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

被引:277
作者
Nemet, G. F. [1 ,2 ]
Holloway, T. [1 ]
Meier, P. [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Wisconsin, Nelson Inst, Ctr Sustainabil & Global Environm, Madison, WI 53706 USA
[2] Univ Wisconsin, La Follette Sch Publ Affairs, Madison, WI USA
[3] Univ Wisconsin, Energy Inst, Madison, WI USA
来源
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS | 2010年 / 5卷 / 01期
关键词
co-benefits; climate policy; air pollution; health; ANCILLARY BENEFITS; SECONDARY BENEFITS; HEALTH-BENEFITS; POLLUTION; ENERGY; MITIGATION; IMPACTS; INFORMATION; REDUCTIONS; RISK;
D O I
10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014007
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
We present an analysis of the barriers and opportunities for incorporating air quality co-benefits into climate policy assessments. It is well known that many strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions also decrease emissions of health-damaging air pollutants and precursor species, including particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide. In a survey of previous studies we found a range of estimates for the air quality co-benefits of climate change mitigation of $2-196/tCO(2) with a mean of $49/tCO(2), and the highest co-benefits found in developing countries. These values, although of a similar order of magnitude to abatement cost estimates, are only rarely included in integrated assessments of climate policy. Full inclusion of these co-benefits would have pervasive implications for climate policy in areas including: optimal policy stringency, overall costs, distributional effects, robustness to discount rates, incentives for international cooperation, and the value of adaptation, forests, and climate engineering relative to mitigation. Under-valuation results in part from uncertainty in climatic damages, valuation inconsistency, and institutional barriers. Because policy debates are framed in terms of cost minimization, policy makers are unlikely to fully value air quality co-benefits unless they can be compared on an equivalent basis with the benefits of avoided climatic damages. While air quality co-benefits have been prominently portrayed as a hedge against uncertainty in the benefits of climate change abatement, this assessment finds that full inclusion of co-benefits depends on-rather than substitutes for-better valuation of climate damages.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 78 条
[11]   Local air pollution and global climate change: A combined cost-benefit analysis [J].
Bollen, Johannes ;
van der Zwaan, Bob ;
Brink, Corjan ;
Eerens, Hans .
RESOURCE AND ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2009, 31 (03) :161-181
[12]   Can warming particles enter global climate discussions? [J].
Bond, Tami C. .
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LETTERS, 2007, 2 (04)
[13]   ENERGY TAXATION AS A POLICY INSTRUMENT TO REDUCE CO2 EMISSIONS - A NET BENEFIT ANALYSIS [J].
BOYD, R ;
KRUTILLA, K ;
VISCUSI, WK .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 1995, 29 (01) :1-24
[14]   Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector [J].
Burtraw, D ;
Krupnick, A ;
Palmer, K ;
Paul, A ;
Toman, M ;
Bloyd, C .
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS AND MANAGEMENT, 2003, 45 (03) :650-673
[15]  
BUSSOLO M, 2001, CLEARING AIR INDIA E
[16]  
Caton R., 2000, CLEARING AIR PRELIMI
[17]   Assessing the health benefits of urban air pollution reductions associated with climate change mitigation (2000-2020): Santiago, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, and New York City [J].
Cifuentes, L ;
Borja-Aburto, VH ;
Gouveia, N ;
Thurston, G ;
Davis, DL .
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PERSPECTIVES, 2001, 109 :419-425
[18]   Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? [J].
Crutzen, Paul J. .
CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2006, 77 (3-4) :211-219
[19]   Climate policy without tears: CGE-based ancillary benefits estimates for Chile [J].
Dessus, S ;
O'Connor, D .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2003, 25 (03) :287-317
[20]   New Frontiers in the Economics of Climate Change [J].
Dietz, Simon ;
Maddison, David J. .
ENVIRONMENTAL & RESOURCE ECONOMICS, 2009, 43 (03) :295-306