Inequality and Environmental Policy: Essays on Climate Adaptation, Health, and Renewable Energy

Abstract

This dissertation covers three topics related to inequality and environmental policy, covering, in particular, the distributional effects of climate change, the health effects of pesticides, and solar panel subsidies. Chapter 1 provides a summary of the work. Chapter 2, co-authored with John Morehouse, examines the distributional effects of climate change. We use a quantitative spatial equilibrium model to simulate the effects of climate change, allowing households to adapt via migration and energy use. We find that low-income and minority households have larger welfare losses from climate change to date and that those disparities in welfare effects will widen under future emissions scenarios. We then simulate the effects of a place-based, means-tested subsidy inspired by an Inflation Reduction Act program. Targeting subsidies to high-climate-exposure cities does a good job of helping the people who are worst off from a climate change perspective. However, it also incentivizes households to move into those high-exposure areas.

Chapter 3, co-authored with Edward Rubin, quantifies the causal effect of a common herbicide, glyphosate, on perinatal health. To identify this causal effect, we leverage a natural experiment resulting from the release of genetically modified seeds designed to be resistant to glyphosate. We pair temporal variation in glyphosate use induced by the release of genetically modified seeds with spatial variation in the suitability of land for growing crops with genetically modified varieties (corn, soy, and cotton). We find glyphosate causes significant decreases in birthweight and gestation length and increases in the probability of low birthweight. We find considerable heterogeneity in this effect, with the most at-risk births having the largest effects.

Chapter 4, co-authored with Mark Colas, determines the optimal spatial distribution of subsidies for residential solar panels. The benefits of solar panel subsidies vary considerably across space due to differences in sunlight, the dirtiness of the electricity grid, and household installation behavior. We pair a model of household solar panel installation behavior with a model of the electricity grid. This model allows us to quantify the optimal schedule of subsidies across states. We find that the current system of subsidies leads to a severe spatial misallocation of solar installations. Additionally, the overall level of subsidies is too high to be justified by the environmental benefits alone. This result suggests that there could be gains from reallocating funds to alternative programs.

This dissertation includes both previously published and unpublished and co-authored material.