Environment International (Mar 2020)

Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply

  • Jon Sampedro,
  • Steven J. Smith,
  • Iñaki Arto,
  • Mikel González-Eguino,
  • Anil Markandya,
  • Kathleen M. Mulvaney,
  • Cristina Pizarro-Irizar,
  • Rita Van Dingenen

Journal volume & issue
Vol. 136

Abstract

Read online

This study assesses the reductions in air pollution emissions and subsequent beneficial health effects from different global mitigation pathways consistent with the 2 °C stabilization objective of the Paris Agreement. We use an integrated modelling framework, demonstrating the need for models with an appropriate level of technology detail for an accurate co-benefit assessment. The framework combines an integrated assessment model (GCAM) with an air quality model (TM5-FASST) to obtain estimates of premature mortality and then assesses their economic cost. The results show that significant co-benefits can be found for a range of technological options, such as introducing a limitation on bioenergy, carbon capture and storage (CCS) or nuclear power. Cumulative premature mortality may be reduced by 17–23% by 2020–2050 compared to the baseline, depending on the scenarios. However, the ratio of health co-benefits to mitigation costs varies substantially, ranging from 1.45 when a bioenergy limitation is set to 2.19 when all technologies are available. As for regional disaggregation, some regions, such as India and China, obtain far greater co-benefits than others. Keywords: Deep decarbonization, Air pollution, Health, Co-benefits, Integrated assessment, JEL classifications: Q47, Q48, Q52, Q53