Article | Published:

Climate, health, agricultural and economic impacts of tighter vehicle-emission standards

Nature Climate Change volume 1, pages 5966 (2011) | Download Citation

Abstract

Non-CO2 air pollutants from motor vehicles have traditionally been controlled to protect air quality and health, but also affect climate. We use global composition–climate modelling to examine the integrated impacts of adopting stringent European on-road vehicle-emission standards for these pollutants in 2015 in many developing countries. Relative to no extra controls, the tight standards lead to annual benefits in 2030 and beyond of 120,000–280,000 avoided premature air pollution-related deaths, 6.1–19.7 million metric tons of avoided ozone-related yield losses of major food crops, $US0.6–2.4 trillion avoided health damage and $US1.1–4.3 billion avoided agricultural damage, and mitigation of 0.20 (+0.14/−0.17)  °C of Northern Hemisphere extratropical warming during 2040–2070. Tighter vehicle-emission standards are thus extremely likely to mitigate short-term climate change in most cases, in addition to providing large improvements in human health and food security. These standards will not reduce CO2 emissions, however, which is required to mitigate long-term climate change.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    et al. An inventory of gaseous and primary aerosol emissions in Asia in the year 2000. J. Geophys. Res. 108, 8809 (2003).

  2. 2.

    , & in Global, Regional, and National Fossil Fuel CO2 Emissions (Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, US Department of Energy, 2008).

  3. 3.

    et al. Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Land transport. Atmos. Environ. 44, 4772–4816 (2010).

  4. 4.

    et al. Direct radiative effect of aerosols emitted by transport: from road, shipping and aviation. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 4477–4489 (2010).

  5. 5.

    , & Climate forcing by the on-road transportation and power generation sectors. Atmos. Environ. 43, 3077–3085 (2009).

  6. 6.

    , , , & Climate forcing from the transport sectors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 454–458 (2008).

  7. 7.

    et al. Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Metrics. Atmos. Environ. 44, 4648–4677 (2010).

  8. 8.

    et al. Climate forcing and air quality change due to regional emissions reductions by economic sector. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8, 7101–7113 (2008).

  9. 9.

    & IEA/SMP Model Documentation and Reference Case Projections 1–92 (International Energy Agency World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2004).

  10. 10.

    , , & The indirect global warming potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 044007 (2009).

  11. 11.

    & The net climate impact of coal-fired power plant emissions. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 3247–3260 (2010).

  12. 12.

    et al. Spatial scales of climate response to inhomogeneous radiative forcing. J. Geophys. Res. 115, D19110 (2010).

  13. 13.

    & New directions: Climate change and air pollution abatement: A bumpy road. Atmos. Environ. 43, 5132–5133 (2009).

  14. 14.

    , , & Present-day climate forcing and response from black carbon in snow. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D11202 (2007).

  15. 15.

    et al. Distinguishing aerosol impacts on climate over the past century. J. Clim. 22, 2659–2677 (2009).

  16. 16.

    , , , & Impact of anthropogenic aerosols on Indian summer monsoon. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L21704 (2009).

  17. 17.

    & Global and regional climate changes due to black carbon. Nature Geosci. 1, 221–227 (2008).

  18. 18.

    , & Effects of black carbon aerosols on the Indian monsoon. J. Clim. 21, 2869–2882 (2006).

  19. 19.

    & Nonlinear climate and hydrological responses to aerosol effects. J. Clim. 22, 1329–1339 (2009).

  20. 20.

    & Tropical rainfall trends and the indirect aerosol effect. J. Clim. 15, 2103–2116 (2002).

  21. 21.

    & Climate response of direct radiative forcing of anthropogenic black carbon. J. Geophys. Res. 110, D11102 (2005).

  22. 22.

    et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants. Lancet 374, 2091–2103 (2009).

  23. 23.

    et al. Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: Overview and implications for policy makers. Lancet 374, 2104–2114 (2009).

  24. 24.

    et al. Simulations of preindustrial, present-day, and 2100 conditions in the NASA GISS composition and climate model G-PUCCINI. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 4427–4459 (2006).

  25. 25.

    et al. Coatings and their enhancement of black carbon light absorption in the tropical atmosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 113, D03203 (2008).

  26. 26.

    et al. Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: Methodology and application. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 7017–7039 (2010).

  27. 27.

    et al. Model intercomparison of indirect aerosol effects. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 3391–3405 (2006).

  28. 28.

    et al. in IPCC Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  29. 29.

    & Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the 20th century. Nature Geosci. 2, 294–300 (2009).

  30. 30.

    et al. in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (eds Solomon, S. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  31. 31.

    et al. Extended Follow-up and Spatial Analysis of the American Cancer Society Study Linking Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality 140 (Health Effects Institute, 2009).

  32. 32.

    et al. Long-term ozone exposure and mortality. New Engl. J. Med. 360, 1085–1095 (2009).

  33. 33.

    , , & An estimate of the global burden of anthropogenic ozone and fine particulate matter on premature human mortality using atmospheric modelling. Environ. Health Perspect. 118, 1189–1195 (2010).

  34. 34.

    et al. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks (World Health Organization, 2004).

  35. 35.

    et al. The global impact of ozone on agricultural crop yields under current and future air quality legislation. Atmos. Environ. 43, 604–618 (2009).

  36. 36.

    & Environmental economics: A survey. J. Econ. Lit. 30, 675–740 (1992).

  37. 37.

    & The value of a statistical life: A critical review of market estimates throughout the world. J. Risk Uncert. 27, 5–76 (2003).

  38. 38.

    USEPA The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act: 1990–2010. EPA Report to Congress (Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Policy, 1999).

  39. 39.

    .

  40. 40.

    & Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 54, 1–14 (2007).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the NASA Applied Sciences program, the ClimateWorks Foundation and the California Air Resources Board for supporting this work. We also thank T. Bond for gridding the emissions, M. Brauer for providing the PM2.5-measurement database, J. West for assistance with the population projection, B. Croes and D. Luo at CARB for their assistance and the UNEP/WMO Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone team for discussions. Conclusions expressed in this article are the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their employers.

Author information

Author notes

    • Dorothy Koch

    Present address: Department of Energy, Washington, District of Columbia 20585, USA

Affiliations

  1. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, New York 10025, USA

    • Drew Shindell
    • , Greg Faluvegi
    • , Dorothy Koch
    •  & George Milly
  2. International Council for Clean Transportation, San Francisco, California 94104, USA

    • Michael Walsh
  3. US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, USA

    • Susan C. Anenberg
  4. Environmental Sciences and Engineering Department, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599, USA

    • Susan C. Anenberg
  5. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Ispra I-21027, Italy

    • Rita Van Dingenen
  6. Department of Economics, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vermont 05753, USA

    • Nicholas Z. Muller
  7. California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, California 95814, USA

    • Jeff Austin

Authors

  1. Search for Drew Shindell in:

  2. Search for Greg Faluvegi in:

  3. Search for Michael Walsh in:

  4. Search for Susan C. Anenberg in:

  5. Search for Rita Van Dingenen in:

  6. Search for Nicholas Z. Muller in:

  7. Search for Jeff Austin in:

  8. Search for Dorothy Koch in:

  9. Search for George Milly in:

Contributions

D.S. planned and led the work and writing of the paper. G.F. carried out the composition–climate modelling. M.W. carried out the emissions analyses. S.C.A. and J.A. carried out the health analyses. R.V.D. carried out the crop-yield and valuation analysis. N.Z.M. carried out the health valuation analysis. D.K. provided input on aerosol modelling. G.M. analysed the composition–climate model output. All contributed to writing the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drew Shindell.

Supplementary information

PDF files

  1. 1.

    Supplementary information

    Supplementary information

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1066

Further reading