A Health Impact Assessment of California’s Proposed Cap-and-Trade Regulations

摘要

Objectives. To identify unintended health effects of California’s controversial cap-and-trade regulations and establish health-promoting policy recommendations, we performed a health impact assessment. Methods. We used literature reviews, public data, and local health surveys to qualitatively assess potential health risks and benefits related to changes in employment and income, energy costs, effects of emission offset projects, and cobenefits from the allocation of program revenue. We examined case studies from various communities to find existing social, economic, and environmental health conditions. Results. We found that policy implementation will minimally impact job creation (5(p4) Based on potential health impacts, an HIA should propose policy adjustments to minimize the negative and maximize the positive health impacts. California’s cap-and-trade program is a market-based approach to control emissions using a variety of economic incentives to achieve greenhouse gas emission reductions. Although a cap-and-trade program would account for less than 20% of all emission reductions under AB 32, 6 the cap-and-trade program in California is highly controversial. Many environmental justice advocates have remained critical of market-based emission reduction strategies, particularly because of the potential for variable reductions in copollutant emissions in specific locations and the development of small geographic areas with relatively high concentrations of particulate pollution within the larger pollution control region. Although cap-and-trade is being implemented within the context of existing air regulations that limit many increases in toxic air contaminants and regulated pollutants, differing views exist on the role of cap-and-trade as a tool for broader pollution control and cap-and-trade’s potential to increase pollution in some communities. 7–10 In fall 2009 the Climate Action Team Public Health Workgroup decided that an HIA of cap-and-trade in California would be useful and relevant. 11,12 The HIA was a voluntary, nonregulatory assessment carried out in parallel to the regulatory processes of the California Air Resources Board (CARB), the agency implementing AB 32. The HIA, led by CDPH staff, was the first HIA led by a state agency in California. HIA stakeholders included environmental, economic, health, and industry professionals. CDPH assessed the potential health effects that may stem from changes in employment, energy costs, and community investments funded by cap-and-trade revenue and various offset projects. Although many environmental justice stakeholders were most concerned about local air impacts, the CDPH HIA did not assess local health impacts related to changes in emissions. As part of the regulatory process, CARB was required to assess changes in copollutant air emissions with regard to the cap-and-trade rule. 13 Thus, CPDH did not quantitatively assess air emissions but focused its resources on assessing other health pathways.