Equity and modeling in sustainability science: Examples and opportunities throughout the process.

Equity is core to sustainability, but current interventions to enhance sustainability often fall short in adequately addressing this linkage. Models are important tools for informing action, and their development and use present opportunities to center equity in process and outcomes. This Perspective highlights progress in integrating equity into systems modeling in sustainability science, as well as key challenges, tensions, and future directions. We present a conceptual framework for equity in systems modeling, focused on its distributional, procedural, and recognitional dimensions. We discuss examples of how modelers engage with these different dimensions throughout the modeling process and from across a range of modeling approaches and topics, including water resources, energy systems, air quality, and conservation. Synthesizing across these examples, we identify significant advances in enhancing procedural and recognitional equity by reframing models as tools to explore pluralism in worldviews and knowledge systems; enabling models to better represent distributional inequity through new computational techniques and data sources; investigating the dynamics that can drive inequities by linking different modeling approaches; and developing more nuanced metrics for assessing equity outcomes. We also identify important future directions, such as an increased focus on using models to identify pathways to transform underlying conditions that lead to inequities and move toward desired futures. By looking at examples across the diverse fields within sustainability science, we argue that there are valuable opportunities for mutual learning on how to use models more effectively as tools to support sustainable and equitable futures.

Emissions and energy impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act.

Economy-wide emissions drop 43 to 48% below 2005 levels by 2035 with accelerated clean energy deployment.

Cumulative environmental and employment impacts of the shale gas boom.

Natural gas has become the largest fuel source for electricity generation in the United States and accounts for a third of energy production and consumption. However, the environmental and socioeconomic impacts across the supply chain and over the boom-and-bust cycle have not been comprehensively characterized. To provide insight for long-term decision making for energy transitions, we estimate the cumulative impacts of the shale gas boom in the Appalachian basin from 2004 to 2016 on air quality, climate change, and employment. We find that air quality impacts (1200 to 4600 deaths; $23B +99%/-164%) and employment impacts (469,000 job-years ±30%; $21B ±30%) follow the boom-and-bust cycle, while climate impacts ($12B to $94B) persist for generations well beyond the period of natural gas activity. Employment effects concentrate in rural areas where production occurs. However, almost half of cumulative premature mortality due to air pollution is downwind of these areas, occurring in urban regions of the Northeast. The cumulative temperature impacts of methane and carbon dioxide over a 30-year time horizon are nearly equivalent, but over the long term, the cumulative climate impact is largely due to carbon dioxide. We estimate that a tax on production of $2 per thousand cubic foot (+172%/-76%) would compensate for cumulative climate and air quality externalities across the supply chain.

System-wide and Superemitter Policy Options for the Abatement of Methane Emissions from the U.S. Natural Gas System.

This work assesses trade-offs between system-wide and superemitter policy options for reducing methane emissions from compressor stations in the U.S. transmission and storage system. Leveraging recently collected national emissions and activity data sets, we developed a new process-based emissions model implemented in a Monte Carlo simulation framework to estimate emissions for each component and facility in the system. We find that approximately 83% of emissions, given the existing suite of technologies, have the potential to be abated, with only a few emission categories comprising a majority of emissions. We then formulate optimization models to determine optimal abatement strategies. Most emissions across the system (approximately 80%) are efficient to abate, resulting in net benefits ranging from $160M to $1.2B annually across the system. The private cost burden is minimal under standard and tax instruments, and if firms market the abated natural gas, private net benefits may be generated. Superemitter policies, namely, those that target the highest emitting facilities, may reduce the private cost burden and achieve high emission reductions, especially if emissions across facilities are highly skewed. However, detection across all facilities is necessary regardless of the policy option and there are nontrivial net benefits resulting from abatement of relatively low-emitting sources.

Moving away from methyl bromide: political economy of pesticide transition for California strawberries since 2004.

We examine the progress of the phaseout of the use of the pesticide methyl bromide in the production of California field strawberries. This phaseout is required under the Montreal Protocol and has been contentious in this sector, which receives exemptions from the schedule initially agreed under the treaty, and in international negotiations over the future of the Protocol. We examine the various ex-ante predictions of the impacts on growers, consumers and trade patterns in light of several years of declining allocations under the Critical Use provisions of the Protocol and the 2010 approval of iodomethane for use in California and subsequent 2012 withdrawal of this alternative from the US market. We find that, contrary to ex-ante industry claims, the years of declining methyl bromide use have been years of rising yields, acreage, exports, revenues and market share for California growers, even when faced with a global recession and increased imports from Mexican growers who retain the right to use the chemical under the Protocol. This has implications for the Protocol as a whole and for the remainder of the US phaseout of this chemical in particular.