Climate policy co-benefits: a review

Abstract

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

Ten new insights in climate science 2020 – a horizon scan

“…An increasing number of studies provide solid evidence that there are substantial economic benefits of climate action in the short as well as long term. Climate mitigation has substantial co-benefits, here and now, in terms of local economic, environmental and health benefits (Karlsson et al, 2020; Rauner et al, 2020). Recent research insights show that economically ‘optimal’ abatement could very well be in line with the UN climate targets of limiting global warming to well below 2°C and to actively pursue a 1.5°C limit (Burke et al, 2018a; Glanemann et al, 2020; Hänsel et al, 2020).…”

Monetary Health Co-Benefits and GHG Emissions Reduction Benefits: Contribution from Private On-the-Road Transport

“…New studies on co-benefits have consistently been published over the past 10 years [ 17 ], but most studies only identified the aspects of co-benefits and stated their importance, presented the physical type of indicators, assessed the spatial change in mortality, or classified the estimation methods for all types of physical indicators [ 9 , 16 , 18 , 19 ]. Karlsson et al [ 20 ] is one exception that cited various types of health co-benefits measured in USD arising from the reduction in NH 3 , SO x , NO x , PM, and NMVOC in different countries due to different GHG emissions reduction and mitigation mechanisms.…”

SEA screening practice and the inclusion of environmental objectives in Swedish energy and climate planning

“…Local framing refers to the emphasis of pressing local issues resulting from climate change as well as highlighting the potential cobenefits that climate change mitigation can entail in a local context and has been identified as a key component affecting the capacity for climate action among local governments (Ryan 2015). Due to the recent upsurge of local climate initiatives both in the EU (Kona et al 2018) and internationally (Gordon and Johnson 2017), and given the large amount of cobenefits that could be gained from climate action (Karlsson et al 2020), SEA can play a vital role to play in building local support both internally and externally in these processes. However, as local climate plans are only compulsory in four of the EU member countries according to Reckien et al (2018), and this study indicates that SEA seldom is conducted for voluntarily adopted plans, this raises concerns regarding the dichotomy between voluntary and statutory local energy and climate planning in an international context as well.…”