Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A systems approach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies

Abstract

Because human activities emit greenhouse gases (GHGs) and conventional air pollutants from common sources, policy designed to reduce GHGs can have co-benefits for air quality that may offset some or all of the near-term costs of GHG mitigation. We present a systems approach to quantify air quality co-benefits of US policies to reduce GHG (carbon) emissions. We assess health-related benefits from reduced ozone and particulate matter (PM2.5) by linking three advanced models, representing the full pathway from policy to pollutant damages. We also examine the sensitivity of co-benefits to key policy-relevant sources of uncertainty and variability. We find that monetized human health benefits associated with air quality improvements can offset 26–1,050% of the cost of US carbon policies. More flexible policies that minimize costs, such as cap-and-trade standards, have larger net co-benefits than policies that target specific sectors (electricity and transportation). Although air quality co-benefits can be comparable to policy costs for present-day air quality and near-term US carbon policies, potential co-benefits rapidly diminish as carbon policies become more stringent.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

$32.00

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Spatial maps show the difference in pollution concentration between each base case policy option and BAU.
Figure 2: Percentage of policy costs covered by the median value of policy benefits versus percentage CO2 reduction relative to 2006.
Figure 3: Human health co-benefits versus policy costs (billion 2006 US$, undiscounted).

References

  1. Bell, M. L., Dominici, F. & Samet, J. M. A meta-analysis of time-series studies of ozone and mortality with comparison to the national morbidity, mortality, and air pollution study. Epidemiology 16, 436–445 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Pope, C. A., Ezzati, M. & Dockery, D. W. Fine-particulate air pollution and life expectancy in the United States. N. Engl. J. Med. 360, 376–386 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. US EPA Area Designations for 2008 Ground-Level Ozone Standards (Office of Air and Radiation, 2012); www.epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/designations/2008standards/index.htm

  4. US EPA Fine Particle (PM 2.5 ) Designations (Office of Air and Radiation, 2012). www.epa.gov/pmdesignations/

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

  6. IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  7. Nemet, G. F., Holloway, T. & Meier, P. Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ. Res. Lett. 5, 014007 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon (IWGSCC), Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order No. 12866 (United States Government, 2013); www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulator-impact-analysis.pdf

  9. Greenstone, M., Kopits, E. & Wolverton, A. Developing a social cost of carbon for US regulatory analysis: A methodology and interpretation. Rev. Environ. Econ. Policy 7, 23–46 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Griffiths, C. et al. in Fiscal Policy to Mitigate Climate Change: A Guide for Policymakers (EPub) (ed Ruud de Mooij, I. et al.) Ch. 4 (International Monetary Fund, 2012).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jack, D. W. & Kinney, P. L. Health co-benefits of climate mitigation in urban areas. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2, 172–177 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shindell, D. et al. Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security. Science 335, 183–189 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Shindell, D. et al. Climate, health, agricultural and economic impacts of tighter vehicle-emission standards. Nature Clim. Change 1, 59–66 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Burtraw, D. et al. Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45, 650–673 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Groosman, B., Muller, N. Z. & O’Neill-Toy, E. The ancillary benefits from climate policy in the United States. Environ. Res. Econ. 50, 585–603 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Fann, N., Fulcher, C. M. & Hubbell, B. J. The influence of location, source, and emission type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2, 169–176 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Muller, N. Z., Mendelsohn, R. & Nordhaus, W. Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States Economy. Am. Econ. Rev. 101, 1649–1675 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Levy, J. I., Baxter, L. K. & Schwartz, J. Uncertainty and variability in health-related damages from coal-fired power plants in the United States. Risk Analysis 29, 1000–1014 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Webster, M. et al. Analysis of climate policy targets under uncertainty. Climatic Change 112, 569–583 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E. & Reilly, J. M. Distributional impacts of carbon pricing: A general equilibrium approach with micro-data for households. Energy Econ. 33, (Suppl. 1) S20–S33 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. ENVIRON User’s Guide: Comprehensive Air Quality Model with Extensions, Version 5.3 (ENVIRON International Corporation, 2010).

  22. Abt Associates Inc. BenMAP, Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program. User’s Manual, version 4.0 (US EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2012). Available at: www.epa.gov/airquality/benmap/docs.html (2013)

  23. Paltsev, S. & Capros, P. Cost concepts for climate change mitigation. Clim. Change Econ. 04, 1340003 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. US EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone in 27 States (Office of Air and Radiation, 2011); www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/FinalRIA.pdf

  25. Weyant, J. P., C-Chesnaye, F. & Blanford, G. J. Overview of EMF-21: Multigas mitigation and climate policy. Energy J. (special issue 3) 1–32 (2006).

  26. Montgomery, D. W. Markets in licenses and efficient pollution control programs. J. Econ. Theory 5, 395–418 (1972).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. US EPA Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2011); www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/matsriafinal.pdf

  28. Stern, N. The Economics of Climate Change: The Stern Review (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Book  Google Scholar 

  29. Waugh, C. J. An Integrated Assessment of Air Pollutant Abatement Opportunities in a Computable General Equilibrium Framework Master of Science Thesis, MIT Technology and Policy Program (2012); http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/2295

  30. US EPA Industrial Economics, Inc. Uncertainty Analyses to Support the Second Section 812 Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Clean Air Act (Office of Air and Radiation, 2010); www.epa.gov/oar/sect812/may10/IEc_Uncertainty.pdf

  31. Matus, K. et al. Health damages from air pollution in China. Glob. Environ. Change 22, 55–66 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nam, K-M., Selin, N. E., Reilly, J. M. & Paltsev, S. Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe: A CGE analysis. Energy Policy 38, 5059–5071 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Matus, K., Yang, T., Paltsev, S., Reilly, J. & Nam, K-M. Toward integrated assessment of environmental change: Air pollution health effects in the USA. Climatic Change 88, 59–92 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Chang, H. H., Zhou, J. & Fuentes, M. Impact of climate change on ambient ozone level and mortality in Southeastern United States. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health 7, 2866–2880 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tagaris, E. et al. Impacts of global climate change and emissions on regional ozone and fine particulate matter concentrations over the United States. J. Geophys. Res. 112, D14312 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Thompson, T. M., Saari, R. K. & Selin, N. E. Air quality resolution for health impact assessment: Influence of regional characteristics. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 969–978 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fann, N. et al. Estimating the national public health burden associated with exposure to ambient PM2.5 and ozone. Risk Anal. 32, 81–95 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Jacob, D. J. & Winner, D. A. Effect of climate change on air quality. Atmos. Environ. 43, 51–63 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Mitigation (ed Metz, B. et al.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

  40. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E., Reilly, J. M. & Paltsev, S. Distributional implications of alternative US greenhouse gas control measures. B.E. J. Econ. Anal. Policy 10 http://10.2202/1935-1682.2537 (2010)

  41. Caron, J. & Rausch, S. A Global General Equilibrium Model with US State-Level Detail for Trade and Environmental Policy Analysis (MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, 2013); http://globalchange.mit.edu/research/publications/2405

  42. Rausch, S., Metcalf, G. E., Reilly, J. M. & Paltsev, S. Distributional Impacts of a US Greenhouse Gas Policy: A General Equilibrium Analysis of Carbon Pricing, US Energy Tax Policy (ed Metcalf, G. E.) (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2011).

    Google Scholar 

  43. CMAS SMOKE v2.7 User’s Manual (Institute for the Environment, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2010); https://www.cmascenter.org/smoke/documentation/2.7/html/

  44. US EPA Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM 2.5 , and Regional Haze (Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2007); www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03-pm-rh-guidance.pdf

  45. US EPA Air Quality Modeling Final Rule Technical Support Document (Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, 2011); www.epa.gov/airtransport/pdfs/AQModeling.pdf

  46. Thompson, T. M. & Selin, N. E. Influence of air quality model resolution on uncertainty associated with health impacts. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12, 9753–9762 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2006); http://wonder.cdc.gov/mmwr/mmwr_reps.asp

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge support from: the US EPA under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program (#R834279); MIT’s Leading Technology and Policy Initiative; MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change and its consortium of industrial and foundation sponsors (see: http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/all); US Department of Energy Office of Science grant DE-FG02-94ER61937; the MIT Energy Initiative Total Energy Fellowship (R.K.S.); and a MIT Martin Family Society Fellowship (R.K.S.). Although the research described has been funded in part by the US EPA, it has not been subjected to any EPA review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. We thank North East States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) for assistance in selection of policy scenarios, and Mort Webster (Penn State) and Ronald Prinn (MIT) for helpful comments and discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

T.M.T., S.R. and N.E.S. designed the modelling framework and the research approach. T.M.T. linked the framework and conducted the atmospheric modelling and human health analysis. S.R. developed the economic modelling tool and conducted the economic model runs. R.K.S. assisted with the human health analysis. All authors contributed to writing the text.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Tammy M. Thompson or Sebastian Rausch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thompson, T., Rausch, S., Saari, R. et al. A systems approach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies. Nature Clim Change 4, 917–923 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2342

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2342

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing