PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 1: California’s AB 32

Zapata, Christina; Muller, Nicholas Z.; Kleeman, Michael J.

doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0545-y

Cited by 21 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our projections of the annual physical activity benefit of the SCSs (1,670 in 2040) are almost twice those projected for fine particulate air pollution (880 in 2030) based on GHGE reduction strategies in all California sectors (industry, electric utility and natural gas, agriculture, on-road vehicles, and other mobile sources) (Zapata et al, 2012). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Health and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of ambitious expansion of cycling, walking, and transit in California

Maizlish

Linesch²,

Woodcock

2017

Journal of Transport & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this research was to quantify health co-benefits and carbon reductions of preferred scenarios of California regional transportation plans and alternatives with ambitious levels of active transport. The alternatives were designed to examine the efficacy of independent contributions of walking, bicycling, and transit at levels consistent with the U.S. Surgeon General recommendation for physical activity. Using data from travel and health surveys, vital statistics, collision databases, and outputs from regional and statewide travel models, the Integrated Transport and Health Impacts Model estimated the change in the population disease burden, as measured by deaths and disability adjusted life years (DALYs), due to a shift from a 2010 baseline travel pattern to an alternative. Health pathways modeled were physical activity and road traffic injuries. The preferred scenarios increased statewide active transport from 40.5 to 53.4 min person−1 w−1, which was associated with an annual decrease of 909 deaths and 16,089 DALYs. Sensitivity analyses that accounted for 2040 projected age- and sex-specific population characteristics and cause-specific mortality rates did not appreciably alter the annual change in deaths and DALYs on a population basis. The ambitious, maximal alternatives increased population mean travel duration to 283 min person−1 w−1 for walking, bicycling, or transit and were associated a reduction in deaths and DALYs from 2.5 to 12 times greater than the California preferred scenarios. The alternative with the largest health impact was bicycling 283 min person−1 w−1 which led to 8,543 fewer annual deaths and 194,003 fewer DALYs, despite an increase in bicyclist injuries. With anticipated population growth, no alternative achieved decreases in carbon emissions but bicycling had the greatest potential for slowing their growth. Alternatives that included transit similarly reduced carbon emissions, but with less health benefit. Aggressive expansion of active transport is an efficacious, but underutilized policy option with significant health co-benefits for mitigating greenhouse gases.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

Health and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of ambitious expansion of cycling, walking, and transit in California

Maizlish

Linesch²,

Woodcock

2017

Journal of Transport & Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All except Ebrahimi et al (76) calculate health and associated economic benefits of climate policies. Most of these studies take an economic modeling approach to emissions calculations, with three using a computable general equilibrium model (72,74,77); three, a capacity expansion model (23,73,76); one, a data and analysis tool (75); and one, an emissions inventory (71). Most use a full-physics air quality model; only Dimanchev et al (77) uses the reduced form model, InMAP.…”

Section: Summary Of Published Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrating Air Quality and Public Health Benefits in U.S. Decarbonization Strategies

Gallagher

Holloway

2020

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on air quality and human health "co-benefits" from climate mitigation strategies represents a growing area of policy-relevant scholarship. Compared to other aspects of climate and energy policy evaluation, however, there are still relatively few of these co-benefits analyses. This sparsity reflects a historical disconnect between research quantifying energy and climate, and research dealing with air quality and health. The air quality co-benefits of climate, clean energy, and transportation electrification policies are typically assessed with models spanning social, physical, chemical, and biological systems. This review article summarizes studies to date and presents methods used for these interdisciplinary analyses. Studies in the peer-reviewed literature (n = 26) have evaluated carbon pricing, renewable portfolio standards, energy efficiency, renewable energy deployment, and clean transportation. A number of major findings have emerged from these studies: [1] decarbonization strategies can reduce air pollution disproportionally on the most polluted days; [2] renewable energy deployment and climate policies offer the highest health and economic benefits in regions with greater reliance on coal generation; [3] monetized air quality health co-benefits can offset costs of climate policy implementation; [4] monetized co-benefits typically exceed the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) of renewable energies; [5] Electric vehicle (EV) adoption generally improves air quality on peak pollution days, but can result in ozone dis-benefits in urban centers due to the titration of ozone with nitrogen oxides. Drawing from these published studies, we review the state of knowledge on climate co-benefits to air quality and health, identifying opportunities for policy action and further research.

show abstract

“…Similarly, Zapata et al (2013) evaluated state-level GHG policy in California, finding that controlling GHG emissions from five economic sectors produced areas of localized PM 2.5 dis-benefits. Ruth et al (2008) estimates how the state of Maryland joining the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI; a market based GHG reduction scheme that includes nine states in the Northeast U.S.) could impact emissions of criteria pollutants both within and outside the state.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Thompson

Rausch

Saari

et al. 2016

Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To mitigate climate change, governments ranging from city to multi-national have adopted greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction targets. While the location of GHG reductions does not affect their climate benefits, it can impact human health benefits associated with co-emitted pollutants. Here, an advanced modeling framework is used to explore how subnational level GHG targets influence air pollutant co-benefits from ground level ozone and fine particulate matter. Two carbon policy scenarios are analyzed, each reducing the same total amount of GHG emissions in the Northeast US: an economy-wide Cap and Trade (CAT) program reducing emissions from all sectors of the economy, and a Clean Energy Standard (CES) reducing emissions from the electricity sector only. Results suggest that a regional CES policy will cost about 10 times more than a CAT policy. Despite having the same regional targets in the Northeast, carbon leakage to noncapped regions varies between policies. Consequently, a regional CAT policy will result in national carbon reductions that are over six times greater than the carbon reduced by the CES in 2030. Monetized regional human health benefits of the CAT and CES policies are 844% and 185% of the costs of each policy, respectively. Benefits for both policies are thus estimated to exceed their costs in the Northeast US. The estimated value of human health co-benefits associated with air pollution reductions for the CES scenario is two times that of the CAT scenario.Implications: In this research, an advanced modeling framework is used to determine the potential impacts of regional carbon policies on air pollution co-benefits associated with ground level ozone and fine particulate matter. Study results show that spatially heterogeneous GHG policies have the potential to create areas of air pollution dis-benefit. It is also shown that monetized human health benefits within the area covered by policy may be larger than the model estimated cost of the policy. These findings are of particular interest both as U.S. states work to develop plans to meet state-level carbon emissions reduction targets set by the EPA through the Clean Power Plan, and in the absence of comprehensive national carbon policy.PAPER HISTORY

show abstract

PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 1: California’s AB 32

Cited by 21 publications

References 22 publications

Health and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of ambitious expansion of cycling, walking, and transit in California

Health and greenhouse gas mitigation benefits of ambitious expansion of cycling, walking, and transit in California

Integrating Air Quality and Public Health Benefits in U.S. Decarbonization Strategies

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About