The achievement of net-zero greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 2100 is required to limit global temperature rise below 2 °C above preindustrial levels. Earlier accomplishments of net-zero GHG emissions in developed regions support this global target. Here, we develop a road map for California to achieve net-zero GHG emissions sustainably in 2050 by using detailed modelling of energy system transformation, cross-sectoral connectivity and technology penetration, as well as quantify the associated health co-benefits from reduced co-emitted air pollutants. We find that approximately 14,000 premature deaths can be avoided in California in 2050 and that these health co-benefits are disproportionately higher in disadvantaged communities (that is, 35% of avoided deaths will come from 25% of the state’s population). The annualized monetary benefits (US$215 billion) exceed the GHG abatement cost (US$106 billion) by US$109 billion. This road map requires the use of bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration technology to offset some GHG emissions. However, this technology comes at a price as it would emit a considerable amount of air pollutants and reduce health co-benefits by US$4 billion. Nevertheless, our analysis shows that ambitious GHG reduction efforts can provide substantial health co-benefits, especially for residents of disadvantaged communities.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $8.25 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors (B.Z. and Y.Z.) on request.
The code of WRF-Chem model is available at http://www2.mmm.ucar.edu/wrf/users/download/get_source.html; the code of BenMAP is available at https://www.epa.gov/benmap/benmap-downloads; the custom CRFs used for the health impact assessment are available from the corresponding authors (B.Z. and Y.Z.) on request.
Costello, A. et al. Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet 373, 1693–1733 (2009).
IPCC Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report (eds Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R. K. & Meyer, L. A.) (IPCC, 2014).
Rogelj, J. et al. Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 105007 (2015).
Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355, 1269–1271 (2017).
Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).
Zapata, C., Muller, N. & Kleeman, M. J. PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 1: California’s AB 32. Climatic Change 117, 377–397 (2013).
Thurston, G. D., Ito, K. & Lall, R. A source apportionment of US fine particulate matter air pollution. Atmos. Environ. 45, 3924–3936 (2011).
Wang, T., Jerrett, M., Sinsheimer, P. & Zhu, Y. Estimating PM 2.5-associated mortality increase in California due to the Volkswagen emission control defeat device. Atmos. Environ. 144, 168–174 (2016).
Sillman, S. Some theoretical results concerning O3-NOx-VOC chemistry and NOx-VOC indicators. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 4659 (2002).
Pope, C. A. & Dockery, D. W. Health effects of fine particulate air pollution: lines that connect. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 56, 709–742 (2006).
Jerrett, M. et al. Long-Term ozone exposure and mortality. New Engl. J. Med. 360, 1085–1095 (2009).
Turner, M. C. et al. Long-Term ozone exposure and mortality in a large prospective study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 193, 1134–1142 (2016).
Markandya, A. et al. Health co-benefits from air pollution and mitigation costs of the Paris Agreement: a modelling study. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e126–e133 (2018).
Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., Seltzer, K. & Shindell, C. Quantified, localized health benefits of accelerated carbon dioxide emissions reductions. Nat. Clim. Change 8, 291–295 (2018).
West, J. J. et al. Co-benefits of mitigating global greenhouse gas emissions for future air quality and human health. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 885–889 (2013).
Zapata, C. B., Yang, C., Yeh, S., Ogden, J. & Kleeman, M. J. Low-carbon energy generates public health savings in California. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18, 4817–4830 (2018).
Campbell-Lendrum, D. & Woodruff, R. Comparative risk assessment of the burden of disease from climate change. Environ. Health Perspect. 114, 1935–1941 (2006).
Symonds, P. et al. MicroEnv: a microsimulation model for quantifying the impacts of environmental policies on population health and health inequalities. Sci. Total Environ. 697, 134105 (2019).
Milner, J. et al. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK. BMJ Open 5, e007364–e007364 (2015).
Thompson, T. M., Rausch, S., Saari, R. K. & Selin, N. E. A systems approach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies. Nat. Clim. Change 4, 917–923 (2014).
Assembly Bill 32 Overview (CARB, 2014).
Pavley, F. SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit (California State Senate, 2016).
Brown, E. G. Jr Executive Order B-55-18 to Achieve Carbon Neutrality (Executive Department, 2018).
Ou, Y. et al. Estimating environmental co-benefits of US low-carbon pathways using an integrated assessment model with state-level resolution. Appl. Energy 216, 482–493 (2018).
Zhang, Y., Smith, S. J., Bowden, J. H., Adelman, Z. & West, J. J. Co-benefits of global, domestic, and sectoral greenhouse gas mitigation for US air quality and human health in 2050. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 114033 (2017).
Chang, K. M. et al. Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of policy uptake: a review of air quality, transportation and diet co-benefits modeling studies. Environ. Res. Lett. 12, 113001 (2017).
Driscoll, C. T. et al. US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 535–540 (2015).
State Population Projections (2010–2060) (Department of Finance, 2019).
Gross State Product (Department of Finance, 2019).
State Energy Data System (EIA, 2017).
Zhao, B. et al. Air quality and health cobenefits of different deep decarbonization pathways in California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7163–7171 (2019).
Joint Proposal (PG&E, 2016).
Nikolewski, R. Regulators vote to shut down Diablo Canyon, California’s last nuclear power plant. Los Angeles Times (11 January 2018).
Air Pollution Impacts from Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (European Environment Agency, 2011).
Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535 (De León) (CalEPA, 2017).
Williams, J. H. et al. The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: the pivotal role of electricity. Science 335, 53–59 (2012).
Kleeman, M. J., Zapata, C., Stilley, J. & Hixson, M. PM2.5 co-benefits of climate change legislation part 2: California governor’s executive order S-3-05 applied to the transportation sector. Climatic Change 117, 399–414 (2013).
Gough, C. et al. Challenges to the use of BECCS as a keystone technology in pursuit of 1.5 °C. Glob. Sustain. 1, e5 (2018).
NAAQS Table (EPA, 2016).
Tessum, C. W. et al. Inequity in consumption of goods and services adds to racial–ethnic disparities in air pollution exposure. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 6001–6006 (2019).
Anderson, C. M., Kissel, K. A., Field, C. B. & Mach, K. J. Climate change mitigation, air pollution, and environmental justice in California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 10829–10838 (2018).
Cushing, L. et al. Carbon trading, co-pollutants, and environmental equity: evidence from California’s cap-and-trade program (2011–2015). PLoS Med. 15, e1002604 (2018).
Shrubsole, C., Macmillan, A., Davies, M. & May, N. 100 unintended consequences of policies to improve the energy efficiency of the UK housing stock. Indoor Built Environ. 23, 340–352 (2014).
Milner, J. et al. Home energy efficiency and radon related risk of lung cancer: modelling study. Brit. Med. J. 348, f7493–f7493 (2014).
Lin, H.-H., Murray, M., Cohen, T., Colijn, C. & Ezzati, M. Effects of smoking and solid-fuel use on COPD, lung cancer, and tuberculosis in China: a time-based, multiple risk factor, modelling study. Lancet 372, 1473–1483 (2008).
Hamilton, I. et al. Health effects of home energy efficiency interventions in England: a modelling study. BMJ Open 5, e007298–e007298 (2015).
Patz, J., Campbell-Lendrum, D., Gibbs, H. & Woodruff, R. Health impact assessment of global climate change: expanding on comparative risk assessment approaches for policy making. Annu. Rev. Public Health 29, 27–39 (2008).
Hatzopoulou, M., Hao, J. Y. & Miller, E. J. Simulating the impacts of household travel on greenhouse gas emissions, urban air quality, and population exposure. Transportation 38, 871–887 (2011).
Williams, M. L. et al. The Lancet countdown on health benefits from the UK climate change act: a modelling study for great britain. Lancet Planet. Health 2, e202–e213 (2018).
Deason, J., Wei, M., Leventis, G., Smith, S. & Schwartz, L. Electrification of Buildings and Industry in the United States (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2018); https://emp.lbl.gov/publications/electrification-buildings-and
Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States (DOE, 2015).
Implications of Policy-Driven Residential Electrification (ICF, 2018).
Gillingham, K. & Stock, J. H. The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. 32, 53–72 (2018).
de Pee, A. et al. Decarbonization of Industrial Sectors: The Next Frontier (McKinsey Global Institute, 2018).
Irlam, L. Global Costs of Carbon Capture and Storage 2017 Update (Global CCS Institute, 2017).
Combined Heat and Power: A Clean Energy Solution (DOE and EPA, 2012).
Marten, A. L. & Newbold, S. C. Estimating the social cost of non-CO2 GHG emissions: methane and nitrous oxide. Energy Policy 51, 957–972 (2011).
Appendix A Draft Review of Studies that Estimated the Costs of CO2 Emission Reductions (CARB, 2008).
2010 CalNex White Paper (CARB, NOAA and CEC, 2008).
Guenther, A. et al. Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN (Model of Emissions of Gases and Aerosols from Nature). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 6, 3181–3210 (2006).
Ginoux, P. et al. Sources and distributions of dust aerosols simulated with the GOCART model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106, 20255–20273 (2001).
Gong, S. L. A parameterization of sea-salt aerosol source function for sub- and super-micron particles. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1097 (2003).
Freitas, S. R. et al. Including the sub-grid scale plume rise of vegetation fires in low resolution atmospheric transport models. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 7, 3385–3398 (2007).
Freitas, S. R., Longo, K. M., Trentmann, J. & Latham, D. Technical note: sensitivity of 1-D smoke plume rise models to the inclusion of environmental wind drag. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 585–594 (2010).
Longo, K. M. et al. The coupled aerosol and tracer transport model to the Brazilian developments on the regional atmospheric modeling system (CATT-BRAMS) – part 2: model sensitivity to the biomass burning inventories. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 5785–5795 (2010).
Zhao, C. et al. The spatial distribution of mineral dust and its shortwave radiative forcing over North Africa: modeling sensitivities to dust emissions and aerosol size treatments. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10, 8821–8838 (2010).
Zhao, C. et al. Uncertainty in modeling dust mass balance and radiative forcing from size parameterization. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 10733–10753 (2013).
Fire Information for Resource Management System (NASA, accessed 1 February 2019); https://firms.modaps.eosdis.nasa.gov/download/
Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program – Community Edition User’s Manual and Appendices (EPA, 2018).
Ostro, B. D. Air pollution and morbidity revisited: a specification test. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 14, 87–98 (1987).
Ostro, B. D. & Rothschild, S. Air pollution and acute respiratory morbidity: an observational study of multiple pollutants. Environ. Res. 50, 238–247 (1989).
Ostro, B. et al. Air pollution and exacerbation of asthma in African-American children in Los Angeles. Epidemiology 12, 200–208 (2001).
Moolgavkar, S. H. Air pollution and hospital admissions for diseases of the circulatory system in three US metropolitan areas. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 50, 1199–1206 (2000).
Social Cost of Carbon (EPA, 2016).
This work was supported by the UCLA Sustainable LA Grand Challenge Project, NSF Grant AGS-1701526 and NASA ROSES TASNNP Grant 80NSSC18K0985. B.Z. was partially supported by the DOE Atmospheric System Research (ASR) programme. The views, opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are strictly those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of funding agencies and/or authors’ affiliated institutions.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, T., Jiang, Z., Zhao, B. et al. Health co-benefits of achieving sustainable net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in California. Nat Sustain 3, 597–605 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0520-y