Public discussions of environmentally motivated policies include much confusing talk about job loss. Does job loss in a polluting industry mean that others should endure dirty air or that complementary policies are needed? To clarify the jobs issue, I use concepts from research on international trade policy and its effects and apply them to recent job loss in the U.S. coal industry. The case of coal illustrates the economic adjustment that could arise from an environmental policy as well as the equity, efficiency, and political issues that adjustment raises. I show that for each coal job lost, earnings in the surrounding county fell by nearly $100,000, and that one-third of those who lost jobs did not move and remained unemployed. On average, the losses affected poorer counties and exacerbated income disparities between counties. Concurrently, coal county voters shifted toward pro-coal candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, helping him win Pennsylvania. More broadly, I argue that environmental adjustment assistance of some form may improve the equity and political feasibility of environmental policies that benefit many but harm some. However, the how and when of such assistance requires further study.

中文翻译：

---

我们应该如何考虑环境政策和工作？贸易政策的类比和美国煤炭开采的例证

关于环保政策的公开讨论包括有关失业的令人困惑的讨论。污染行业的失业是否意味着其他人应该忍受肮脏的空气还是需要补充政策？为了澄清就业问题，我使用了有关国际贸易政策及其影响的研究中的概念，并将其应用于美国煤炭行业最近的失业中。煤炭的案例说明了环境政策可能引起的经济调整以及调整带来的公平，效率和政治问题。我表明，每失去一份煤炭工作，周围县的收入就会减少近100,000美元，而失去工作的人中有三分之一没有动弹，而且仍然失业。平均而言，损失影响了较贫穷的县，加剧了县之间的收入差距。同时，煤炭县选民在2016年美国总统选举中转向亲煤炭候选人唐纳德·特朗普（Donald Trump），帮助他赢得了宾夕法尼亚州。更广泛地说，我认为某种形式的环境调整援助可能会改善环境政策的公平性和政治可行性，这种环境政策对许多人有利，但对某些人却有害。但是，如何以及何时提供这种援助需要进一步研究。