Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Health co-benefits and mitigation costs as per the Paris Agreement under different technological pathways for energy supply|
|Authors:||SAMPEDRO JON; SMITH STEVEN J; ARTO IÑAKI; GONZALEZ-EGUINO MIKEL; MARKANDYA ANIL; MULVANEY KATHLEEN; PIZARRO-IRIZAR CRISTINA; VAN DINGENEN RITA|
|Citation:||ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL vol. 136 p. 105513|
|Publisher:||PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD|
|Type:||Articles in periodicals and books|
|Abstract:||This study assesses the reductions in air pollution emissions and subsequent beneficial health effects from different global mitigation pathways consistent with the 2 °C stabilization objective of the Paris Agreement. We use an integrated modelling framework, demonstrating the need for models with an appropriate level of technology detail for an accurate co-benefit assessment. The framework combines an integrated assessment model (GCAM) with an air quality model (TM5-FASST) to obtain estimates of premature mortality and then assesses their economic cost. The results show that significant co-benefits can be found for a range of technological options, such as introducing a limitation on bioenergy, carbon capture and storage (CCS) or nuclear power. Cumulative premature mortality may be reduced by 17–23% by 2020–2050 compared to the baseline, depending on the scenarios. However, the ratio of health co-benefits to mitigation costs varies substantially, ranging from 1.45 when a bioenergy limitation is set to 2.19 when all technologies are available. As for regional disaggregation, some regions, such as India and China, obtain far greater co-benefits than others.|
|JRC Directorate:||Energy, Transport and Climate|
Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.
Items in repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.