.

Optimizing the health benefits of climate change policies using health impact assessment.

Health impact assessment (HIA) is a tool that can be used to examine the potential health impacts of proposed climate change policies and offer recommendations to promote health and mitigate adverse health consequences of such policies. We used an HIA database, a literature search, and expert consultation to identify 12 HIAs of the proposed climate change policies from six states in the U.S. These policies included cap-and-trade legislation, heat-wave and sea-level-rise mitigation and adaptation, transportation policy impacts of climate change, carbon-reduction strategy scenarios, soil- and water-conservation strategies, urban forest canopy for climate adaptation, overheating buildings, and regional transportation plan and sustainable communities strategies. In four descriptive summaries, we found that HIAs foster stakeholder engagement and provide useful health-promoting recommendations. HIAs can facilitate cross-sector collaboration, help optimize the health co-benefits of climate change policies, and raise awareness among decision makers of health impacts of those proposed policies.

Carbon trading, co-pollutants, and environmental equity: Evidence from California's cap-and-trade program (2011-2015).

BACKGROUND: Policies to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions can yield public health benefits by also reducing emissions of hazardous co-pollutants, such as air toxics and particulate matter. Socioeconomically disadvantaged communities are typically disproportionately exposed to air pollutants, and therefore climate policy could also potentially reduce these environmental inequities. We sought to explore potential social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program-the dominant approach to GHG regulation in the US and globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We examined the relationship between multiple measures of neighborhood disadvantage and the location of GHG and co-pollutant emissions from facilities regulated under California's cap-and-trade program-the world's fourth largest operational carbon trading program. We examined temporal patterns in annual average emissions of GHGs, particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, and air toxics before (January 1, 2011-December 31, 2012) and after (January 1, 2013-December 31, 2015) the initiation of carbon trading. We found that facilities regulated under California's cap-and-trade program are disproportionately located in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with higher proportions of residents of color, and that the quantities of co-pollutant emissions from these facilities were correlated with GHG emissions through time. Moreover, the majority (52%) of regulated facilities reported higher annual average local (in-state) GHG emissions since the initiation of trading. Neighborhoods that experienced increases in annual average GHG and co-pollutant emissions from regulated facilities nearby after trading began had higher proportions of people of color and poor, less educated, and linguistically isolated residents, compared to neighborhoods that experienced decreases in GHGs. These study results reflect preliminary emissions and social equity patterns of the first 3 years of California's cap-and-trade program for which data are available. Due to data limitations, this analysis did not assess the emissions and equity implications of GHG reductions from transportation-related emission sources. Future emission patterns may shift, due to changes in industrial production decisions and policy initiatives that further incentivize local GHG and co-pollutant reductions in disadvantaged communities. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine social disparities in GHG and co-pollutant emissions under an existing carbon trading program. Our results indicate that, thus far, California's cap-and-trade program has not yielded improvements in environmental equity with respect to health-damaging co-pollutant emissions. This could change, however, as the cap on GHG emissions is gradually lowered in the future. The incorporation of additional policy and regulatory elements that incentivize more local emission reductions in disadvantaged communities could enhance the local air quality and environmental equity benefits of California's climate change mitigation efforts.

Decision-Making and Environmental Implications under Cap-and-Trade and Take-Back Regulations.

To reduce carbon emissions during production and realize the recycling of resources, the government has promulgated carbon cap-and-trade regulation and take-back regulation separately. This paper firstly analyses the manufacturing, remanufacturing and collection decisions of a monopoly manufacturer under cap-and-trade regulation and take-back regulation conditions, and then explores the environmental impact (i.e., carbon emissions) of both carbon regulation and more stringent take-back regulation. Finally, numerical examples are provided to illustrate the theoretical results. The results indicate that it will do good for the environment once the cap-and-trade regulation is carried out. We also conclude that government’s supervision of carbon trading price plays an important role in reducing the environmental impact. Furthermore, unexpectedly, we prove that if emissions intensity of a remanufactured (vis-á-vis new) product is sufficiently high, the improvement of collection and remanufacturing targets might lead to the deterioration of environment.

The Impacts of Regulations and Financial Development on the Operations of Supply Chains with Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

To establish a micro foundation to understand the impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission regulations and financial development levels on firms' GHG emissions, we build a two-stage dynamic game model to incorporate GHG emission regulations (in terms of an emission tax) and financial development (represented by the corresponding financing cost) into a two-echelon supply chain. With the subgame perfect equilibrium, we identify the conditions to determine whether an emission regulatory policy and/or financial development can affect GHG emissions in the supply chain. We also reveal the impacts of the strictness of GHG emission regulation, the financial development level, and the unit GHG emission rate on the operations of the supply chain and the corresponding profitability implications. Managerial insights are also discussed.