Health co-benefits of climate mitigation in urban areas

Jack, Darby; Kinney, Patrick L.

doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2010.06.007

Cited by 51 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities may be substantial, but to date, co-benefits studies have had limited usefulness in policy decision making because of variability in methods used, health outcomes assessed, the limited number of sectors evaluated, and uncertainty regarding climate change related damages (Bell et al, 2008, Nemet et al, 2010Jack andKinney, 2010, Groosman et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A wedge-based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities in the United States

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A wedge-based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities in the United States

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other evaluations rely on programs that set emissions caps and technology development expectations that usually assume a constant year-to-year improvement in either energy production or consumption efficiency, or model the implementation of specific technologies into the future which result in production or consumption efficiency (e.g. Jack and Kinney, 2010;Woodcock et al, 2009;Friel et al, 2009). As mentioned above, top down econometric models will determine emissions changes not only due to technology changes but also due to changes in demand based on energy prices and other economic shifts.…”

Section: Model Energy and Emissions Resulting From Alternative Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Computable general equilibrium (CGE) models are commonly used to model economies and incorporate the feedback-like effects of policy-change induced variations in relative prices or income (Cao et al, 2008). Data describing inputs costs and outputs for all modeled sectors is then used to simulate the effect of policy changes on the economy (Jack and Kinney, 2010). Each sector is characterized by energy use technologies, and the cost characteristics and emissions profiles of those technologies are used by the model to determine the economy's energy production and use characteristics.…”

Section: Categorizing Of Co-benefits Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…WTP studies use a foundational principle of neoclassical welfare economics -the substitutability of goods -to provide estimates of preferences for improved health (Davis et al, 2000a;Li et al, 2004;Amann et al, 2011;Bell et al, 2008;Jack and Kinney, 2010). Economists generally agree that WTP is the ideal means of monetizing health improvements (U.S. EPA, 2004).…”

Section: Estimate the Monetary Value Of Health And Other Co-benefitsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Because of the data inputs and computational resources required, many co-benefit studies opt to use simplified linear equations to scale emission changes to changes in the concentration of pollutants at ground level, rather than employ atmospheric transport and dispersion models (Jack and Kinney, 2010).…”

Section: Characterizing Pollutant Dispersionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

International Experiences with Quantifying the Co-Benefits of Energy-Efficiency and Greenhouse-Gas Mitigation Programs and Policies

Williams¹

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Executive SummaryImproving the efficiency of energy production and consumption and switching to lower carbon energy sources can significantly decrease carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emissions and reduce climate change impacts. A growing body of research has found that these measures can also directly mitigate many non-climate change related human health hazards and environmental damage. Positive impacts of policies and programs that occur in addition to the intended primary policy goal are called co-benefits. Policy analysis relies on forecasting and comparing the costs of policy and program implementation and the benefits that accrue to society from implementation. GHG reduction and energy efficiency policies and programs face political resistance in part because of the difficulty of quantifying their benefits. On the one hand, climate change mitigation policy benefits are often global, long-term, and subject to large uncertainties, and subsidized energy pricing can reduce the direct monetary benefits of energy efficiency policies to below their cost. On the other hand, the co-benefits that accrue from these efforts' resultant reductions in conventional air pollution (such as improved health, agricultural productivity, reduced damage to infrastructure, and local ecosystem improvements) are generally near term, local, and more certain than climate change mitigation benefits and larger than the monetary value of energy savings. The incorporation of co-benefits into energy efficiency and climate mitigation policy and program analysis therefore might significantly increase the uptake of these policies. Faster policy uptake is especially important in developing countries because ongoing development efforts that do not consider co-benefits may lock in suboptimal technologies and infrastructure and result in high costs in future years.Over the past two decades, studies have repeatedly documented that non-climate change related benefits of energy efficiency and fuel conversion efforts, as a part of GHG mitigation strategies, can be from between 30% to over 100% of the costs of such policies and programs strategies. Policy makers around the world are increasingly interested in including both GHG and non-GHG impacts in analyses of energy efficiency and fuel switching policies and programs and a set of methodologies has matured from the efforts of early moving jurisdictions such as the European Union, the United States, and Japan.ii ES.1. General Steps for Quantifying Co-benefitsThere are four general steps for quantifying the co-benefits of energy efficiency and GHG emissions reduction policies discussed in this report:1. Calculating emissions differences between base case and alternative policy scenarios.2. Applying air dispersion modeling or simplifications to characterize and compare concentrations of pollutants.3. Estimating impacts for each scenario and comparing them against each other (using, for example, population-adjusted C-R functions to find health impacts).4. Monetizing or otherwise quantifying those impacts in rela...

show abstract

Protocol of an Interdisciplinary and Multidimensional Assessment of Pollution Reduction Measures in Urban Areas: MobilAir Project

Mathy¹,

Bouscasse²,

Chardonnel³

et al. 2019

Springer Climate

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Health co-benefits of climate mitigation in urban areas

Cited by 51 publications

References 44 publications

A wedge-based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities in the United States

A wedge-based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities in the United States

International Experiences with Quantifying the Co-Benefits of Energy-Efficiency and Greenhouse-Gas Mitigation Programs and Policies

Protocol of an Interdisciplinary and Multidimensional Assessment of Pollution Reduction Measures in Urban Areas: MobilAir Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About