Search

Using quarterly temperature and employment data between 1990 and 2021, this paper uncovers nuanced evidence on the impact of seasonal temperature within US counties: higher winter temperature increases private sector employment growth while higher summer temperature decreases it. The impacts of higher temperature in milder seasons, fall and spring, are statistically insignificant. Moreover, the negative impact of higher summer temperature persists while the positive impact of higher temperature in the winter is more short-lived. The negative effects of a hotter summer are pervasive and persistent in many sectors: most significantly in "Construction" and "Leisure and Hospitality" but also in "Trade, Transport, and Utilities" and "Financial Activities". In contrast, the positive effects of a warmer winter are less pervasive. The employment effect of a hotter summer has been more severe in recent decades. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper estimates the effects of humidity and temperature on mortality rates in the United States (c. 1973–2002) in order to provide an insight into the potential health impacts of climate change. I find that humidity, like temperature, is an important determinant of mortality. Coupled with Hadley CM3 climate-change predictions, I project that mortality rates are likely to change little on the aggregate for the United States. However, distributional impacts matter: mortality rates are likely to decline in cold and dry areas, but increase in hot and humid areas. Further, accounting for humidity has important implications for evaluating these distributional effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The impact of international trade on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has primarily been viewed through the lens of emissions embodied in goods, which flow from lower-income to higher-income countries. This trade has been interpreted as allowing the high-income countries to shirk their responsibilities to address the global climate challenge by offshoring emissions. However, international trade may also have an impact on climate through flows from higher-income to lower-income countries, particularly long-lived capital and durable goods that have the potential to avoid future emissions. Given the innovation resources concentrated in higher-income countries and their historic domination of trade in such long-lived goods, this concept may balance the scales to some degree. This paper briefly develops the concept of future avoided emissions and illustrates it with the empirical case of the United States' trade in battery electric vehicles (BEVs) from 2017 to 2020. • Trade in capital goods may reduce future emissions in importing countries. • Such trade may balance trade in goods that embody emissions. • Trade in BEVs is an example, reducing future emissions from conventional cars. • A case study of US BEV trade reveals a surplus in future avoided emissions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores how the transition to a low-carbon society to mitigate climate change can be better supported by a diet change. As climate mitigation is not the focal goal of consumers who are buying or consuming food, the study highlighted the role of motivational and cognitive background factors, including possible spillover effects. Consumer samples in the Netherlands (n = 527) and the United States (n = 556) were asked to evaluate food-related and energy-related mitigation options in a design that included three food-related options with very different mitigation potentials (i.e. eating less meat, buying local and seasonal food, and buying organic food). They rated each option's effectiveness and their willingness to adopt it. The outstanding effectiveness of the less meat option (as established by climate experts) was recognized by merely 12% of the Dutch and 6% of the American sample. Many more participants gave fairly positive effectiveness ratings and this was correlated with belief in human causation of climate change, personal importance of climate change, and being a moderate meat eater. Willingness to adopt the less meat option increased with its perceived effectiveness and, controlling for that, it was significantly related to various motivationally relevant factors. The local food option appealed to consumer segments with overlapping but partly different motivational orientations. It was concluded that a transition to a low carbon society can significantly benefit from a special focus on the food-related options to involve more consumers and to improve mitigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This paper estimates the impact of climate change on the prevalence of criminal activity in the United States. The analysis is based on a 30-year panel of monthly crime and weather data for 2997 US counties. I identify the effect of weather on monthly crime by using a semi-parametric bin estimator and controlling for state-by-month and county-by-year fixed effects. The results show that temperature has a strong positive effect on criminal behavior, with little evidence of lagged impacts. Between 2010 and 2099, climate change will cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft in the United States. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Using cross-sectional data, this paper estimates a national energy model of fuel choice by both households and firms. Consumers in warmer locations rely relatively more heavily on electricity rather than natural gas, oil, and other fuels. They also use more energy. Climate change will likely increase electricity consumption on cooling but reduce the use of other fuels for heating. On net, American energy expenditures will likely increase, resulting in welfare damages that increase as temperatures rise. For example, if the US warms by 5°C by 2100, we predict annual welfare losses of $57 billion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Previous estimates of childhood lead poisoning prevention benefits have quantified the present value of some health benefits, but not the costs of lead paint hazard control or the benefits associated with housing and energy markets. Because older housing with lead paint constitutes the main exposure source today in the US, we quantify health benefits, costs, market value benefits, energy savings, and net economic benefits of lead-safe window replacement (which includes paint stabilization and other measures). The benefit per resident child from improved lifetime earnings alone is $21,195 in pre-1940 housing and $8685 in 1940–59 housing (in 2005 dollars). Annual energy savings are $130–486 per housing unit, with or without young resident children, with an associated increase in housing market value of $5900–14,300 per housing unit, depending on home size and number of windows replaced. Net benefits are $4490–5,629 for each housing unit built before 1940, and $491–1629 for each unit built from 1940–1959, depending on home size and number of windows replaced. Lead-safe window replacement in all pre-1960 US housing would yield net benefits of at least $67 billion, which does not include many other benefits. These other benefits, which are shown in this paper, include avoided Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, other medical costs of childhood lead exposure, avoided special education, and reduced crime and juvenile delinquency in later life. In addition, such a window replacement effort would reduce peak demand for electricity, carbon emissions from power plants, and associated long-term costs of climate change. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]