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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Health co-benefits of achieving sustainable net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in California


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.

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

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: A road map for California to achieve net-zero GHG emissions in 2050.
Fig. 2: Air pollutant emissions in California in 2050.
Fig. 3: Reductions in the annual average PM2.5 and MDA8 O3 concentrations and avoided mortality in 2050 from the BAU to the net-zero scenario.
Fig. 4: Air pollutant emissions from the electricity generation sector of the ADC scenario and associated PM2.5 and health benefits.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors (B.Z. and Y.Z.) on request.

Code availability

The code of WRF-Chem model is available at; the code of BenMAP is available at; the custom CRFs used for the health impact assessment are available from the corresponding authors (B.Z. and Y.Z.) on request.


  1. Costello, A. et al. Managing the health effects of climate change. Lancet 373, 1693–1733 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

  3. Rogelj, J. et al. Zero emission targets as long-term global goals for climate protection. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 105007 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Rockström, J. et al. A roadmap for rapid decarbonization. Science 355, 1269–1271 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Adoption of the Paris Agreement FCCC/CP/2015/L.9/Rev.1 (UNFCCC, 2015).

  6. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Thurston, G. D., Ito, K. & Lall, R. A source apportionment of US fine particulate matter air pollution. Atmos. Environ. 45, 3924–3936 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sillman, S. Some theoretical results concerning O3-NOx-VOC chemistry and NOx-VOC indicators. J. Geophys. Res. 107, 4659 (2002).

  10. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Campbell-Lendrum, D. & Woodruff, R. Comparative risk assessment of the burden of disease from climate change. Environ. Health Perspect. 114, 1935–1941 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Milner, J. et al. Health effects of adopting low greenhouse gas emission diets in the UK. BMJ Open 5, e007364–e007364 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Assembly Bill 32 Overview (CARB, 2014).

  22. Pavley, F. SB-32 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: emissions limit (California State Senate, 2016).

  23. Brown, E. G. Jr Executive Order B-55-18 to Achieve Carbon Neutrality (Executive Department, 2018).

  24. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Driscoll, C. T. et al. US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 535–540 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. State Population Projections (2010–2060) (Department of Finance, 2019).

  29. Gross State Product (Department of Finance, 2019).

  30. State Energy Data System (EIA, 2017).

  31. Zhao, B. et al. Air quality and health cobenefits of different deep decarbonization pathways in California. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 7163–7171 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Joint Proposal (PG&E, 2016).

  33. Nikolewski, R. Regulators vote to shut down Diablo Canyon, California’s last nuclear power plant. Los Angeles Times (11 January 2018).

  34. Air Pollution Impacts from Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (European Environment Agency, 2011).

  35. Designation of Disadvantaged Communities Pursuant to Senate Bill 535 (De León) (CalEPA, 2017).

  36. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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).

  39. NAAQS Table (EPA, 2016).

  40. 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).

  41. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Milner, J. et al. Home energy efficiency and radon related risk of lung cancer: modelling study. Brit. Med. J. 348, f7493–f7493 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Hamilton, I. et al. Health effects of home energy efficiency interventions in England: a modelling study. BMJ Open 5, e007298–e007298 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 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).

  49. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Deason, J., Wei, M., Leventis, G., Smith, S. & Schwartz, L. Electrification of Buildings and Industry in the United States (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 2018);

  51. Wind Vision: A New Era for Wind Power in the United States (DOE, 2015).

  52. Implications of Policy-Driven Residential Electrification (ICF, 2018).

  53. Gillingham, K. & Stock, J. H. The cost of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. J. Econ. Perspect. 32, 53–72 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. de Pee, A. et al. Decarbonization of Industrial Sectors: The Next Frontier (McKinsey Global Institute, 2018).

  55. Irlam, L. Global Costs of Carbon Capture and Storage 2017 Update (Global CCS Institute, 2017).

  56. Combined Heat and Power: A Clean Energy Solution (DOE and EPA, 2012).

  57. 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).

  58. Appendix A Draft Review of Studies that Estimated the Costs of CO2 Emission Reductions (CARB, 2008).

  59. 2010 CalNex White Paper (CARB, NOAA and CEC, 2008).

  60. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Ginoux, P. et al. Sources and distributions of dust aerosols simulated with the GOCART model. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106, 20255–20273 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Gong, S. L. A parameterization of sea-salt aerosol source function for sub- and super-micron particles. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles 17, 1097 (2003).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  64. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  65. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  66. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  67. Zhao, C. et al. Uncertainty in modeling dust mass balance and radiative forcing from size parameterization. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 10733–10753 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Fire Information for Resource Management System (NASA, accessed 1 February 2019);

  69. Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program – Community Edition User’s Manual and Appendices (EPA, 2018).

  70. Ostro, B. D. Air pollution and morbidity revisited: a specification test. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 14, 87–98 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Ostro, B. D. & Rothschild, S. Air pollution and acute respiratory morbidity: an observational study of multiple pollutants. Environ. Res. 50, 238–247 (1989).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  72. Ostro, B. et al. Air pollution and exacerbation of asthma in African-American children in Los Angeles. Epidemiology 12, 200–208 (2001).

  73. 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).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  74. Social Cost of Carbon (EPA, 2016).

Download references


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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations



Y.Z., T.W., B.Z. and Y.G. conceived and designed the research. T.W., Z.J. and B.Z. performed the research. D.Z. proposed the equity analysis idea. T.W., B.Z., Y.Z. and Z.J. wrote the manuscript and Y.G., K.-N.L., N.K. and D.Z. reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Bin Zhao or Yifang Zhu.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

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

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary methods, discussion, references, Figs. 1–15 and Tables 1–12.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:

This article is cited by


Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

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