2020/01/29 by Jon Sampedro, Steven J. Smith, Iñaki Arto +5 · 1 citation
Environmental Science · Energy · Engineering · #Energy and Environment Impacts #Energy, Environment, and Transportation Policies #Electric Vehicles and Infrastructure
paper · pdf · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.105513
openalex publication_date 2020/01/29 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/08/04
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.