Cobenefits of Air Pollution Control and Climate Mitigation Strategies

1
Co-benefits of Air Pollution Control and
Climate Mitigation Strategies

• Markus Amann
• International Institute for Applied Systems
  Analysis

2
One dilemma for climate negotiations

• Climate change requires a global and long-term
  perspective. Much scientific analysis is
  conducted with this focus, presumably with the
  objective to inform the policy process.
• Policy negotiations are predominantly concerned
  about short- to medium-term and location-specific
  (national) aspects, i.a., in terms of
• costs,
• benefits,
• etc.

3
Quantification of costs and benefits

• Very little (internationally consistent,) solid,
  country-specific information on mitigation costs.
• Quantification of local climate benefits is
  inherently difficult due to scientific
  uncertainties.
• But many GHG mitigation measures are linked with
  other policy areas, and contribute to or
  counteract other policy objectives, e.g.
• Energy security
• Foreign trade
• Economic development, sustainable development
• Technology policy
• Air pollution, etc.
• How well can we quantify these co-benefits, and
  how far would they justify mitigation measures?

4
Findings from a literature review for IPCC on
interactions between air pollution and GHG
mitigation

• A review of 50 papers for IPCC AR4 WGIII report
  of the co-benefits of GHG mitigation and AP
  control on
• Health impacts
• Agricultural and ecosystems impacts
• Air pollution control costs

5
Physical co-benefits of GHG mitigation on health

• Studies for North America, Europe, Asia, Latin
  America show
• For moderate (-10-20 CO2) mitigation strategies
  
• 10-20 less SO2 and 5 less NOx and PM
  emissions
• Associated gains in health impacts depend on
• Contribution of source sector to population
  exposure
• Level of air pollution control.
• Studies estimate
• several 10.000 avoided cases of premature deaths
  per year for Asia and Latin America,
• several 1.000 cases for Europe and North America

6
Economic co-benefits of GHG mitigation on health

• Economic evaluation of these health benefits
• Benefits range from 7 /t C (USA) to several 100
  /t C (China)
• Benefits depend on
• Pollutants considered (only SO2 and NOx, vs. PM
  and O3)
• Source sector (households vs. large power plants)
• Level of applied pollution control
• Monetary value attributed to health/human life
• Benefits make up between 50 and 400 of C
  mitigation costs
• Macro-economic impacts (including economic
  feedbacks)
• Potential for mitigation without net loss in
  welfare
• India 13-23
• China 15
• Chile 20 of CO2 emissions from business as
  usual in 2010
• Inclusion of non-CO2 gases (CH4) will increase
  these potentials

• Economic evaluation of these health benefits
• Benefits range from 7 /t C (USA) to several 100
  /t C (China)
• Benefits depend on
• Pollutants considered (only SO2 and NOx, vs. PM
  and O3)
• Source sector (households vs. large power plants)
• Level of applied pollution control
• Monetary value attributed to health/human life
• Benefits make up between 50 and 400 of C
  mitigation costs

7
Co-benefits of GHG mitigation on agriculture and
ecosystems via reduced ozone

• China
• Monetary benefits of increased agricultural
  productivity are comparable to health benefits
  (17 C mitigation without net welfare loss).
• Important social implications
• Agricultural benefits bring welfare gains of C
  mitigation for poor rural households,
• Health benefits apply more to urban population
• Ecosystems damage
• C mitigation reduces air pollution damage to
  ecosystems.
• Although ecosystems damage is/has been an
  important policy driver, the physical and
  economic quantification is still difficult.
• Extent and location of co-benefits on ecosystems
  depend on flexible instruments (C trading)

8
GHG mitigation reduces air pollution control costs

• In industrialized countries with stringent air
  quality legislation, GHG mitigation reduces
  compliance costs.
• EU
• 10-20 lower compliance costs for 2010 EU
  emission ceilings.
• Extent depends on use of flexible instruments.
• In the long-term (2100), an integrated strategy
  can achieve climate policy objectives at no
  additional costs compared to an air pollution
  only case.
• USA
• A 31 CO2 reduction would drive price of SO2
  allowances to zero.
• 25 /t C carbon tax would save 4-7 /t C for air
  pollution control.
• These savings are immediate, uncontroversial and
  benefit those actors who have to invest into
  mitigation.
• They will gain increasing importance in
  developing countries.

9
Conclusions

• A wide body of literature reveals important
  co-benefits on health and agriculture and direct
  cost-savings from the interactions between GHG
  mitigation and air pollution control.
• Together with a full assessment of national
  (medium-term) mitigation costs, these benefit
  estimates could provide a more comprehensive
  basis for further negotiations.