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.
Revised: May 22, 2020 |
Published: March 2, 2020
Citation
Sampedro Martinez de Estivariz J., S.J. Smith, I. Arto, M. Gonzalez-Eguino, A. Markandya, K.M. Mulvaney, and C. Pizarro-Irizar, et al. 2020.Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply.Environment International 136.PNNL-ACT-SA-10474.doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105513