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.

Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2 °C

Abstract

An emissions trajectory for the US consistent with 2 °C warming would require marked societal changes, making it crucial to understand the associated benefits. Previous studies have examined technological potentials and implementation costs1,2 and public health benefits have been quantified for less-aggressive potential emissions-reduction policies (for example, refs 3,4), but researchers have not yet fully explored the multiple benefits of reductions consistent with 2 °C. We examine the impacts of such highly ambitious scenarios for clean energy and vehicles. US transportation emissions reductions avoid 0.03 °C global warming in 2030 (0.15 °C in 2100), whereas energy emissions reductions avoid 0.05–0.07 °C 2030 warming (0.25 °C in 2100). Nationally, however, clean energy policies produce climate disbenefits including warmer summers (although these would be eliminated by the remote effects of similar policies if they were undertaken elsewhere). The policies also greatly reduce damaging ambient particulate matter and ozone. By 2030, clean energy policies could prevent 175,000 premature deaths, with 22,000 (11,000–96,000; 95% confidence) fewer annually thereafter, whereas clean transportation could prevent 120,000 premature deaths and 14,000 (9,000–52,000) annually thereafter. Near-term national benefits are valued at US$250 billion (140 billion to 1,050 billion) per year, which is likely to exceed implementation costs. Including longer-term, worldwide climate impacts, benefits roughly quintuple, becoming 5–10 times larger than estimated implementation costs. Achieving the benefits, however, would require both larger and broader emissions reductions than those in current legislation or regulations.

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

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

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

Figure 1: Radiative forcing due to clean energy and clean transportation.
Figure 2: Radiative forcing over the United States due to the two policies.
Figure 3: Equilibrium annual (top) and boreal summer (bottom) average surface temperature response to the clean energy scenario.
Figure 4: Annual average change in surface PM2.5 and PM2.5-related mortalities.
Figure 5: Valuation of worldwide societal benefits from the two policies.

References

  1. Delucchi, M. A. & Jacobson, M. Z. Providing all global energy with wind, water, and solar power, part II: reliability, system and transmission costs, and policies. Energy Policy 39, 1170–1190 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Williams, J. H. et al. The US Report of the Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (Sustainable Development Solutions Network and the Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations, 2014).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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. Nature Clim. Change 4, 917–923 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Shindell, D. T., Faluvegi, G., Rotstayn, L. & Milly, G. Spatial patterns of radiative forcing and surface temperature response. J. Geophys. Res. 120, 5385–5403 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Boucher, O., Friedlingstein, P., Collins, B. & Shine, K. P. The indirect global warming potential and global temperature change potential due to methane oxidation. Environ. Res. Lett. 4, 044007 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gultepe, I. & Isaac, G. A. Scale effects on averaging cloud droplet and aerosol number concentrations: observations and models. J. Clim. 12, 1268–1279 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Lim, S., Vos, T. & Flaxman, A. A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions, 1990–2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 2224–2260 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Anenberg, S. C. et al. Global air quality and health co-benefits of mitigating near-term climate change through methane and black carbon emission controls. Environ. Health Perspect. 120, 831–839 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shindell, D. The social cost of atmospheric release. Climatic Change 130, 313–326 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. US Government Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866 (Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, 2013).

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Saari, R. K., Selin, N. E., Rausch, S. & Thompson, T. M. A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from U.S. climate policies. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 65, 74–89 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. 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 

  16. US EPA Clean Power Plan Fact Sheet (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2014); http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/20140602fs-important-numbers-clean-power-plan.pdf

  17. Schmidt, G. A. et al. Configuration and assessment of the GISS ModelE2 contributions to the CMIP5 archive. J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst. 6, 141–184 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shindell, D. T. et al. Interactive ozone and methane chemistry in GISS-E2 historical and future climate simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2653–2689 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shindell, D. T. et al. Radiative forcing in the ACCMIP historical and future climate simulations. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 13, 2939–2974 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Forster, P. et al. in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (eds Solomon, S. et al.) Ch. 2 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2007).

    Google Scholar 

  21. Myhre, G. et al. in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (eds Stocker, T. F. et al.) Ch. 8 (IPCC, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lee, Y. H., Adams, P. J. & Shindell, D. T. Evaluation of the global aerosol microphysical ModelE2-TOMAS model against satellite and ground-based observations. Geosci. Model Dev. 8, 631–667 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Prather, M. J. Numerical advection by conservation of second-order moments. J. Geophys. Res. 91, 6671–6681 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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 

  25. World Health Organization Death Estimates for 2008 by Cause for WHO Member States (WHO Department of Health Statistics, 2011).

  26. Anenberg, S. C., Horowitz, L. W., Tong, D. Q. & West, J. J. An estimate of the global burden of anthropogenic ozone and fine particulate matter on premature human mortality using atmospheric modeling. Environ. Health Perspect. 118, 1189–1195 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Pope, C. A. et al. Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution. JAMA 287, 1132–1141 (2002).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Roman, H. A. et al. Expert judgment assessment of the mortality impact of changes in ambient fine particulate matter in the US. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42, 2268–2274 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Krewski, D. et al. Research Report (Health Effects Institute, 2009).

  30. Laden, F., Schwartz, J., Speizer, F. E. & Dockery, D. W. Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 173, 667–672 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Pope, C. A. III et al. Cardiovascular mortality and exposure to airborne fine particulate matter and cigarette smoke: shape of the exposure-response relationship. Circulation 120, 941–948 (2009).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Cohen, A. J. et al. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks (World Health Organization, 2004).

    Google Scholar 

  33. Pope, C. et al. Lung cancer and cardiovascular disease mortality associated with ambient air pollution and cigarette smoke: shape of the exposure-response relationships. Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 1616–1621 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marlier, M. et al. El Nino and health risks from landscape fire emissions in southeast Asia. Nature Clim. Change 3, 131–136 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Laden, F., Neas, L., Dockery, D. & Schwartz, J. Association of fine particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in six US cities. Environ. Health Perspect. 108, 941–947 (2000).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Janssen, N. A. H. et al. Black carbon as an additional indicator of the adverse health effects of airborne particles compared with PM10 and PM2.5 . Environ. Health Perspect. 119, 1691–1699 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Adams, K., Greenbaum, D. S., Shaikh, R., van Erp, A. M. & Russell, A. G. Particulate matter components, sources, and health: systematic approaches to testing effects. J. Air Waste Manage. Assoc. 65, 544–558 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

  40. CIESIN/FAO/CIAT Gridded Population of the World: Future Estimates, 2015 (GPWv3) : Population Grids (NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center, 2005); http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/gpw

  41. United Nations United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2011).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank K. Riahi and S. Rao from IIASA for providing information regarding MESSAGE RCP8.5 emissions. We thank NASA’s Applied Science Program and the US Department of Transportation’s Research and Innovation Technology Administration for financial support along with the NASA High-End Computing Program through the NASA Center for Climate Simulation at Goddard Space Flight Center for computational resources.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.T.S. conceived the project; G.F. performed the simulations with the model incorporating mass-based aerosols; Y.L. performed those with the model incorporating aerosol microphysics. D.T.S. wrote the paper, with all authors providing input.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Drew T. Shindell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Information (PDF 2069 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shindell, D., Lee, Y. & Faluvegi, G. Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with 2 °C. Nature Clim Change 6, 503–507 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2935

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2935

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