Nav: Home

Reducing carbon emissions while improving health is economically attractive, study shows

May 07, 2019

PRINCETON, N.J.--It's a classic policy dispute: How much should the current generation invest in reducing carbon emissions for the benefit of future generations?

A study published in Nature Communications helps answer this question by quantifying whether reducing carbon emissions -- which will have global benefits in the future -- also improves air quality now. Preventing many of the human health burdens that result from air pollution would be a powerful positive incentive to act sooner than later.

The study, which debuts a new climate policy model developed by Princeton University researchers and others, reports it is economically sound to quickly and dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions given the immediate and significant human health benefits. The findings also support the climate targets prescribed by the Paris Climate Agreement in cost-benefit terms.

The model combines the cost of reducing emissions with the potential health 'co-benefits' or synergies of climate policy; these co-benefits have traditionally been excluded in the cost-benefit models that estimate how much the world should pay to reduce carbon emissions. When put together, the researchers find immediate net benefits globally from climate policy investments.

"Increasingly, we are finding that is important to consider public health impacts in analyses of climate change decision-making. We've built these considerations directly into this new model to see how the cost-benefit calculation changes when these impacts are accounted for. If we include the health benefits, the model tells use to reduce our emissions much more quickly than it would otherwise," said lead co-author Noah Scovronick, of Emory University, who worked on the model while at Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

The results provide an economic vindication of the Paris Agreement targets for limiting temperature rise: If improved air quality and better health are included in the analysis, then a target of 2 degrees Celsius (or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) is economically defensible. This is because the health benefits resulting from air pollution reductions significantly outweigh any near-term costs, especially in developing regions. Prior economic studies on this issue did not support such a strict climate target.

"The climate problem has several features that make it particularly difficult to solve," said Marc Fleurbaey, Robert E. Kuenne Professor in Economics and Humanistic Studies and professor of public affairs and the University Center for Human Values. "Here, we show that accounting for the human health dimension alleviates many of these difficulties: Health benefits begin immediately, occur near where emissions are reduced, and accrue mainly in developing regions with less historical responsibility for climate change. The finding that climate policy may not in fact entail an intergenerational trade-off could completely change the framing of the debate."

Their new modeling framework for analyzing CO2 policy incorporates the costs and benefits of reducing air pollutant emissions. In particular, the environmental impacts from aerosols -- which result from air pollutant emissions -- have never been fully incorporated into this type of modeling. This is important for two reasons. On the one hand, reducing aerosol pollution is good for human health. One the other hand, however, aerosols act to cool the earth and thus counterbalance some of the warming generated by greenhouse gases; this beneficial effect is lost when air pollutant emissions are reduced. The researchers included both of these opposing effects in their framework.

When all of the benefits and harms are taken into account, the researchers see immediate net benefits globally, both in health and economic terms. In particular, the global health benefits from this climate policy could reach trillions of dollars annually, but their magnitude will depend somewhat on air quality policies that nations adopt independently of climate change. The team found the strongest potential near-term health benefits in China and India.

"Some developing regions have been understandably reluctant to invest their limited resources in reducing emissions," said Scovronick. "This and other studies demonstrate that many of these same regions are likely to gain most of the health co-benefits, which may add incentive for them to adopt stronger climate policies."
-end-
Scovronick and Fleurbaey conducted the study with Princeton University's Robert Socolow, Mark Budolfson from the University of Vermont, Francis Dennig from Yale-NUS College in Singapore, Frank Errickson from the University of California, Berkeley, Wei Peng from Penn State University, Dean Spears of the University of Texas at Austin, and Fabian Wagner of the International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis. In addition to Scovronick, Fleurbaey, and Socolow, Budolfson, Peng, Spears, and Wagner were all at Princeton when this study was initiated.

The paper, "The impact of human health co-benefits on evaluations of global climate policy," will appear online May 7 in Nature Communications.

Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

Related Climate Change Articles:

The black forest and climate change
Silver and Douglas firs could replace Norway spruce in the long run due to their greater resistance to droughts.
For some US counties, climate change will be particularly costly
A highly granular assessment of the impacts of climate change on the US economy suggests that each 1°Celsius increase in temperature will cost 1.2 percent of the country's gross domestic product, on average.
Climate change label leads to climate science acceptance
A new Cornell University study finds that labels matter when it comes to acceptance of climate science.
Was that climate change?
A new four-step 'framework' aims to test the contribution of climate change to record-setting extreme weather events.
It's more than just climate change
Accurately modeling climate change and interactive human factors -- including inequality, consumption, and population -- is essential for the effective science-based policies and measures needed to benefit and sustain current and future generations.
Climate change scientists should think more about sex
Climate change can have a different impact on male and female fish, shellfish and other marine animals, with widespread implications for the future of marine life and the production of seafood.
Climate change prompts Alaska fish to change breeding behavior
A new University of Washington study finds that one of Alaska's most abundant freshwater fish species is altering its breeding patterns in response to climate change, which could impact the ecology of northern lakes that already acutely feel the effects of a changing climate.
Uncertainties related to climate engineering limit its use in curbing climate change
Climate engineering refers to the systematic, large-scale modification of the environment using various climate intervention techniques.
Public holds polarized views about climate change and trust in climate scientists
There are gaping divisions in Americans' views across every dimension of the climate debate, including causes and cures for climate change and trust in climate scientists and their research, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.
The psychology behind climate change denial
In a new thesis in psychology, Kirsti Jylhä at Uppsala University has studied the psychology behind climate change denial.

Related Climate Change Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Digital Manipulation
Technology has reshaped our lives in amazing ways. But at what cost? This hour, TED speakers reveal how what we see, read, believe — even how we vote — can be manipulated by the technology we use. Guests include journalist Carole Cadwalladr, consumer advocate Finn Myrstad, writer and marketing professor Scott Galloway, behavioral designer Nir Eyal, and computer graphics researcher Doug Roble.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#529 Do You Really Want to Find Out Who's Your Daddy?
At least some of you by now have probably spit into a tube and mailed it off to find out who your closest relatives are, where you might be from, and what terrible diseases might await you. But what exactly did you find out? And what did you give away? In this live panel at Awesome Con we bring in science writer Tina Saey to talk about all her DNA testing, and bioethicist Debra Mathews, to determine whether Tina should have done it at all. Related links: What FamilyTreeDNA sharing genetic data with police means for you Crime solvers embraced...