Synergies in addressing air quality and climate change

ApSimon, Helen; Amann, Markus; Åström, Stefan; Oxley, Tim

doi:10.3763/cpol.2009.0678

Cited by 30 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[2] Short-lived pollutants (lifetimes around a decade or less) are increasingly being recognized as important contributors to climate change and potential targets for climate mitigation policies [Jackson, 2009]. Methane is currently included in the Kyoto basket of species, whereas other ozone precursor species are typically included in air quality mitigation strategies such as the Gothenburg Protocol [ApSimon et al, 2009]. It is therefore important to know what implications these and future air quality controls will have on climate on different timescales.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How vegetation impacts affect climate metrics for ozone precursors

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] We examine the effect of ozone damage to vegetation as caused by anthropogenic emissions of ozone precursor species and quantify it in terms of its impact on terrestrial carbon stores. A simple climate model is then used to assess the expected changes in global surface temperature from the resulting perturbations to atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone. The concept of global temperature change potential (GTP) metric, which relates the global average surface temperature change induced by the pulse emission of a species to that induced by a unit mass of carbon dioxide, is used to characterize the impact of changes in emissions of ozone precursors on surface temperature as a function of time. For NO x emissions, the longer-timescale methane perturbation is of the opposite sign to the perturbations in ozone and carbon dioxide, so NO x emissions are warming in the short term, but cooling in the long term. For volatile organic compound (VOC), CO, and methane emissions, all the terms are warming for an increase in emissions. The GTPs for the 20 year time horizon are strong functions of emission location, with a large component of the variability owing to the different vegetation responses on different continents. At this time horizon, the induced change in the carbon cycle is the largest single contributor to the GTP metric for NO x and VOC emissions. For NO x emissions, we estimate a GTP 20 of −9 (cooling) to +24 (warming) depending on assumptions of the sensitivity of vegetation types to ozone damage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How vegetation impacts affect climate metrics for ozone precursors

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several studies focus on Europe. Apsimon, Amann, Åström, and Oxley (2009) show that achieving the EU's Climate and Energy Package by 2020 could reduce air pollution control costs by EUR 8.5 billion annually. 7 According to Schwanitz, Longden, Knopf, and Capros (2015) air quality and energy security co-benefits of climate policy could motivate immediate mitigation.…”

Section: Economic Valuationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Lack of policy integration (i.e. taking several goals into consideration simultaneously when designing policy) stands out among explanations (Alam, Hyde, Duffy, & McNabola, 2018;Antwi-Agyei, Dougill, Agyekum, & Stringer, 2018;Apsimon et al, 2009;Aunan et al, 2004;Cifuentes et al, 2001;Jiang et al, 2013;Kok, Metz, Verhagen, & van Rooijen, 2008;Mendez, 2015;Thambiran & Diab, 2011a;Williams, 2012). A mentioned reason for this is fragmented institutional regimes with multitudes of isolated ministries that deal with particular problems (Antwi-Agyei et al, 2018;Keohane & Victor, 2011).…”

Section: Policy Aspectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern over mitigation costs impedes the adoption of the climate policies needed to achieve agreed global warming targets. While costs are important to consider, so are benefits. However, the evidence for climate policy co-benefits, that is, the benefits in addition to avoided climate change costs, is commonly overlooked in policy-making. In many areas, the research is limited and not comprehensively synthesised. This article counters that problem and reviews 239 peer-reviewed articles, selected from 1,749 hits from a literature search covering 'co-benefits' and related terms. Aiming to aid policy-makers and to identify research gaps, we structure, describe, analyse and synthesize the rapidly expanding knowledge on climate policy co-benefits. Improved air quality is the co-benefit category dominating the literature, but studies covering a broad geographic range also focus on diet, physical activity, soil and water quality, biodiversity, economic performance, and energy security. In these areas, co-benefits are shown to be of substantial economic value, regarding air quality often of the same order of magnitude as mitigation costs, in some instances even larger. However, the share of studies quantifying or monetizing cobenefits is limited, and the empirical evidence is small, in particular for areas besides air quality and health. Furthermore, the knowledge is seldom used in policy-making, meaning that decision-making is often biased and overly concerned with costs, leading to suboptimal climate policies and goal failures. Evidently, more research is needed, as well as improved decision-making. Understanding and acting on climate policy co-benefits can promote policies that better mitigate climate change and improve overall welfare. Key policy insights. Climate policy co-benefits in well-researched fields such as air quality and health are large, often equalling or exceeding mitigation costs. . Despite their significance, co-benefits are seldom considered in decision-making, leading to biased policies and goal failures. . In several areas, such as diet and energy security, co-benefits are sparsely researched, but emerging evidence points to high values. . More research is needed, including on how to describe the total value of different co-benefits. . Improved processes, documentation requirements and criteria in decision-making are needed, in order to ensure that political decision-makers consider co-benefits. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…UKIAM has since been extended to include greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental indicators to give a wider view of the policy implications of different control strategies -particularly interactions between air quality and climate policy [ApSimon et al, 2009]. Whereas several other countries have implemented scaled-down version of the GAINS model (http://gains.iiasa.ac.at/) at a national level (http://niam.scarp.se/), UKIAM remains an independent model paralleling GAINS but deploying UK modelling expertise at 5km resolution over the UK,…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling future impacts of air pollution using the multi-scale UK Integrated Assessment Model (UKIAM)

Oxley

Dore

ApSimon

et al. 2013

Environment International

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Integrated assessment modelling has evolved to support policy development in relation to air pollutants and greenhouse gases by providing integrated simulation tools able to produce quick and realistic representations of emission scenarios and their environmental impacts without the need to re-run complex atmospheric dispersion models. The UK Integrated Assessment Model (UKIAM) has been developed to investigate strategies for reducing UK emissions by bringing together information on projected UK emissions of SO2, NOx, NH3, PM10 and PM2.5, atmospheric dispersion, criteria for protection of ecosystems, urban air quality and human health, and data on potential abatement measures to reduce emissions, which may subsequently be linked to associated analyses of costs and benefits. We describe the multi-scale model structure ranging from continental to roadside, UK emission sources, atmospheric dispersion of emissions, implementation of abatement measures, integration with European-scale modelling, and environmental impacts. The model generates outputs from a national perspective which are used to evaluate alternative strategies in relation to emissions, deposition patterns, air quality metrics and ecosystem critical load exceedance. We present a selection of scenarios in relation to the 2020 Business-As-Usual projections and identify potential further reductions beyond those currently being planned.

show abstract

Synergies in addressing air quality and climate change

Cited by 30 publications

References 20 publications

How vegetation impacts affect climate metrics for ozone precursors

How vegetation impacts affect climate metrics for ozone precursors

Climate policy co-benefits: a review

Modelling future impacts of air pollution using the multi-scale UK Integrated Assessment Model (UKIAM)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About