Co-benefits of climate mitigation on air quality and human health in Asian countries

被引:89
作者
Xie, Yang [1 ,2 ]
Dai, Hancheng [3 ]
Xu, Xinghan [4 ]
Fujimori, Shinichiro [2 ,4 ]
Hasegawa, Tomoko [2 ]
Yi, Kan [5 ]
Masui, Toshihiko [2 ]
Kurata, Gakuji [4 ]
机构
[1] Beihang Univ, Sch Econ & Management, Beijing 100191, Peoples R China
[2] Natl Inst Environm Studies, Ctr Social & Environm Syst Res, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 3058506, Japan
[3] Peking Univ, Coll Environm Sci & Engn, Room 246,Environm Bldg, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
[4] Kyoto Univ, Dept Environm Engn, Nishikyo Ku, Kyoto 6158540, Japan
[5] Peking Univ, Coll Urban & Environm Sci, Beijing 100871, Peoples R China
关键词
Air quality; Health co-benefit; Climate mitigation; Economic impact; CGE; PREMATURE MORTALITY; ECONOMIC-IMPACTS; SCENARIO FRAMEWORK; POLLUTION; PM2.5; EMISSIONS; EXPOSURE; POLICIES; CHINA;
D O I
10.1016/j.envint.2018.07.008
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Climate change mitigation involves reducing fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, which is expensive, particularly under stringent mitigation targets. The co-benefits of reducing air pollutants and improving human health are often ignored, but can play significant roles in decision-making. In this study, we quantified the co-benefits of climate change mitigation on ambient air quality and human health in both physical and monetary terms with a particular focus on Asia, where air quality will likely be degraded in the next few decades if mitigation measures are not undertaken. We used an integrated assessment framework that incorporated economic, air chemistry transport, and health assessment models. Air pollution reduction through climate change mitigation under the 2 degrees C goal could reduce premature deaths in Asia by 0.79 million (95% confidence interval: 0.75-1.8 million) by 2050. This co-benefit is equivalent to a life value savings of approximately 2.8 trillion United States dollars (USD) (6% of the gross domestic product [GDP]), which is decidedly more than the climate mitigation cost (840 billion USD, 2% of GDP). At the national level, India has the highest potential net benefit of 1.4 trillion USD, followed by China (330 billion USD) and Japan (68 billion USD). Furthermore, in most Asian countries, per capita GDP gain and life value savings would increase with per capita GDP increasing. We robustly confirmed this qualitative conclusion under several socioeconomic and exposureresponse function assumptions.
引用
收藏
页码:309 / 318
页数:10
相关论文
共 44 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], ANAL 4 5 M2 STABILIZ
  • [2] [Anonymous], UNPUB
  • [3] [Anonymous], 2011, CLIMATIC CHANGE, DOI DOI 10.1007/s10584-011-0157-y
  • [4] [Anonymous], THESIS
  • [5] [Anonymous], 1999, SCI ALGORITHMS EPA M
  • [6] [Anonymous], 2016, World Energy Outlook 2016
  • [7] A wedge-based approach to estimating health co-benefits of climate change mitigation activities in the United States
    Balbus, John M.
    Greenblatt, Jeffery B.
    Chari, Ramya
    Millstein, Dev
    Ebi, Kristie L.
    [J]. CLIMATIC CHANGE, 2014, 127 (02) : 199 - 210
  • [8] The role of Asia in mitigating climate change: Results from the Asia modeling exercise
    Calvin, Katherine
    Clarke, Leon
    Krey, Volker
    Blanford, Geoffrey
    Jiang, Kejun
    Kainuma, Mikiko
    Kriegler, Elmar
    Luderer, Gunnar
    Shukla, P. R.
    [J]. ENERGY ECONOMICS, 2012, 34 : S251 - S260
  • [9] Downscaling Global Emissions and Its Implications Derived from Climate Model Experiments
    Fujimori, Shinichiro
    Abe, Manabu
    Kinoshita, Tsuguki
    Hasegawa, Tomoko
    Kawase, Hiroaki
    Kushida, Kazuhide
    Masui, Toshihiko
    Oka, Kazutaka
    Shiogama, Hideo
    Takahashi, Kiyoshi
    Tatebe, Hiroaki
    Yoshikawa, Minoru
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (01):
  • [10] SSP3: AIM implementation of Shared Socioeconomic Pathways
    Fujimori, Shinichiro
    Hasegawa, Tomoko
    Masui, Toshihiko
    Takahashi, Kiyoshi
    Herran, Diego Silva
    Dai, Hancheng
    Hijioka, Yasuaki
    Kainuma, Mikiko
    [J]. GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE-HUMAN AND POLICY DIMENSIONS, 2017, 42 : 268 - 283