Advertisement

Health Co-benefits of Climate Mitigation Policies: Why Is It So Hard to Convince Policy-Makers of Them and What Can Be Done to Change That?

  • Anil MarkandyaEmail author
  • Jon Sampedro
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Springer Climate book series (SPCL)

Abstract

The health co-benefits of mitigation strategies across different regions of the world are compared with the mitigation costs using state-of-the-art modelling and health benefit estimation methods. Global co-benefits exceed mitigation costs for both the 2 °C and 1.5 °C targets. At the national/regional level the co-benefits only exceed the mitigation costs of India. In other regions they still make a major contribution to reducing overall costs. Given these findings the chapter examines why co-benefits have played a small role in climate policy. Reasons include interpretations of the value of the health co-benefits, especially premature mortality, not accounting for some important non-health economic co-benefits and the asymmetry between diffuse co-benefits versus concentrated mitigation costs. The chapter offers some ways of addressing these factors to make co-benefits more central in climate policy.

Keywords

Health Co-benefits Mitigation costs Climate policy 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Arrow KJ et al (2012) How should benefits and costs be discounted in an intergenerational context? RFF DP 12–53. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Bishop KC, Ketcham JD, Kuminoff NV (2018) Hazed and confused: the effect of air pollution on dementia. No. w24970. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bowe B, Xie Y, Li T, Yan Y, Xian H, Ziyad Al-Aly Z (2018) The 2016 global and national burden of diabetes mellitus attributable to PM2.5 air pollution. Lancet Planet Health 2:e301–e312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burnett RT et al (2014) An integrated risk function for estimating the global burden of disease attributable to ambient fine particulate matter exposure. Environ Health Perspect.  https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett RT et al (2018) Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115:9592–9597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen AJ et al (2017) Estimates and 25-year trends of the global burden of disease attributable to ambient air pollution: an analysis of data from the global burden of diseases study 2015. Lancet 389(10082):1907–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cropper M, Khanna S (2014) How should the world bank estimate air pollution damages? RFF DP 14–30. Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  8. Edenhofer O et al (2014) Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. IPCC WGII report. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Forouzanfar MH, Afshin A, Alexander LT, Anderson HR, Bhutta ZA, Biryukov S, et al (2016) Global, regional, and national comparative risk assessment of 79 behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risks or clusters of risks, 1990–2015. Lancet [Internet]. [cited 2017 Mar 9]; Available from: https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/172718
  10. Glomsrod S (1990) Stabilization of emissions of CO2: a computable general equilibrium assessment, discussion paper no.48. Central Bureau of Statistics, OsloGoogle Scholar
  11. Hunt A, Ferguson J, Hurley F, Searl A (2016) Social costs of morbidity impacts of air pollution. Report no 99. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  12. Lindhjem H, Navrud S, Biausque V, Braathen N (2012) Mortality risk valuation in environment, health and transport policies. OECD Publishing, ParisGoogle Scholar
  13. Markandya A, Sampedro J, Smith SJ, van Dingenen R, Pizarro-Irizar C, Arto I, Gonzalez M (2018) Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris agreement: a modelling study. Lancet Planetary Health 2:e126–e133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Newbury JB, Arseneault L, Beevers S, Kitwiroon N, Roberts S, Pariante CM, Kelly FJ, Fisher HL (2019) Association of air pollution exposure with psychotic experiences during adolescence. JAMA Psychiat 76:614–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Newell RG, Pizer WA (2003) Discounting the distant future: how much do uncertain rates increase valuations? J Environ Econ Manag 46:52–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nordhaus WD (1994) Managing the global commons: the economics of climate change. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  17. OECD (2014) Cost of air pollution: health impacts of road transport. OECD Publishing, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rao S et al (2017) Future air pollution in the shared socio-economic pathways. Glob Environ Chang 42:346–358.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.05.012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Robiou du Pont Y, Jeffery ML, Gütschow J, Rogelj J, Christoff P, Meinshausen M (2016) Equitable mitigation to achieve the Paris agreement goals. Nat Clim Chang 7(1):38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Smith SJ, Pitcher H, Wigley TML (2005) Future sulfur dioxide emissions. Clim Chang 73(3):267–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Soppelsa ME, Gracia NL, Xu LC (2019, April 30) The effects of pollution and business environment on firm productivity in Africa. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 8834. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3380727
  22. Van Dingenen R, Dentener F, Crippa M, Leitao J, Marmer E, Rao S et al (2018) TM5-FASST: a global atmospheric source–receptor model for rapid impact analysis of emission changes on air quality and short-lived climate pollutants. Atmos Chem Phys 18(21):16173–16211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Calvin K, Dellink R, Emmerling J, Fujimori S et al (2017) The shared socio-economic pathways: trajectories for human development and global environmental change. Glob Environ Chang 42:148–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Viscusi WK, Aldy JE (2003) The value of a statistical life: a critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J Risk Uncertain 27(1):5–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Viscusi WK, Masterman CJ (2017) Income elasticities and global values of a statistical life. J Benefit-Cost Anal 8:226–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. World Bank and Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (2016) The cost of air pollution: strengthening the economic case for action. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. World Health Organization (WHO) (2016) Ambient air pollution: a global assessment of exposure and burden of disease. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3)LeioaSpain

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options