Health co-benefits and the development of climate change mitigation policies in the European Union

The 2015 Paris Agreement requires increasingly ambitious emissions reduction efforts from its member countries. Accounting for ancillary positive health outcomes (health co-benefits) that result from implementing climate change mitigation policies can provide Parties to the Paris Agreement with a sound rationale for introducing stronger mitigation strategies. Despite this recognition, a knowledge gap exists on the role of health co-benefits in the development of climate change mitigation policies. To address this gap, the case study presented here investigates the role of health co-benefits in the development of European Union (EU) climate change mitigation policies through analysis and consideration of semi-structured interview data, government documents, journal articles and media releases. We find that while health co-benefits are an explicit consideration in the development of EU climate change mitigation policies, their influence on final policy outcomes has been limited. Our analysis suggests that whilst health co-benefits are a key driver of air pollution mitigation policies, climate mitigation policies are primarily driven by other factors, including economic costs and energy implications.

Key policy insights

• Health co-benefits are quantified and monetized as part of the development of EU climate change mitigation policies but their influence on the final policies agreed upon is limited.

• Barriers, such as the immediate economic costs associated with climate action, inhibit the influence of health co-benefits on the development of mitigation policies.

• Health co-benefits primarily drive the development of EU air pollution mitigation policies.

• The separation of responsibility for GHG and non-GHG emissions across Directorate Generals has decoupled climate change and air pollution mitigation policies, with consequences for the integration of health co-benefits in climate policy.

     

Standardized estimates of climate change damages for the United States

Nordhaus (1991), Cline (1992), Fankhauser (1992), and Titus (1992) have published comprehensive estimates of annual climate change damages to the United States in about 2060 that vary from $55 billion to $111 billion ($1990). The estimates are comprehensive because they address market and nonmarket impacts. They based their estimates on different assumptions about the rates of climate change and sea level rise, rates of return on investment, and changes in population and income. In addition, many of the damage estimates, although reported for a 2.5–3.0 °C warming, were based on studies that assumed higher rates of warming. Thus, these studies may have overestimated damages associated with a 2.5–3.0 °C warming. In this paper, the results of these studies were standardized for a 2.5 °C warming, a 50-cm sea level rise, 1990 income and population, and a 4% real rate of return on investments. After standardization, the total damage estimates range from $42.3 billion to $52.8 billion, slightly less than 1% of United States GNP in 1990. Yet, within individual sectors, such as agriculture and electricity, standardized damages differ by more than an order of magnitude. In addition, a significant amount of speculation underlies the damage estimates. Thus, the small range of total standardized damages and apparent agreement about the magnitude of such damages should be interpreted with caution.     

The effect of health benefits on climate change mitigation policies

This paper studies the interplay between climate, health, and the economy in a stylized world with eleven heterogeneous regions, with special emphasis on USA, Europe, China, India, and Africa. We introduce health impacts into a simple economic integrated assessment model where both the local cooling effect of SO ₂ and the global warming effect of CO ₂ are endogenous, and investigate how these factors affect the equilibrium path. Regions do not respond in the same way to climate change. In particular, emission abatement rates and health costs depend on the economic and geographical characteristics of each region. Two policy scenarios are considered, Nash and Optimal, for which we present both global and regional results. Results for Africa and China are highlighted.     

Urbanization, climate change and flood policy in the United States

The average annual cost of floods in the United States has been estimated at about $2 billion (current US dollars). The federal government, through the creation of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), has assumed responsibility for mitigating the societal and economic impacts of flooding by establishing a national policy that provides subsidized flood insurance. Increased flood costs during the past two decades have made the NFIP operate at a deficit. This paper argues that our current understanding of climate change and of the sensitivity of the urban environment to floods call for changes to the flood policy scheme. Conclusions are drawn on specific examples from cities along the heavily urbanized corridor of northeastern United States. Mesoscale and global models along with urbanization and economic growth statistics are used to provide insights and recommendations for future flood costs under different emissions scenarios. Mesoscale modeling and future projections from global models suggest, for example, that under a high emissions scenario, New York City could experience almost twice as many days of extreme precipitation that cause flood damage and are disruptive to business as today. The results of the paper suggest that annual flood costs in the United States will increase sharply by the end of the 21st Century, ranging from about $7 to $19 billion current US dollars, depending on the economic growth rate and the emissions scenarios. Hydrologic, hydraulic and other related uncertainties are addressed and a revised version of the NFIP is suggested.     

Governing agriculture-forest landscapes to achieve climate change mitigation

This introduction to the special section on “Governing Agriculture-Forest Landscapes to Achieve Climate Change Mitigation” reviews external interventions to improve forest conditions and reduce deforestation, and by extension, influence carbon storage in agriculture-forest landscapes. The review is based on a careful survey of 123 cases of project-based and policy interventions to influence land use and forest cover outcomes. We propose that outcomes of interventions can be explained in terms of rights, incentives, and technologies related to land use and apply this framework to examine 12 types of interventions in agriculture-forest landscapes. The analysis of the identified 123 cases raises concerns about consistency of data and comparability of cases. Our preliminary evidence suggests limited association between the stated objective of an intervention and its success. This evidence also suggests that smaller scale and effective enforcement may be positively associated with improved forest outcomes. But the effectiveness of interventions across different agriculture-forest landscapes varies and available evidence does not permit easy generalizations. The variable effects of interventions across different agriculture-forest landscapes point to the need to better understand the forms and functions of interventions and to problems associated with assessing their relative efficacy.     

Risk and return of project-based climate change mitigation: a portfolio approach

We present a framework for evaluating the risks of investments in climate change mitigation projects to generate emission credits. Risk factors that influence the quantity of emission credits are identified for six project types. Since not all project types are affected by the same factors, diversification is a viable risk reduction strategy. We propose a methodology for quantifying risk and return of such investments, discuss data requirements, and illustrate it using a sample of voluntary projects. In our sample, the returns of an optimally diversified low-risk portfolio are up to 10 times higher than those of single projects, holding risk exposure constant.     

The economics of leadership in climate change mitigation

Which kind of reaction can a nation or group of nations expect when leading by example in climate policy? This synthesis article describes possible positive reaction mechanisms from different fields of economics, some of which have scarcely been linked to climate economics previously. One effect may be behavioural, a reaction motivated by fairness, reciprocity, or norms. Second, other nations may interpret the leader's action as a signal on his preference or the value of the objective and adjust their own policy based on the new information. Third, the leader may provide a service to other nations, which decreases their costs and risks. The followers could benefit by learning successful policies, adopting technologies, and obtaining information on the cost of environmental policy. All of these mechanisms have in common that the leader sets an example with the intention of motivating others to contribute to the public good.

Policy relevance

A large body of both theoretical and empirical evidence shows that leading by example in climate change mitigation by a small group of nations has important potential for motivating other nations to follow. Modern economics has identified a range of mechanisms to explain why simple free-riding is unlikely to dominate the reaction to leadership. One such mechanism is described by behavioural economics. Humans often behave as conditional cooperators, meaning that they are willing to do their bit once a leader has done his. A second mechanism is the transmission of a credible signal that the leader considers climate change mitigation to be important. Finally, the leader gains knowledge, which spills over to other countries and thus moves their cost–benefit ratio in favour of mitigation. This evidence implies that leadership provides a promising alternative to stimulate the global cooperation that will eventually be needed to stabilize the climate.     

Mid-twenty-first century climate change in the Central United States. Part II: Climate change processes

Ensemble regional model simulations over the central US with 30-km resolution are analyzed to investigate the physical processes of projected precipitation changes in the mid-twenty-first century under greenhouse gas forcing. An atmospheric moisture balance is constructed, and changes in the diurnal cycle are evaluated. Wetter conditions over the central US in April and May occur most strongly in the afternoon and evening, supported primarily by moisture convergence by transient eddy activity, indicating enhanced daytime convection. In June, increased rainfall over the northern Great Plains is strongest from 0000 to 0600 LT. It is supported by positive changes in stationary meridional moisture convergence related to a strengthening of the GPLLJ accompanied by an intensification of the western extension of the North Atlantic subtropical high. In the Midwest, decreased rainfall is strongest at 1500 LT and 0000 LT. Both a suppression of daytime convection as well as changes in the zonal flow in the GPLLJ exit region are important. Future drying over the northern Great Plains in summer is triggered by weakened daytime convection, and persists throughout August and September when a deficit in soil moisture develops and land–atmosphere feedbacks become increasingly important.     

Estimating climate change effects on net primary production of rangelands in the United States

The potential effects of climate change on net primary productivity (NPP) of U.S. rangelands were evaluated using estimated climate regimes from the A1B, A2 and B2 global change scenarios imposed on the biogeochemical cycling model, Biome-BGC from 2001 to 2100. Temperature, precipitation, vapor pressure deficit, day length, solar radiation, CO₂ enrichment and nitrogen deposition were evaluated as drivers of NPP. Across all three scenarios, rangeland NPP increased by 0.26 % year^?1 (7 kg C ha^?1 year^?1) but increases were not apparent until after 2030 and significant regional variation in NPP was revealed. The Desert Southwest and Southwest assessment regions exhibited declines in NPP of about 7 % by 2100, while the Northern and Southern Great Plains, Interior West and Eastern Prairies all experienced increases over 25 %. Grasslands dominated by warm season (C4 photosynthetic pathway) species showed the greatest response to temperature while cool season (C3 photosynthetic pathway) dominated regions responded most strongly to CO₂ enrichment. Modeled NPP responses compared favorably with experimental results from CO₂ manipulation experiments and to NPP estimates from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS). Collectively, these results indicate significant and asymmetric changes in NPP for U.S. rangelands may be expected.     

Evaluation of climate change over the continental United States using a moisture index

This paper uses a modified form of Thornthwaite’s moisture index to better quantify climate variability by integrating the effects of temperature and precipitation. Using the moisture index, trends were evaluated over the last 112 years (1895–2006), when unique changes in temperature and precipitation have been documented to have occurred. In addition, data on potential evapotranspiration and the moisture index were used to investigate changing climate and vegetation regions. The results show that the eastern half of the country has been getting wetter, even as temperatures have continued to increase in many areas. In particular, conditions have become wetter in the South, Northeast, and East North Central regions. The changing climate is illustrated by computing climate and vegetation regions for three 30-year periods (1910–1939, 1940–1969, and 1970–1999). Climate regions based on the moisture index show an expansion of the Humid region (where precipitation vastly exceeds climatic demands for water) across the East as well as a westward shift in the zero moisture index line. In terms of vegetation zones, the most dramatic change occurs across the Midwestern prairie peninsula where the wetter conditions lead to a westward expansion of conditions favorable for oak–hickory–pine vegetation.     

Role of energy efficiency in climate change mitigation policy for India: assessment of co-benefits and opportunities within an integrated assessment modeling framework

Addressing the challenges of global warming requires interventions on both the energy supply and demand side. With the supply side responses being thoroughly discussed in the literature, our paper focuses on analyzing the role of end use efficiency improvements for Indian climate change mitigation policy and the associated co-benefits, within the integrated assessment modeling framework of Global Change Assessment Model (GCAM). Six scenarios are analyzed here in total- one no climate policy and two climate policy cases, and within each of these one scenario with reference end use energy technology assumptions and another with advance end use energy technology assumptions has been analyzed. The paper has some important insights. Final energy demand and emissions in India are significantly reduced with energy efficiency improvements, and the role of this policy is important especially for the building and transportation sector under both reference and climate policy scenarios. Though energy efficiency policy should be an integral part of climate policy, by itself it is not sufficient for achieving mitigation targets, and a climate policy is necessary for achieving mitigation goals. There are significant co-benefits of energy efficiency improvements. Energy security for India is improved with reduced oil, coal and gas imports. Significant reduction in local pollutant gases is found which is important for local health concerns. Capital investment requirement for Indian electricity generation is reduced, more so for the climate policy scenarios, and finally there are significant savings in terms of reduced abatement cost for meeting climate change mitigation goals.     

Consequences of climate change for the soil climate in Central Europe and the central plains of the United States

This study aims to evaluate soil climate quantitatively under present and projected climatic conditions across Central Europe (12.1°–18.9° E and 46.8°–51.1° N) and the U.S. Central Plains (90°–104° W and 37°–49° N), with a special focus on soil temperature, hydric regime, drought risk and potential productivity (assessed as a period suitable for crop growth). The analysis was completed for the baselines (1961–1990 for Europe and 1985–2005 for the U.S.) and time horizons of 2025, 2050 and 2100 based on the outputs of three global circulation models using two levels of climate sensitivity. The results indicate that the soil climate (soil temperature and hydric soil regimes) will change dramatically in both regions, with significant consequences for soil genesis. However, the predicted changes of the pathways are very uncertain because of the range of future climate systems predicted by climate models. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that the risk of unfavourable dry years will increase, resulting in greater risk of soil erosion and lower productivity. The projected increase in the variability of dry and wet events combined with the uncertainty (particularly in the U.S.) poses a challenge for selecting the most appropriate adaptation strategies and for setting adequate policies. The results also suggest that the soil resources are likely be under increased pressure from changes in climate.     

Projected climate change impacts on skiing and snowmobiling: A case study of the United States

We use a physically-based water and energy balance model to simulate natural snow accumulation at 247 winter recreation locations across the continental United States. We combine this model with projections of snowmaking conditions to determine downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, and snowmobiling season lengths under baseline and future climates, using data from five climate models and two emissions scenarios. Projected season lengths are combined with baseline estimates of winter recreation activity, entrance fee information, and potential changes in population to monetize impacts to the selected winter recreation activity categories for the years 2050 and 2090. Our results identify changes in winter recreation season lengths across the United States that vary by location, recreational activity type, and climate scenario. However, virtually all locations are projected to see reductions in winter recreation season lengths, exceeding 50% by 2050 and 80% in 2090 for some downhill skiing locations. We estimate these season length changes could result in millions to tens of millions of foregone recreational visits annually by 2050, with an annual monetized impact of hundreds of millions of dollars. Comparing results from the alternative emissions scenarios shows that limiting global greenhouse gas emissions could both delay and substantially reduce adverse impacts to the winter recreation industry.     

A regional climate model for the western United States

A numerical approach to modeling climate on a regional scale is developed whereby large-scale weather systems are simulated with a global climate model (GCM) and the GCM output is used to provide the boundary conditions needed for high-resolution mesoscale model simulations over the region of interest. In our example, we use the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) community climate model (CCM1) and the Pennsylvania State University (PSU)/NCAR Mesoscale Model version 4 (MM4) to apply this approach over the western United States (U.S.). The topography, as resolved by the 500-km mesh of the CCM1, is necessarily highly distorted, but with the 60-km mesh of the MM4 the major mountain ranges are distinguished. To obtain adequate and consistent representations of surface climate, we use the same radiation and land surface treatments in both models, the latter being the recently developed Biosphere-Atmosphere Transfer Scheme (BATS). Our analysis emphasizes the simulation at four CCM1 points surrounding Yucca Mountain, NV, because of the need to determine its climatology prior to certification as a high-level nuclear waste repository.We simulate global climate for three years with CCM1/BATS and describe the resulting January surface climatology over the western U.S. The details of the precipitation patterns are unrealistic because of the smooth topography. Selecting five January CCM1 storms that occur over the western U.S. with a total duration of 20 days for simulation with the MM4, we demonstrate that the mesoscale model provides much improved wintertime precipitation patterns. The storms in MM4 are individually much more realistic than those in CCM1. A simple averaging procedure that infers a mean January rainfall climatology calculated from the 20 days of MM4 simulation is much closer to the observed than is the CCM1 climatology. The soil moisture and subsurface drainage simulated over 3–5 day integration periods of MM4, however, remain strongly dependent on the initial CCM1 soil moisture and thus are less realistic than the rainfall. Adequate simulation of surface soil water may require integrations of the mesoscale model over time periods.The National Center for Atmospheric Research is sponsored by the National Science Foundation. of up to several months or longer.     

The water impacts of climate change mitigation measures

A variety of proposed activities to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions will impact on scarce water resources, which are coming under increasing pressure in many countries due to population growth and shifting weather patterns. However, the integrated analysis of water and carbon impacts has been given limited attention in greenhouse mitigation planning. In this Australian case study, we analyse a suite of 74 mitigation measures ranked as highest priority by one influential analysis, and we find that they have highly variable consequences for water quantity. We find: (1) The largest impacts result from land-based sequestration, which has the potential to intercept large quantities of water and reduce catchment yields, estimated to exceed 100 Mm³/MtCO₂-e of carbon mitigated (100,000 l per tonne CO₂-e). (2) Moderate impacts result from some renewable power options, including solar thermal power with a water cost estimated at nearly 4 Mm³/MtCO₂-e. However, the water impacts of solar thermal power facilities could be reduced by designing them to use existing power-related water supplies or to use air or salt-water cooling. (3) Wind power, biogas, solar photovoltaics, energy efficiency and operational improvements to existing power sources can reduce water demand through offsetting the water used to cool thermal power generation, with minor savings estimated at 2 Mm³/MtCO₂-e and amounting to nearly 100 Mm³ of water saved in Australia per annum in 2020. This integrated analysis significantly changes the attractiveness of some mitigation options, compared to the case where water impacts are not considered.