Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting 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.

Coal-exit health and environmental damage reductions outweigh economic impacts


Cheap and abundant coal fuelled the industrialization of Europe, North America and Asia1. However, the price tag on coal has never reflected the external cost to society; coal combustion produces more than a third of today’s global CO2 emissions and is a major contributor to local adverse effects on the environment and public health, such as biodiversity loss and respiratory diseases. Here, we show that phasing out coal yields substantial local environmental and health benefits that outweigh the direct policy costs due to shortening of the energy supply. Phasing out coal is thus a no-regret strategy for most world regions, even when only accounting for domestic effects and neglecting the global benefits from slowing climate change. Our results suggest that these domestic effects potentially eliminate much of the free-rider problem caused by the discrepancy between the national burden of decarbonization costs and the internationally shared benefits of climate change impact mitigation. This, combined with the profound effect of closing around half of the global CO2 emissions gap towards the 2 °C target, makes coal phase-out policies attractive candidates for the iterative strengthening of the nationally determined contributions pledged by the countries under the Paris Agreement.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Energy system transformation pathways and emissions across scenarios.
Fig. 2: Globally aggregated direct policy cost and environmental and health cost/benefits relative to annual gross domestic product (GDP) purchasing power parity (PPP).
Fig. 3: Regional analysis of local co-benefits and direct policy cost relative to annual GDP PPP.

Data availability

The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper, its supplementary information files and in the following repositories. The energy–economy–climate model REMIND is available at The Life Cycle Assessment notebooks and data are available at The air pollution data is available at

Code availability

The code used to generate the energy–economy–climate model REMIND can be accessed at The code used to generate the Life Cycle Assessment results can be accessed at, at (Brightway2), at (Wurst), and at (rmnd-lca). The code used to generate the air pollution results can be accessed at


  1. 1.

    Pomeranz, K. The Great Divergence (Princeton Univ. Press, 2009).

  2. 2.

    IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (eds Masson-Delmotte, V. et al.) (WMO, 2018).

  3. 3.

    LeQuéré, C. et al. Drivers of declining CO2 emissions in 18 developed economies. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 213–217 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Emissions Gap Report 2018 (UNEP, 2018).

  5. 5.

    Griggs, D. et al. Sustainable development goals for people and planet. Nature 495, 305–307 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Lloyd, W. Two Lectures on the Checks to Population: Delivered Before the University of Oxford (S. Collingwood, 1833).

  7. 7.

    Brousseau, E., Dedeurwaerdere, T., Jouvet, P.-A. & Willinger, M. in Global Environmental Commons: Analytical and Political Challenges in Building Governance Mechanisms (eds Brousseau, E. et al.) 1–28 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2012).

  8. 8.

    McGlade, C. & Ekins, P. The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 C. Nature 517, 187–190 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Edenhofer, O. et al. Closing the emission price gap. Glob. Environ. Change 31, 132–143 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Jewell, J., Vinichenko, V., Nacke, L. & Cherp, A. Prospects for powering past coal. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 592–597 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    McCollum, D. L., Krey, V. & Riahi, K. An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nat. Clim. Change 1, 428–429 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Author. Sustainable development through climate action. Nat. Clim. Change 9, 491 (2019).

  13. 13.

    Riahi, K. et al. The shared socioeconomic pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: an overview. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 153–168 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Rogelj, J. et al. Understanding the origin of Paris Agreement emission uncertainties. Nat. Commun. 8, 15748 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Vrontisi, Z. et al. Enhancing global climate policy ambition towards a 1.5 C stabilization: a short-term multi-model assessment. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 044039 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tong, D. et al. Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 C climate target. Nature 572, 373–377 (2019).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Luderer, G. et al. Residual fossil CO2 emissions in 1.5–2 C pathways. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 626–633 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Luderer, G., Bertram, C., Calvin, K., De Cian, E. & Kriegler, E. Implications of weak near-term climate policies on long-term mitigation pathways. Climatic Change 136, 127–140 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Rauner, S., Hilaire, J., Klein, D., Strefler, J. & Luderer, G. Air quality co-benefits of ratcheting-up the NDCs. Climatic Change (in press).

  20. 20.

    Burnett, R. et al. Global estimates of mortality associated with long-term exposure to outdoor fine particulate matter. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 9592–9597 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Wernet, G. et al. The ecoinvent database version 3 (part I): overview and methodology. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 21, 1218–1230 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Goedkoop, M., Heijungs, R., De Schryver, A., Struijs, J. & van Zelm, R. ReCiPe 2008: A Life Cycle Impact Assessment Method which Comprises Harmonised Category Indicators at the Midpoint and the Endpoint Level (2009).

  23. 23.

    Model Documentation - REMIND (IAMC, 2018).

  24. 24.

    Bauer, N., Baumstark, L. & Leimbach, M. The REMIND-R model: the role of renewables in the low-carbon transformation–first-best vs. second-best worlds. Climatic Change 114, 145–168 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Heijungs, R. & Suh, S. The Computational Structure of Life Cycle Assessment Vol. 11 (Springer, 2002).

  26. 26.

    Cox, B., Mutel, C. L., Bauer, C., MendozaBeltran, A. & Vuuren, D. Pvan Uncertain environmental footprint of current and future battery electric vehicles. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 4989–4995 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Amann, M. Greenhouse Gas and Air Pollution Interaction and Synergies (GAINS) (European Environment Agency, 2012).

  28. 28.

    Van Dingenen, R. et al. TM5-FASST: a global atmospheric source-receptor model for rapid impact analysis of emission changes on air quality and short-lived climate pollutants. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 16173–16211 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    WHO Mortality Database (WHO, 2012).

  31. 31.

    KC, S. & Lutz, W. The human core of the shared socioeconomic pathways: population scenarios by age, sex and level of education for all countries to 2100. Glob. Environ. Change 42, 181–192 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Global Health Estimates 2016: Deaths by Cause, Age, Sex, by Country and by Region, 2000–2016 (WHO, 2018).

  33. 33.

    Mortality Risk Valuation in Environment, Health and Transport Policies Vol. 9789264130 (OECD, 2012).

  34. 34.

    Ott, W., Baur, M. & Kaufmann, Y. Assessment of Biodiversity Losses Deliverable D.4.2 (NEEDS, 2006).

  35. 35.

    Koellner, T. Land use in product life cycles and its consequences for ecosystem quality. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 7, 130 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Tol, R. S. J. The economic effects of climate change. J. Econ. Perspect. 23, 29–51 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    van den Bergh, J. & Botzen, W. J. W. A lower bound to the social cost of CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 253–258 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Krey, V. et al. Looking under the hood: a comparison of techno-economic assumptions across national and global integrated assessment models. Energy 172, 1254–1267 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).

Download references


The research leading to these results was supported by the ENavi (funding code 03SFK4P0), INTEGRATE (01LP1928C) and PEGASOS (01LA1826C) projects funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF).

Author information




S.R., N.B. and G.L. designed the research. S.R. designed the modelling framework and performed the integrated assessment analysis. S.R. and R.V.D. performed the air pollution analysis. S.R., A.D. and C.M. performed the LCA analysis. S.R. created the figures and wrote the paper with inputs and feedback from all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sebastian Rauner.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Climate Change thanks Dev Millstein and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–33 and Tables 1 and 2.

Reporting Summary

Supplementary Data 1

Energy-economy-climate results including CO2 pathways and technology mixes.

Supplementary Data 2

Life cycle assessment mid-point results.

Supplementary Data 3

Life cycle assessment end-point results.

Supplementary Data 4

Life cycle assessment end-point monetized results.

Supplementary Data 5

Region-country mapping.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rauner, S., Bauer, N., Dirnaichner, A. et al. Coal-exit health and environmental damage reductions outweigh economic impacts. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10, 308–312 (2020).

Download citation

Further reading


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