A Little Policy Goes a Long Way
Analyzing the effects of air quality co-benefits in Greenhouse Gas-reducing policies and thinking about how this is important in the international policy world.
As happens often in the complex realms of environmental and earth sciences, sometimes the actions we take against one issue can have both positive and negative effects on another issue. In the battle against global warming, it is possible that policies targeting chemicals that cause global warming could also have substantial effects on common air pollutants which may even offset the cost of the policy to begin with. Could this be one of the keys to international motivation in the climate change debate?
The Study
In their 2014 article in Nature Climate Change, Tammy Thompson and her group performed a two-part analysis of the interwoven relationship between greenhouse gas policies and air quality. First, they determined the air quality benefits of three major US greenhouse gas reduction policies. Then, they monetized the human health benefits from the air quality improvements to see whether these also help offset the costs of implementation. Could this be a major part of the key to agreeing on a solution in the upcoming Convention in Lima?
One important note: climate change and air pollution, while very interrelated, are not the same thing. Climate change is caused by particular atmospheric pollutants that absorb more radiation, increasing the surface temperature. Air pollution refers to molecules and particulate matter that get emitted into the air, decreasing the cleanliness of the air.
How do these policies reduce air pollutants?
The study analyzed three different policies which targeted carbon reductions in different parts of the economy: electricity generation, transportation, and economy-wide cap-and-trade. In each of these policies, there were also notable decreases in the major air pollutants compared to a business-as-usual (or “no policy”) scenario. Each of the policies saw different outcomes, but with the reduction of carbon-emitting coal-burning power plants, agricultural processes, and household heating and energy, there were reductions in major pollutant chemicals like NOx, SO2, and NH3.
While the chemicals that cause climate change aren’t necessarily the same as the major pollutants (thought they can be), the major air pollutant chemicals — ozone and particulate matter — are formed in the atmosphere by many of these emissions. A reduction of these polluters in an attempt to lower the greenhouse gases they produce, causes a reduction of the ozone and particulate matter that they also create.
How do these reductions offset costs?
One distinction between air pollution and climate change is the result of the chemical presence in the atmosphere — climate change results in an increased temperature; air pollution has significant human health impacts (among many other impacts, such as ecological, environmental, etc.).
Thompson and her group began by creating atmospheric models that showed the relationship between the reductions in CO2 and reductions in common air pollutants. Then using BenMAP — a software created by the EPA they came up with a monetary estimate of how much the human health impacts of the business-as-usual scenario of air pollutants would cost and compared this to the projected costs of the policy scenarios. An example of how this works — breathing in particulate matter causes asthma in a child, that child is admitted to the ER. The cost of that hospital visit could have been avoided if there was a reduced amount of particulate matter in the air.
By using a combination of atmospheric, economic, and health incidence models, the group found that the projected policy outcomes would offset a large chunk of their implementation costs through health benefits like fewer cases of asthma, respiratory illnesses, mortalities, etc.
How is this relevant to international policy?
Air quality is a local problem while climate change is a global problem; these findings show that there are localized benefits to a large global problem. In that way, it is possible that this study, and studies like it, may motivate international action because the countries who may think that global warming is “not their problem” can see local benefits to helping in the global effort.
And tying this back to my last blog post, air quality has a serious impact on REDD+ goals as well. REDD+ aims at promoting the wellbeing of forests and the proper use of forest resources, and air pollution has dire effects on forests, so these co-benefits may even go an extra step in improving more conditions on forests.
It is important to note that the policies that were studied in this study are not nearly enough to reach the greenhouse gas reduction goals of the UNFCCC. These policies — while effective — are not nearly strong enough to reduce the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to a safe and sustainable level. However, any motivation is motivation. If the promise of these co-benefits sparks even a little action for a country who currently doesn’t want to get on board with the international climate change policy, that alone is a success for the UNFCCC and the mitigation of global warming.
