Studies estimating ancillary public health impacts from climate policies were examined, relying on three surveys of this literature (Ekins, 1996; Burtraw et al., 1999; Kverndokk and Rosendahl, 2000) and on summaries of the older literature, supplemented by some of the newer studies. Table 8.5 provides a description of each study, as well as the estimates of ancillary benefits per tonne of carbon. Table 8.6 summarizes the modelling choices of the studies reviewed.
Table 8.5: Scenarios and results of studies on ancillary benefit reviewed | |||||
Study |
Area and sectors
|
Scenarios
(1996 US$) |
Average
ancillary benefits US$/tC; 1996 US$) |
Key pollutants
|
Major endpoints
|
Dessus and OConnor, 1999 |
Chile (benefits in Santiago only) | Tax of US$67 (10% carbon reduction) Tax of US$157 (20% carbon reduction) Tax of US$284 (30% carbon reduction) |
251 254 267 |
Seven air pollutants | Healthmorbidity and mortality, |
Cifuentes et al., 2000 | Santiago, Chile |
Energy efficiency |
62 | SO2, NOx, CO, NMHC Indirect estimations for PM10 and resuspended dust |
Health |
Garbaccio et al., 2000 | China 29 sectors (4 energy) |
Tax of US$1/tC Tax of US$2/tC |
52 52 |
PM10, SO2 | Health |
Wang and Smith, 1999 | China power and household sectors |
Supply-side energy efficiency improvement Least-cost per unit global-warmingreduction fuel substitution Least-cost per unit human-air-pollutionexposure- reduction fuel substitution |
PM, SO2 | Health | |
Aunan et al. 2000, Kanudia and Loulou , 1998a |
Hungary | Energy Conservation Programme | 508 | TSP, SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, CO2, CH4, N2O |
Health effects; materials damage; vegetation damage |
Brendemoen and Vennemo, 1994 |
Norway | Tax US$840/tC | 246 | SO2, NOx, CO, VOC, CO2, CH4, N2O, Particulates |
Indirect: health costs; lost recreational value from lakes forests, ; corrosion Direct: traffic noise, road maintenance, congestion, accidents |
Barker and Rosendahl, 2000 | Western Europe (19 regions) |
Tax US$161/tC | 153 | SO2, NOx, PM10 | Human and animal health and welfare, materials, buildings and other physical capital, vegetation |
Scheraga and Leary, 1993 | USA | US$144/tC | 41 | TSP, PM10, SOx, NOx, CO, VOC, CO2, Pb |
Health morbidity and mortality |
Boyd et al., 1995 | USA | US$9/tC | 40 | Pb, PM, SOx, SO4, O3 | Health, visibility |
Abt Associates and Pechan-Avanti Group, 1999 |
USA | Tax US$30/tC Tax US$67/tC |
8 68 |
Criteria pollutants | Health mortality and illness; Visibility and household soiling (materials damage) |
Burtraw et al., 1999 | USA | Tax US$10/tC Tax US$25/tC Tax US$50/tC |
3 2 2 |
SO2, NOx | Health |
NMHC, non-methane hydrocarbons; PM, particulate matter; PM10, particulate matter less than 10 microns; TSP, total suspended particulate; VOC, volatile organic compounds; IQ, intelligence quotient |
The Burtraw et al. (1999) review of US ancillary benefit studies of public
health impacts linked to mitigation policies applied to the electricity sector
came to several important conclusions:
Kverndokk and Rosendahl (2000) review much of the recent ancillary benefit
literature in the Nordic countries, UK, and Ireland, concluding that benefits
are of the same order of magnitude as gross (i.e., private) mitigation
costs. They also conclude that the benefits should be viewed as highly uncertain,
because of the use of simplistic tools and transfers of doseresponse and
valuation functions from studies done in other countries. They point out that
most of the Norwegian studies use expert judgement instead of established doseresponse
functions and estimates of national damages per tonne rather than distinguishing
where emissions changes occur and exposures are reduced. Also, they point out
that large differences in ancillary benefits per tonne across several Norwegian
studies can be attributed to differences in energy demand and energy substitution
elasticities. If energy production is reduced rather than switched to less carbon-intensive
fuels, ancillary benefits will be far larger. Kverndokk and Rosendahl (2000)
point out also that studies that feed environmental benefits back into the economic
model add significantly to ancillary benefits.
Other reports in this collection |