MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216907102 · doi:10.1016/j.erss.2021.102365

Racial inequity in household energy efficiency and carbon emissions in the United States: An emissions paradox

2021· article· en· W3216907102 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy Research & Social Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnergy
TopicEnergy, Environment, and Transportation Policies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGreenhouse gasEnvironmental scienceCarbon fibersEfficient energy useNatural resource economicsEconomicsEngineeringMathematicsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Residential energy use represents roughly 17% of annual greenhouse gas emissions in the United States (U.S.). Studies show that legacy housing policies and financial lending practices have negatively impacted housing quality and home ownership in non-Caucasian and immigrant communities. Both factors are key determinants of household energy use. But to date there has been no national scale analysis of how race and ethnicity affect household energy use and related carbon emissions. In this paper, we estimate energy use and emissions of 60 million household to clarify how energy efficiency and carbon emissions vary by race, ethnicity, and home ownership. We find that per capita emissions are higher in Caucasian neighborhoods than in African-American neighborhoods, even though the former live in more energy-efficient homes (low energy use intensity). This emissions paradox is explained by differences in building age, rates of home ownership, and floor area in these communities. In African-American neighborhoods, homes are older, home ownership is lower (reducing the likelihood of energy retrofits), and there is less floor area per person compared to Caucasian neighborhoods. Statistical models suggest that historical housing policies, particularly “redlining”, partially explain these differences. We suggest three policies to address this emissions paradox: Government financing of home retrofits, particularly in rental units; Increased access to photovoltaics in disadvantaged communities; and Disincentivizes for high energy consumption and emissions. Addressing this emissions paradox provides an opportunity for an equitable decarbonization of the U.S. housing sector.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.978

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it