In fact, we use a simple Gaussian plume model to demonstrate why we really should design policies that do all three at the same time! Only when we meaningfully relocate the center of mass of emissions do we fully mitigate disparities before eliminating 100% of emissions. (4/)

Consider this highway system example (A). Some policies reduce emissions in-place (B), some move emissions away from everybody (C), and some meaningfully eliminate the unfair source distribution (D). While real policies do these together, different regulators tend to control each term. (3/)

In fact, we use a simple Gaussian plume model to demonstrate why we really should design policies that do all three at the same time! Only when we meaningfully relocate the center of mass of emissions do we fully mitigate disparities before eliminating 100% of emissions. (4/)

Consider this highway system example (A). Some policies reduce emissions in-place (B), some move emissions away from everybody (C), and some meaningfully eliminate the unfair source distribution (D). While real policies do these together, different regulators tend to control each term. (3/)

In our discussion of our article, we praised some of California's great rules and regulations that drove (ha!) this reduction in pollution from cars and trucks. In the last year, these policies (such as Advanced Clean Trucks) have been under attack by the federal government 😞.

Our major finding: air pollution from California's on-road fleet (🚗 🚚) reduced dramatically, but the relative inequality in exposure for people of color and residents of overburdened communities remained nearly constant. While we want everyone to breathe better air, we also want to close the gap!

Had a great time at #HEIAC25 in Austin this past weekend! It was wonderful to see familiar faces, meet new folks, and share some of the preliminary work that @chirag-m95.bsky.social and I have been doing. Looking forward to the next one in Chicago ☺️