DOE PAGES title logo U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Scientific and Technical Information

Title: A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from U.S. climate policies

Abstract

Air quality co-benefits can possibly reduce the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. However, whereas many studies of the cost of greenhouse gas mitigation model the macroeconomic welfare impacts of mitigation, most studies of air quality co-benefits do not. We enable a U.S. computable general equilibrium economic model previously linked to an air quality modeling system and enhance it to represent the economy-wide welfare impacts of fine particulate matter. We introduce a first application of this method to explore the efficiency and distributional implications of a Clean Energy Standard (CES) and a Cap and Trade (CAT) program that both reduce CO2 emissions by 10% in 2030 relative to 2006. We find that co-benefits from fine particulate matter reduction (median $$\$$$$6; $$\$$$$2 to $$\$$$$10/tCO2) completely offset policy costs by 110% (40% to 190%), transforming the net welfare impact of the CAT into a gain of $$\$$$$1 (-$$\$$$$5 to $$\$$$$7) billion 2005 $$\$$$$. For the CES, the corresponding co-benefit (median $$\$$$$8; $$\$$$$3 to $$\$$$$14/tCO2) is a smaller fraction (median 5%; 2% to 9%) of its higher policy cost. The eastern United States garners 78% and 71% of co-benefits for the CES and CAT, respectively. By representing the effects of pollution-related morbidities and mortalities as an impact to labor and the demand for health services, we find that the welfare impact per unit of reduced pollution varies by region. These interregional differences can enhance the preference of some regions, such as Texas, for a CAT over a CES, or switch the calculation of which policy yields higher co-benefits, compared with an approach that uses one valuation for all regions. This framework could be applied to quantify consistent air quality impacts of other pricing instruments, subnational trading programs, or green tax swaps.

Authors:
 [1];  [1];  [2];  [3]
  1. Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA (United States)
  2. ETH Zurich (Switzerland)
  3. Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins, CO (United States)
Publication Date:
Research Org.:
Massachusetts Inst. of Technology (MIT), Cambridge, MA (United States)
Sponsoring Org.:
USDOE Office of Science (SC), Biological and Environmental Research (BER)
OSTI Identifier:
1557631
Grant/Contract Number:  
FG02-94ER61937
Resource Type:
Accepted Manuscript
Journal Name:
Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association
Additional Journal Information:
Journal Volume: 65; Journal Issue: 1; Journal ID: ISSN 1096-2247
Publisher:
Taylor and Francis
Country of Publication:
United States
Language:
English
Subject:
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Citation Formats

Saari, Rebecca K., Selin, Noelle E., Rausch, Sebastian, and Thompson, Tammy M. A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from U.S. climate policies. United States: N. p., 2014. Web. doi:10.1080/10962247.2014.959139.
Saari, Rebecca K., Selin, Noelle E., Rausch, Sebastian, & Thompson, Tammy M. A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from U.S. climate policies. United States. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2014.959139
Saari, Rebecca K., Selin, Noelle E., Rausch, Sebastian, and Thompson, Tammy M. Fri . "A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from U.S. climate policies". United States. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2014.959139. https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1557631.
@article{osti_1557631,
title = {A self-consistent method to assess air quality co-benefits from U.S. climate policies},
author = {Saari, Rebecca K. and Selin, Noelle E. and Rausch, Sebastian and Thompson, Tammy M.},
abstractNote = {Air quality co-benefits can possibly reduce the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. However, whereas many studies of the cost of greenhouse gas mitigation model the macroeconomic welfare impacts of mitigation, most studies of air quality co-benefits do not. We enable a U.S. computable general equilibrium economic model previously linked to an air quality modeling system and enhance it to represent the economy-wide welfare impacts of fine particulate matter. We introduce a first application of this method to explore the efficiency and distributional implications of a Clean Energy Standard (CES) and a Cap and Trade (CAT) program that both reduce CO2 emissions by 10% in 2030 relative to 2006. We find that co-benefits from fine particulate matter reduction (median $\$$6; $\$$2 to $\$$10/tCO2) completely offset policy costs by 110% (40% to 190%), transforming the net welfare impact of the CAT into a gain of $\$$1 (-$\$$5 to $\$$7) billion 2005 $\$$. For the CES, the corresponding co-benefit (median $\$$8; $\$$3 to $\$$14/tCO2) is a smaller fraction (median 5%; 2% to 9%) of its higher policy cost. The eastern United States garners 78% and 71% of co-benefits for the CES and CAT, respectively. By representing the effects of pollution-related morbidities and mortalities as an impact to labor and the demand for health services, we find that the welfare impact per unit of reduced pollution varies by region. These interregional differences can enhance the preference of some regions, such as Texas, for a CAT over a CES, or switch the calculation of which policy yields higher co-benefits, compared with an approach that uses one valuation for all regions. This framework could be applied to quantify consistent air quality impacts of other pricing instruments, subnational trading programs, or green tax swaps.},
doi = {10.1080/10962247.2014.959139},
journal = {Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association},
number = 1,
volume = 65,
place = {United States},
year = {Fri Oct 10 00:00:00 EDT 2014},
month = {Fri Oct 10 00:00:00 EDT 2014}
}

Journal Article:
Free Publicly Available Full Text
Publisher's Version of Record

Citation Metrics:
Cited by: 42 works
Citation information provided by
Web of Science

Save / Share:

Works referenced in this record:

Quantifying the human health benefits of air pollution policies: Review of recent studies and new directions in accountability research
journal, June 2011

  • Bell, Michelle L.; Morgenstern, Richard D.; Harrington, Winston
  • Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 14, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1016/j.envsci.2011.02.006

Chapter 24 CGE Modeling of Environmental Policy and Resource Management
book, January 2005


Applied general equilibrium models for energy studies: a survey
journal, July 1996


Energy Taxation as a Policy Instrument to Reduce CO2 Emissions: A Net Benefit Analysis
journal, July 1995

  • Boyd, Roy; Krutilla, Kerry; Viscusi, W. Kip
  • Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 29, Issue 1
  • DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1995.1028

Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector
journal, May 2003

  • Burtraw, Dallas; Krupnick, Alan; Palmer, Karen
  • Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol. 45, Issue 3
  • DOI: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00022-0

Leakage from sub-national climate policy: The case of California�s cap�and�trade program
journal, April 2015

  • Caron, Justin; Rausch, Sebastian; Winchester, Niven
  • The Energy Journal, Vol. 36, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5547/01956574.36.2.8

Revenue-Raising versus Other Approaches to Environmental Protection: The Critical Significance of Preexisting Tax Distortions
journal, January 1997

  • Goulder, Lawrence H.; Parry, Ian W. H.; Burtraw, Dallas
  • The RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 28, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.2307/2555783

The Substantial Bias from Ignoring General Equilibrium Effects in Estimating Excess Burden, and a Practical Solution
journal, August 2003

  • Goulder, Lawrence H.; Williams III, Roberton C.
  • Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 111, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1086/375378

Social Cost of Environmental Quality Regulations: A General Equilibrium Analysis
journal, August 1990

  • Hazilla, Michael; Kopp, Raymond J.
  • Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, Issue 4
  • DOI: 10.1086/261709

Health co-benefits of climate mitigation in urban areas
journal, August 2010


Chronic Exposure to Fine Particles and Mortality: An Extended Follow-up of the Harvard Six Cities Study from 1974 to 2009
journal, July 2012

  • Lepeule, Johanna; Laden, Francine; Dockery, Douglas
  • Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 120, Issue 7
  • DOI: 10.1289/ehp.1104660

Health damages from air pollution in China
journal, February 2012


Toward integrated assessment of environmental change: air pollution health effects in the USA
journal, March 2007


The design of optimal climate policy with air pollution co-benefits
journal, November 2012


Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe: A CGE analysis
journal, September 2010


Carbon co-benefits of tighter SO2 and NOx regulations in China
journal, December 2013


Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking
journal, January 2010


Distributional impacts of carbon pricing: A general equilibrium approach with micro-data for households
journal, December 2011


Distributional Impacts of a U.S. Greenhouse Gas Policy
book, December 2010


Distributional and efficiency impacts of clean and renewable energy standards for electricity
journal, May 2014


New Directions: Adapting air quality management to climate change: A must for planning
journal, April 2012


Global health and economic impacts of future ozone pollution
journal, October 2009


Should Benefit–Cost Analyses Take Account of General Equilibrium Effects?
book, October 2007


Computable General Equilibrium Models for the Analysis of Energy and Climate Policies
book, September 2009


A systems approach to evaluating the air quality co-benefits of US carbon policies
journal, August 2014

  • Thompson, Tammy M.; Rausch, Sebastian; Saari, Rebecca K.
  • Nature Climate Change, Vol. 4, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2342

Air quality resolution for health impact assessment: influence of regional characteristics
journal, January 2014

  • Thompson, T. M.; Saari, R. K.; Selin, N. E.
  • Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, Vol. 14, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.5194/acp-14-969-2014

Influence of air quality model resolution on uncertainty associated with health impacts
journal, January 2012


Influence of air quality model resolution on uncertainty associated with health impacts
journal, June 2012


Works referencing / citing this record:

The impact of human health co-benefits on evaluations of global climate policy
journal, May 2019


Benefits of mercury controls for the United States
journal, December 2015

  • Giang, Amanda; Selin, Noelle E.
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 113, Issue 2
  • DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1514395113

Air quality co-benefits of subnational carbon policies
journal, May 2016

  • Thompson, Tammy M.; Rausch, Sebastian; Saari, Rebecca K.
  • Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, Vol. 66, Issue 10
  • DOI: 10.1080/10962247.2016.1192071

Spatio-temporal boundary effects on pollution-health costs estimation: the case of PM 2.5 pollution in Hong Kong
journal, August 2018


Climate policy co-benefits: a review
journal, February 2020


Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of policy uptake: a review of air quality, transportation and diet co-benefits modeling studies
journal, October 2017

  • Chang, Kelly M.; Hess, Jeremy J.; Balbus, John M.
  • Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 12, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa8f7b

Climate, air quality, and health benefits of a carbon fee-and-rebate bill in Massachusetts, USA
journal, November 2018

  • Buonocore, Jonathan J.; Levy, Jonathan I.; Guinto, Renzo R.
  • Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 13, Issue 11
  • DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aae62c

Health co-benefits of sub-national renewable energy policy in the US
journal, August 2019

  • Dimanchev, Emil G.; Paltsev, Sergey; Yuan, Mei
  • Environmental Research Letters, Vol. 14, Issue 8
  • DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ab31d9

Introduction
book, August 2016

  • Erickson, Larry E.; Brase, Gary; Cutsor, Jackson
  • Solar Powered Charging Infrastructure for Electric Vehicles
  • DOI: 10.1201/9781315370002-2

The impact of human health co-benefits on evaluations of global climate policy
journal, May 2019