Global Air Quality and Health Co-Benefits of Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change through Methane and Black Carbon Emission Controls

Background Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC), a component of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), are associated with premature mortality and disrupt global and regional climate. Objectives: We examine the air quality and health benefits of 14 specific emission control measures targeting BC and methane, an ozone precursor, that are selected for their potential to reduce the rate of climate change over the next 20-40 years. Methods: We simulate the impacts of the mitigation measures on outdoor PM2.5 and ozone concentrations using two composition-climate models, and calculate associated changes in premature PM2.5- and ozone-related deaths using epidemiologically derived concentration-response functions. Results: We estimate that, for PM2.5 and ozone respectively, fully implementing these measures could reduce global population-weighted average surface concentrations by 23-34% and 7-17% and avoid 0.6-4.4 and 0.04-0.52 million annual premature deaths globally in 2030. Over 80% of the health benefits are estimated to occur in Asia. We estimate that BC mitigation measures would achieve ~98% of the deaths that would be avoided if all measures were implemented, due to reduced BC and associated reductions of non-methane ozone precursor and organic carbon emissions, and stronger mortality relationships for PM2.5 relative to ozone. Although subject to large uncertainty, these estimates and conclusions are not strongly dependent on assumptions for the concentration-response function. Conclusions: In addition to climate benefits, our findings indicate that the methane and BC emission control measures would have substantial co-benefits for air quality and public health worldwide, potentially reversing trends of increasing air pollution concentrations and mortality in Africa and South, West, and Central Asia. These projected benefits are independent of CO2 mitigation measures. Benefits of BC measures are underestimated since we do not account for benefits from reduced indoor exposures, and outdoor exposure estimates are limited by model spatial resolution.

ANENBERG S.;  SCHWARTZ Joel;  SHINDELL D.;  AMANN M.;  FALUVEGI G.;  KLIMONT Z.;  JANSSENS-MAENHOUT Greet;  POZZOLI Luca;  VAN DINGENEN Rita;  VIGNATI Elisabetta;  EMBERSON Lisa;  MULLER Nicholas Z.;  WEST Jason;  WILLIAMS Martin;  DEMKINE Volodymyr;  HICKS Kevin;  KUYLENSTIERNA Johan C. I.;  RAES Frank;  RAMANATHAN V; 

2012-04-20

US DEPT HEALTH HUMAN SCIENCES PUBLIC HEALTH SCIENCE

JRC65911

0091-6765,   

http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.1104301,    https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC65911,   

10.1289/ehp.1104301,