How does Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Benefit Air Quality and Health?

Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation(Michelle L Bell, Devra L Davis, Luis A Cifuentes, Alan J Krupnick, Richard D Morgenstern and George D Thurston, Environmental Health, Jul. 31, 2008)

Today we review a paper that looks at different climate change policies, their sensitivity to health and air quality and how to translate a specific policy into quantitative estimates of health benefits. The authors conclude that short-term health benefits has to be a major consideration in choosing among various approaches to mitigate climate change.  

Key Quotes:

 “Averting the course of climate change would result in human health benefits directly associated with lessened global temperature changes and associated impacts, but would also bring ancillary health benefits from reduced ground-level air pollution in the short-term”

“the [Stern] Review notes that limiting global mean temperature increase to 2°C would lead to annual savings in the implementation of existing European air pollution control measures of €10 billion and additional avoided annual health costs of €16–46 billion.”

Assessing co-benefits from climate change and health:

• “estimating changes in air pollutant concentrations, comparing levels in response to GHG mitigation to concentrations under a baseline "business-as-usual" scenario;
• estimating the adverse health impacts avoided from reduced air pollution; and
• for some studies, estimating the monetary benefit from these averted health consequences, often with comparison to the cost of the climate change mitigation measure.”

Factors to consider in translating greenhouse gas changes to health cost benefits:

• “the choice of "baseline" scenario;
• translation of a policy into emissions changes in various sectors;
• physical transformation of the pollutant (e.g., agglomeration of particles to a larger size);
• chemical transformation of pollutants (e.g.,non-linear transformation of O3 precursors, conversion of gaseous pollutants such as NOx to particles); and
• spatial and temporal distribution of impacts, as a function of the preceding factors.”

“Health impacts can be classified as those that take place immediately or a short time after exposure, or those that have a gradual or much-delayed response, such as cancer and neurological disease.”

 “GHG mitigation might incorporate policies to deter suburban sprawl, which could reduce transportation-related air emissions and thereby improve health in the short-term. However, a fuller understanding of the consequences of such a policy would address changes in population-weighted air pollution exposure, which may be higher in urban areas, as well as urban crime, and other potential impacts from higher population density.”

 “The short-term public health changes associated with GHG mitigation strategies should be considered as a key factor in the choice of GHG policies.”

Related articles

• Cities can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent
• How is Ontario Doing on Climate Change?
• DEP calculates health benefits of reduced air pollution
• Obama gives Congress a climate change ultimatum
• U.S. Environment Agency Releases First Climate Adaptation Plan
• Cities can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 pct through practical policy change
• Cities can reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 70 percent
• Northeast pact to dramatically lower greenhouse emissions for power plants
• Carbon tax v cap-and-trade