Практика Shadowing: IASNR 2022 Conference Presentation - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Hi, my name is Chad McGuire, and this is my presentation on an analysis of sulfur emission reductions in the United States between 1990

and 2014 using a disproportionality framework.

In terms of an overview, uh, There is a regulatory natural experiment in sulfur emissions in the United States that we can look at,

and it began in 1990 when the United States federal government passed the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990.

And the regulatory mechanism that creates this natural experiment is the cap and trade program.

Cap and trade has been used in a number of ways.

globally by different governments, but here in the United States in particular, cap and trade was the main mechanism that was used in the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments.

And as a matter of using that cap and trade framework, we can review reductions over time.

between high and low socioeconomic status communities.

So using the cap and trade scenario, we can look at the effect of cap and trade.

in terms of its

proportionality or disproportionality between communities and what that means quite simply is

that as we see the cap

and trade play itself out over time since 1990 we can

look at areas where emission levels of certain particular sulfur as an example of a pollutant

that has an impact on human well -being we can look at those the numbers of the proportions

of sulfur emissions over time since 1990

and we can see relatively speaking where they diminished

and where they might not have diminished as quickly in certain communities so we can look for evidence of disproportionality so

Operational characteristics are we can look for, for example, for the socio -economic status communities, higher unemployment, lower educational attainment,

higher consumption of means tested public services and offering greater demographic diversity.

These characteristics are the things

that we would look at to determine low socio -economic status communities

when we're looking at the relative changes in sulfur emissions from the cap and trade program between different geographic regions.

And disproportionality itself, we can operationally or operationally defined as evidence of distributional effects of environmental policies.

So where we see some change, some variance in reductions, let's call that, reductions of sulfur emissions over time.

So for cap and trade in particular, the cap, we can look at as a government mandate and then the trade market forces.

So we have the opportunity for distributional effects because the cap part is a government mandate.

That's a requirement.

So we cap total amounts of emissions, but then the trade can allow us to see how those changes,

those reductions as the cap reduces total emissions, where there might be changes in one area versus another.

You might actually see increases in some areas where you see substantial reductions in others.

And then you'd look at what those areas look like, what that community looks like, and whether or not it shows signs of,

as we've defined operationally here, low socioeconomic status.

Michael Shachm: And so, as a matter of overall CAP is reduced government function, but what is the distribution of emissions and trading phase over time between socio economic status communities.

- Yeah.

For the purposes of the study, in particular.

located in Massachusetts and so looked at Massachusetts communities instead of a nationwide

because there's too much variance say between states it's too difficult

so we looked at communities at the county level

and then specific communities largest emitters within counties so we compared those counties

and the communities within those counties

and Massachusetts as a way to try to determine disproportionality the big questions what factors may be influencing the observance or

What factors might be influencing it?

What policy implications arise from this analysis?

And in terms of the research focus framework questions that we have derived from previous work, Collins, Munos, and Zsa Zsa in particular,

whether the producer disproportionality are present across the study area.

So do we find disproportionality at all between these Massachusetts communities, these let's call them county level communities.

And if disproportionality are found, what is the demographic makeup of those communities, and are they consistent?

So if we do find disproportionality between communities, How do those communities look from a demographic standpoint?

In terms of data and results, so here we have a table that we derived from looking at the different sulfur emissions,

and these are the years in which we can find changes

and new updates in terms of the United States Environmental Protection Agency national emissions inventory.

So these are the years that we can find between 1990 and 2014 where we're given these specific particular changes.

What we find is that in Massachusetts, if you look, you can see that in 1990, these are in the millions, so it's 2 .33 million.

And we see a reduction down to 3544 metric tons, which is significant.

So we see an overall significant reduction.

The cap and trade program was very effective in reducing between 1990 and 2014 the amount of sulfur overall in Massachusetts. than others.

And so we can look at those counties

and make a determination of the levels of reduction from these periods of time from 1990 to 1996,

from 1996, 1997, so on and so forth, and look at how those reductions.

We can see there were substantial overall reductions between 1990 and 2014,

but the question is, what does the path look like between these years where the measurements were made, and what does the path look like in relationship to that?

relating these counties to what we have identified as Bristol County

as our low socioeconomic status community these are the five counties within Massachusetts

that have the largest relatively large levels we excluded Suffolk County for various reasons

but it was basically done within between 1990 and 1996 but

which had the largest levels and we can see distribution patterns

and compare them honestly between each other of these five counties over the period of time

The reason Bristol County is chosen as our low socioeconomic status or the community, the relative community with disproportionality is because relative to the other,

counties as you can see here in the scatter plots you

can see the other counties bristol county shows relative to its amount of emissions here the tons of sulfur emissions

and we can look at a certain demographics that we're able to get which includes population unemployment rate percent below poverty

and percent of high school graduate or higher.

We see the Bristol County basically contains these demographic indicators in terms of overall poverty level,

overall percentage relative to the other counties.

Bristol County has higher emissions, relative to the other counties, and it tends to be,

it tends to have higher unemployment rates and lower education rates, the things that you would indicate to be a low socioeconomic status community in relationship to these other areas.

So that's why Bristol County ends up being our county of choice.

And so when we sort of look at these distribution patterns over time of those years that we discussed,

1990, 96, 97, so these years where the EPA inventory looked at the sulfur emissions, we can see we have substantial reductions,

relatively speaking, and including Bristol County, which I think, excuse me, which we can see here in the yellow Bristol County's reductions.

here.

So effectively what's happening is that the burden, if you think about it this way, as you're reducing sulfur emissions, if you're not doing technological advances,

if you're not going to put in expensive scrubbers to remove the sulfur, you're probably going to start shutting down and transitioning from coal to other methods of generating electricity,

where most of the sulfur emissions come from is the burning of coal.

And so what's happening is the other counties that That's Bristol County.

They're either shutting down or they're reducing pretty substantially within about a decade or so,

and Bristol County is taking the sort of brunt of that.

So if there's a need for still generating electricity using coal, relatively speaking, a cheap version for the state.

writ large that you're going to see Bristol County.

The evidence shows that Bristol County did not have the same rates in between these years in particular, the same rates of reductions.

And you can see that

if you look at Massachusetts here in the green relative to Massachusetts reductions relative to Bristol County, its reductions.

You see again, there's this burden

that Bristol County seems to be taking on relative to the

rest of the state in terms of maintaining a certain level of emissions.

What that means effectively if we look at this is that the cap and trade can be effective at pollution reduction.

It certainly was in Massachusetts.

100

It was nationally, you know, in terms of reducing emissions significantly sulfur, which carries all kinds of important implications,

101

but cap sets mandatory target.

102

which is important because you can lower the cap every year, every period of time.

103

And then the trade allows for important market incentives and choice.

104

So it allows for a lot of room in terms of how generators, those that burn sulfur, coal, that contain sulfur, how they're going to meet that objective.

105

But the process is far from equal.

106

And that's what the evidence shows us in this study.

107

So the evidence is the burden of reduction tends to fall disproportionately on marginalized communities.

108

In our case, Bristol County bore most of the burden of reducing.

109

It same reduction, the same levels of reduction as the other communities.

110

And so that's an important point for the trade portion, at least, because it's not equal amongst communities.

111

And so we must understand this reality when we're thinking about policy design and implementation.

112

We must look beyond the ultimate goals and see how the process of obtaining those goals, what happens along the way.

113

And that's really important to think about from a policy standpoint when we thinking about the role of environmental policies.

114

That's all.

115

I hope you enjoyed.

116

Thank you very much.

117

Thank you.

Что такое техника Shadowing?

Shadowing — это научно обоснованная техника изучения языка, изначально разработанная для подготовки профессиональных переводчиков и популяризированная полиглотом доктором Александром Аргуэльесом. Метод прост, но эффективен: вы слушаете аудио на английском от носителей языка и немедленно повторяете вслух — как тень, следующая за говорящим с задержкой в 1–2 секунды. В отличие от пассивного прослушивания или грамматических упражнений, Shadowing заставляет мозг и мышцы рта одновременно обрабатывать и воспроизводить реальные речевые паттерны. Исследования показывают, что это значительно улучшает точность произношения, интонацию, ритм, связную речь, понимание на слух и беглость речи — что делает его одним из самых эффективных методов для подготовки к IELTS Speaking и реального общения на английском.

Практика Shadowing: IASNR 2022 Conference Presentation - Изучайте разговорный английский по видео

Об этом уроке

Что такое техника Shadowing?