Co-Benefits of Climate Mitigation and Health Protection in Energy Systems: Scoping Methods

Abstract

Interventions in the energy sector offer significant opportunities for reducing both greenhouse and other health-damaging pollution, resulting in what are called "co-benefits." The health community plays a critical role in evaluating such interventions to optimize progress of both sorts because both affect health. In detail, analyses require sophisticated modeling and specific local information. As a starting point, however, we offer here a set of scoping methods for obtaining a quick assessment of these co-benefits for interventions in the energy sector, the arena with the highest potential for significant cobenefits. Thus we combine relevant methods developed separately in recent years for cost-effectiveness assessments in the climate change, health, and development communities. We offer sample calculations, which illustrate the apparent high degree of co-benefit effectiveness for targeted interventions in the household energy sector in developing countries.

International Experiences with Quantifying the Co-Benefits of Energy-Efficiency and Greenhouse-Gas Mitigation Programs and Policies

“…These methods use VSL and average life span expectations to determine the value of a year of an individual life, usually through a linear method of dividing VSL by average life expectancy (Smith and Haigler, 2008). VSLY is less commonly used by public health professionals because the methodology implies that age and WTP are proportionately and inversely related, although this hypothesis is not supported empirically (Bell et al, 2008).…”

“…The World Health Organization developed the QALY quantification methodologies and continues to tabulate QALYs from 26 global risk factors throughout the world through the Global Burden of Disease project (World Health Organization, 2012). The QALY therefore has the advantage of centralized oversight and international comparative value, as QALYs are quantified and regulated by the WHO in detailed, coherent global databases with risks differentiated by age, sex, disease type and region (Smith and Haigler, 2008).…”

“…As put by Smith and Haigler (2008), the burden from all deaths and diseases is treated equally for everyone "… disregarding social class, income, ethnicity, nation of origin, and all other distinctions" (Smith and Haigler, 2008). However, DALYs and QALYs have limitations.…”

“…DALYs inherently value healthy and younger lives more than the ill and older individuals by assigning lesser weights (and therefore indicate decreased impacts) to older persons who typically comprise the air pollution-susceptible population. Furthermore, as opposed to WTP-based approaches, QALY and DALY approaches may not directly reflect non-disease outcomes, like emergency hospital admissions, lost work days, the effects of medication and others (Smith and Haigler, 2008). Regardless, due to their integrated nature and specificity to health (as opposed to welfare improvement gained through other goods), QALYs and DALYs are now the preferred choice among medical and public health academics and professionals (Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, 2006).…”

“…Energy sector occupational risks are likely significantly contributing to total global occupational-risk related premature mortality (Smith and Haigler, 2008;Ezzati et al [eds. ], 2004) and occupational safety co-benefits such as those related to reduced coal mining, have also been incorporated in some co-benefit studies (Davis et al, 2000b;Markandya et al, 2009;NRC, 2010).…”