Incorporating health co-benefits into technology pathways to achieve China's 2060 carbon neutrality goal: a modelling study
Incorporating health co-benefits into technology pathways to achieve China's 2060 carbon neutrality goal: a modelling study
复制标题
将健康协同效益纳入实现中国 2060 年碳中和目标的技术途径：模型研究。
DOI：
10.1016/s2542-5196(21)00252-7
复制
发表时间：
2021-11-10
影响因子：
25.7
通讯作者：
Gong, Peng
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Zhang, Shihui;An, Kangxin;Gong, Peng
背景中国2060年碳中和目标的宣布引起了世界对实现这一承诺所需的具体技术途径的关注。我们的目的是评估不同技术路径下碳中和的健康协同效益，这可以帮助中国以协同的方式实现碳中和目标，空气质量目标和健康中国目标，将健康纳入决策过程。方法在这项建模研究中，我们使用没有气候政策的共享社会经济路径2作为参考情景，两种具有代表性的碳中和情景，一种是以可再生能源为主导，另一种是以负排放技术为主导，排放轨迹相同，技术路径不同。我们有三个模块来分析每种政策情景的健康共同效益和减缓成本。首先，我们使用了一个可计算的一般均衡模型，捕捉整个经济系统的运行，以调查不同的技术组合的碳减排成本和空气污染物排放途径。其次，我们使用了一个简化的空气质量模型来估计大气中颗粒物的浓度，从空气污染物的排放途径。最后，我们使用一个健康影响评估模型来估计过早死亡，发病率和预期寿命的损失，然后根据统计寿命和疾病成本的价值将这些健康影响货币化。我们比较了货币化的健康共同效益与相应的缓解成本，以探索不同技术组合的成本效益。一系列的不确定性体现在碳中和pathways和models.Findings在我们的模型中，仅仅依靠改善终端的空气污染控制措施是不够的，所有中国省份，以满足2005年世界卫生组织的PM2.5标准（10微克/立方米），到2060年。只有强有力的气候和空气污染控制政策相结合，才能大幅改善中国的空气质量。如果遵循以发展可再生能源为主导的碳中和路径，到2060年，所有省份的空气质量都可以达到世卫组织的指导方针。随着碳中和目标的实现，2020- 2060年的总贴现减缓成本（贴现率为5%）将在40-125万亿人民币（CNY）之间，并可避免2200 - 5000万累积过早死亡。与参考情景相比，中国有可能在2060年将相关人均预期寿命提高0.88-2.80岁。在以可再生能源为主导的情景中，健康效益较高，而在以负排放技术为主导的情景中，减缓成本较小。如果统计寿命值设置为大于1250万CNY（经济合作与发展组织价值的39%），即使考虑到所有不确定性，这意味着成本-中国实现2060年碳中和目标后人均寿命增加可能相当于中国过去5-10年的预期寿命增长。选择一条合适的碳中和路径，无论是当下还是未来，都影响着中国人口的健康。我们的研究结果表明，如果中国将健康共生效益纳入气候政策制定，并高度重视人民的健康，则应选择更多依赖可再生能源发展的碳中和路径，避免过度依赖负排放技术。版权所有（C）2021作者。出版社：Elsevier Ltd
Background The announcement of China's 2060 carbon neutrality goal has drawn the world's attention to the specific technology pathway needed to achieve this pledge. We aimed to evaluate the health co-benefits of carbon neutrality under different technology pathways, which could help China to achieve the carbon neutrality goal, air quality goal, and Healthy China goal in a synergetic manner that includes health in the decision-making process.Methods In this modelling study, we used Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2 with no climate policy as the reference scenario, and two representative carbon neutrality scenarios with identical emission trajectories and different technology pathways-one was led by renewable energies and the other was led by negative emission technologies. We had three modules to analyse health co-benefits and mitigation costs for each policy scenario. First, we used a computable general equilibrium model that captures the operation of the whole economic system to investigate the carbon mitigation costs and air pollutant emission pathways of different technology portfolios. Second, we used a reduced complexity air quality model to estimate the concentrations of particulate matter in the atmosphere from the air pollutant emission pathways. Finally, we used a health impact evaluation model to estimate premature deaths, morbidity, and the resulting loss of life expectancy, then these health impacts were monetised according to value of a statistical life and cost of illness. We compared the monetised health co-benefits against the corresponding mitigation costs to explore the cost-effectiveness of different technology portfolios. A series of uncertainties embodied in carbon neutrality pathways and models were considered.Findings In our models, sole dependence on improving end-of-pipe air pollution control measures is not sufficient for all Chinese provinces to meet the 2005 WHO PM2.5 standards (10 mu g/m(3)) by 2060. Only a combination of strong climate and air pollution control policies can lead to substantial improvement of air quality across China. If the carbon neutrality pathway led by developing renewable energies was followed, the air quality of all provinces could meet the WHO guideline by 2060. With the realisation of carbon neutrality goals, the total discounted mitigation costs (discount rate 5%) from 2020-60 would range from 40-125 trillion Chinese yuan (CNY), and 22-50 million cumulative premature deaths could be avoided. China has the potential to increase the associated life expectancy by 0.88-2.80 years per person in 2060 versus the reference scenario. The health benefits are higher in the renewable energies-led scenarios, whereas the mitigation costs are smaller in the negative emission technologies-led scenarios. If the value of a statistical life is set higher than 12.5 million CNY (39% of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development value), the health co-benefits will be higher than mitigation costs, even when considering all included uncertainties, implying the cost-effectiveness of China's carbon neutrality goal.Interpretation The life expectancy increase from the realisation of China's 2060 carbon neutrality goal could be equivalent to the past 5-10 years of life expectancy growth in China. Choosing an appropriate carbon neutrality pathway affects the health of China's population both today and in the future. Our findings suggest that, if China incorporates health co-benefits into climate policy making and puts a high value on people's health, it should choose a carbon neutrality pathway that relies more on developing renewable energies and avoid over-reliance on negative emission technologies. Copyright (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.