Quantifying air quality co-benefits of climate policy across sectors and regions

Abstract

The overlap in sources of greenhouse gas and local air pollutant emissions creates scope for policy measures to limit global warming and improve air quality simultaneously. In a first step, we derive estimates for the air pollution mortality-related component of the social cost of atmospheric release for 6 pollutants and 56 regions in the world. Combining these estimates with emission inventory data highlights that sector contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution health impacts differ widely across regions. Next, simulations of future emission pathways consistent with the 2°C and 1.5°C targets illustrate that strengthening climate policy ambition raises the total value of air quality co-benefits despite lower marginal co-benefits per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions abated. Finally, we use results from a multimodel ensemble to quantify and compare the value of health-related ambient air quality cobenefits of climate policy across sectors and regions. On the global level, overall air quality cobenefits range from $8 to $40 per tonne of greenhouse gases abated in 2030, with median across models and scenarios of $18/tCO 2 e. These results mask strong differentiation across regions and sectors, with median co-benefits from mitigation in the residential and service sectors in India exceeding $500/tCO 2 e. By taking a sector-and region-specific perspective, the results presented here reveal promising channels to improve human health outcomes and to ratchet up greenhouse gas reduction efforts to bridge the gap between countries' pledges and the global targets of the Paris Agreement.

Analysis of the New Kuznets Relationship: Considering Emissions of Carbon, Methanol, and Nitrous Oxide Greenhouse Gases—Evidence from EU Countries

“…In the long run, it seems to be verified solely under DFE and for the EU 15. Considering carbon emissions as a dependent variable (Table 6) in the short run the DFE model results justify the Ushaped relationship for all country groups (EU 27,15,and 12) and under DOLS this is also validated for EU 12. In the long run only in EU 15 this curve behavior is verified.…”

“…It is based on sectoral dynamics, in which the largest source of anthropogenic emissions is considered. The report points out N 2 O emissions due to agriculture, with this sectoral activity also having a predominant role in CH 4 emissions [ 12 ], with CO 2 emissions deriving mostly from the burning of fossil fuels.…”

The Energy Modeling Forum (EMF)-30 study on short-lived climate forcers: introduction and overview

“…Using the REMIND model, Rauner et al (2020) find that the monetized benefits of the air pollutant emission reductions that occur under GHG mitigation, consistent with a 2°temperature pathway out to 2050, are larger than the cost of the GHG abatement, particularly for China and India. Vandyck et al (2020) find, using the POLES-JRC model, that the total magnitude of air pollution co-benefits increases when climate mitigation ambition is strengthened from 2 to 1.5°. Examining the EMF-30 multimodel results, they find that global air quality co-benefits, when quantified in terms of CO 2 equivalent GHG emissions, range from $8 to $40 per tonne of greenhouse gases abated in 2030, with a median across models and scenarios of $18/tCO 2 e, with strong differentiation across regions and sectors.…”

“…Individual modeling groups expanded on the above results with more in-depth analysis focusing on health impacts. Rauner et al (2020) and Vandyck et al (2020) find substantial monetized co-benefits from the reductions in air pollution that occur under imposition of a climate policy regionally and globally. Using the REMIND model, Rauner et al (2020) find that the monetized benefits of the air pollutant emission reductions that occur under GHG mitigation, consistent with a 2°temperature pathway out to 2050, are larger than the cost of the GHG abatement, particularly for China and India.…”

“…The special issue consists of this overview, three cross-cutting papers that focus on different aspects of the multi-model analysis results (Harmsen et al 2019a, b, Smith et al 2020, and four papers expanding on this topic largely using individual models (Chantret et al 2020;Harmsen et al 2020;Rauner et al 2020;Vandyck et al 2020). The next section provides an overview of the EMF-30 study, followed by a summary of study results, and ending with a conclusion section.…”