Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study
Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s2542-5196(18)30029-9
复制
发表时间：
2018-03-01
影响因子：
25.7
通讯作者：
Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Markandya, Anil;Sampedro, Jon;Gonzalez-Eguino, Mikel
背景虽然解决气候变化和空气污染相关问题的共同效益已得到认可，但没有太多证据比较减少空气污染的缓解成本和经济效益，以实现温室气体目标的替代方法。我们分析了在何种程度上健康的共同利益将补偿缓解成本实现的目标，巴黎气候协议（2摄氏度和1.5摄氏度）在不同的情况下，在国家之间的减排努力是根据三个既定的公平criteria.Methods我们的研究有三个阶段。首先，我们使用了一个综合评估模型，全球变化评估模型（GCAM），调查排放量（温室气体和空气污染物）的路径和减排成本，具有不同的温度目标（国家确定的贡献，2摄氏度或1.5摄氏度）和气候变化方法的分配方法（能力，恒定排放率和人均相等）。由此产生的排放途径被转移到空气质量模型（TM 5-FASST），以估计大气中的颗粒物和臭氧的浓度以及由此产生的相关过早死亡和发病率。然后，我们通过使用一个称为统计寿命价值的术语，将这些健康影响应用于货币价值，并将这些价值与全球和区域GCAM计算的缓解成本进行比较。我们的分析展望到2050年，按照社会经济叙事共享社会经济路径2.Findings健康的共同利益大大超过了政策成本，实现我们分析的所有场景的目标。在一些缓解战略中，共同效益中位数是全球成本中位数的两倍。健康共同效益与减缓成本的比率在1.4至2.45之间，视情景而定。在区域一级，中国和印度减少温室气体排放的成本可以用健康共同效益来补偿，而共同效益所占的比例各不相同，但在欧洲联盟（7-84%）和美国（10-41%）可能很大。最后，我们发现，试图追求1.5摄氏度目标而不是2摄氏度目标的额外努力将在印度产生巨大的净效益（3.28 -8.4万亿美元）和中国（0.27 -2.31万亿美元），虽然这一积极成果在其他区域没有看到。独立于未来由于气候变化而造成的损害的任何减少。一些国家，如中国和印度，只要在分析中包括健康共同效益，就可以证明严格的减缓努力是合理的。我们的研究结果还表明，如果考虑到健康的共同利益，巴黎协定中关于努力将气温上升限制在1.5摄氏度的声明在某些情况下和国家可能具有经济意义。版权（C）作者。由Elsevier Ltd.出版，这是一篇开放获取文章，CC BY-NC-ND 4.0许可证。
Background Although the co-benefits from addressing problems related to both climate change and air pollution have been recognised, there is not much evidence comparing the mitigation costs and economic benefits of air pollution reduction for alternative approaches to meeting greenhouse gas targets. We analysed the extent to which health co-benefits would compensate the mitigation cost of achieving the targets of the Paris climate agreement (2 degrees C and 1.5 degrees C) under different scenarios in which the emissions abatement effort is shared between countries in accordance with three established equity criteria.Methods Our study had three stages. First, we used an integrated assessment model, the Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM), to investigate the emission (greenhouse gases and air pollutants) pathways and abatement costs of a set of scenarios with varying temperature objectives (nationally determined contributions, 2 degrees C, or 1.5 degrees C) and approaches to the distribution of climate change methods (capability, constant emission ratios, and equal per capita). The resulting emissions pathways were transferred to an air quality model (TM5-FASST) to estimate the concentrations of particulate matter and ozone in the atmosphere and the resulting associated premature deaths and morbidity. We then applied a monetary value to these health impacts by use of a term called the value of statistical life and compared these values with those of the mitigation costs calculated from GCAM, both globally and regionally. Our analysis looked forward to 2050 in accordance with the socioeconomic narrative Shared Socioeconomic Pathways 2.Findings The health co-benefits substantially outweighed the policy cost of achieving the target for all of the scenarios that we analysed. In some of the mitigation strategies, the median co-benefits were double the median costs at a global level. The ratio of health co-benefit to mitigation cost ranged from 1.4 to 2.45, depending on the scenario. At the regional level, the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions could be compensated with the health co-benefits alone for China and India, whereas the proportion the co-benefits covered varied but could be substantial in the European Union (7-84%) and USA (10-41%), respectively. Finally, we found that the extra effort of trying to pursue the 1.5 degrees C target instead of the 2 degrees C target would generate a substantial net benefit in India (US$3.28-8.4 trillion) and China ($0.27-2.31 trillion), although this positive result was not seen in the other regions.Interpretation Substantial health gains can be achieved from taking action to prevent climate change, independent of any future reductions in damages due to climate change. Some countries, such as China and India, could justify stringent mitigation efforts just by including health co-benefits in the analysis. Our results also suggest that the statement in the Paris Agreement to pursue efforts to limit temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C could make economic sense in some scenarios and countries if health co-benefits are taken into account. Copyright (c) The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.