Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking

Nemet, Gregory F.; Holloway, Tracey; Meier, P.J.

doi:10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014007

Cited by 352 publications

(273 citation statements)

References 62 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

249

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, our estimates of the ancillary benefits of reducing non-GHG polluting emissions in the electricity sector in Europe are in line with estimates in the literature and very close to 33 € per ton of CO 2 abated, the mean value of the benefits reported in the review by Nemet et al (2010) for developed countries. Specifically, in the RCP2.6 mitigation scenario, we quantify these benefits in Europe at more than €2.5T during 2015-2100, which implies average ancillary benefits of about 21.6 €/t CO 2 eq abated in the European electricity sector.…”

Section: Conclusion and Remarkssupporting

confidence: 89%

“…In their review of the literature Davis et al (2000) report a range from €0.6 to €78 (Dessus and O'Connor 1999) and €148 (Aunan et al 2000) per ton of reduced CO 2 emissions. 5 A review of 48 peer reviewed studies by Nemet et al (2010) provides a range of the air quality cobenefits of climate change mitigation from €1.6 to €152 per ton of abated CO 2 with a mean of €38/tCO 2 . Focusing on the co-benefits from mitigation in the US electricity sector, Nemet et al provide a range of estimates ranging from €3 to €90, and found larger ancillary benefit estimates for 5 developing countries (with a mean of €62) than for the developed countries (mean €33).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe

Ščasný

Massetti

Melichar

et al. 2015

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may SummaryThis paper presents estimates of the economic benefit of air quality improvements in Europe that occur as a side effect of GHG emission reductions. We consider three climate policy scenarios that reach radiative forcing levels in 2100 of three Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). These targets are achieved by introducing a global uniform tax on all GHG emissions in the Integrated Assessment Model WITCH, assuming both full as well as limited technological flexibility. The resulting consumption patterns of fossil fuels are used to estimate the physical impacts and the economic benefits of pollution reductions on human health and on key assets by implementing the most advanced version of the ExternE methodology with its Impact Pathway Analysis. We find that the mitigation scenario compatible with +2°C reduces total pollution costs in Europe by 76%. Discounted ancillary benefits are more than €2.5 trillion between 2015 and 2100. The monetary value of reduced pollution is equal to €22 per abated ton of CO2 in Europe. Less strict climate policy scenarios generate overall smaller, but still considerable, local benefits (14 € or 18 € per abated ton of CO2). Without discounting, the ancillary benefits are in a range of €36 to €50 per ton of CO2 abated. Cumulative ancillary benefits exceed the cumulative additional cost of electricity generation in Europe. Each European country alone would be better off if the mitigation policy was implemented, although the local benefits in absolute terms vary significantly across the countries. We can identify the relative losers and winners of ancillary benefits in Europe. In particular, we find that large European countries contribute to as much as they benefit from ancillary benefits. The scenarios with limited technology flexibility do deliver results that are similar to the full technology flexibility scenario. Keywords AbstractThis paper presents estimates of the economic benefit of air quality improvements in Europe that occur as a side effect of GHG emission reductions. We consider three climate policy scenarios that reach radiative forcing levels in 2100 of three Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs). These targets are achieved by introducing a global uniform tax on all GHG emissions in the Integrated Assessment Model WITCH, assuming both full as well as limited technological flexibility. The resulting consumption patterns of fossil fuels are used to estima...

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Remarkssupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe

Ščasný

Massetti

Melichar

et al. 2015

Environ Resource Econ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior studies have provided compelling demonstrations of the importance of linkages between climate change and air quality valuation (e.g. (Caplan and Silva 2005;Nemet et al 2010;Tollefsen et al 2009)) and of the incorporation of economics into emission metrics (e.g. (Johansson 2012;Tanaka et al 2013)), but typically have not fully represented the climate impact of short-lived emissions, especially aerosols and methane (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The social cost of atmospheric release

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I present a multi-impact economic valuation framework called the Social Cost of Atmospheric Release (SCAR) that extends the Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) used previously for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) to a broader range of pollutants and impacts. Values consistently incorporate health impacts of air quality along with climate damages. The latter include damages associated with aerosol-induced hydrologic cycle changes that lead to net climate benefits when reducing cooling aerosols. Evaluating a 1 % reduction in current global emissions, benefits with a high discount rate are greatest for reductions of co-emitted products of incomplete combustion (PIC), followed by sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ) and then CO 2 , ammonia and methane. With a low discount rate, benefits are greatest for PIC, with CO 2 and SO 2 next, followed by NO x and methane. These results suggest that efforts to mitigate atmosphere-related environmental damages should target a broad set of emissions including CO 2 , methane and aerosol/ozone precursors. Illustrative calculations indicate environmental damages are $330-970 billion yr −1 for current US electricity generation (~14-34¢ per kWh for coal,~4-18¢ for gas) and $3.80 (−1.80/+2.10) per gallon of gasoline ($4.80 (−3.10/+3.50) per gallon for diesel). These results suggest that total atmosphere-related environmental damages plus generation costs are much greater for coal-fired power than other types of electricity generation, and that damages associated with gasoline vehicles substantially exceed those for electric vehicles.

show abstract

“…MAPS stands out for the applied contributions on co-benefits assessments in national policy processes in developing countries. The IPCC advances general concerns on the relationship between climate mitigation and SD, definitions and concepts, integrated assessment models, uncertainties and, very importantly, sectoral approaches including health and air pollution (Bell et al, 2008;IPCC, 2014;McCollum et al, 2013;Nemet, Holloway, & Meier, 2010;Riahi et al, 2012;Smith et al, 2009). …”

Section: Knowledge Network: Knowledge Holders and Their Ideasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel shapes of South–South collaboration: emerging knowledge networks on co-benefits of climate and development policies

Rennkamp

Boulle

2017

Climate and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper analyses knowledge networks on co-benefits of climate and development. The world's most sizeable populations live in middle-income countries with emerging economies and growing emissions. This situation requires political intervention to facilitate economic growth, job creation and poverty eradication alongside efforts to control emissions growth. This interdisciplinary study draws on concepts and methods from sociology, political science, science and technology studies and the management literature. The authors combine social network and discourse network analysis in an innovative way. The methodology analyses both the interactions between researchers as well as their actual knowledge contributions. The study argues that there is a substantial network of knowledge holders involved in knowledge creation on climate and development co-benefits. Our analysis shows the type of interactions between two knowledge networks as well as new knowledge emerging from these networks. Research groups and practitioners have produced 17 novel knowledge contributions, ranging from definitions of co-benefits, methodology and implementation. Yet the networks remain loosely connected. Practitioners who have less time to assess academic literature could benefit from closer interactions with more academically oriented experts and vice versa.

show abstract

Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking

Cited by 352 publications

References 62 publications

Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe

Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe

The social cost of atmospheric release

Novel shapes of South–South collaboration: emerging knowledge networks on co-benefits of climate and development policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About