Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 62, Issue 2, pp 383–415 | Cite as

Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe

  • Milan Ščasný
  • Emanuele Massetti
  • Jan Melichar
  • Samuel Carrara
Article

Abstract

This paper presents economic benefit estimates of air quality improvements in Europe that occur as a side effect of GHG emission reductions. We consider two climate policy scenarios from two representative concentration pathways (RCPs), in which radiative forcing levels are reached in 2100. The policy tool is a global uniform tax on all GHG emissions in the integrated assessment model WITCH. The resulting consumption patterns of fossil fuels are used to estimate the physical impacts and the economic benefits of pollution reductions on human health and on key assets by implementing the most advanced version of the ExternE methodology with its impact pathway analysis. The mitigation scenario compatible with \(+2\,^{\circ }\hbox {C}\) (RCP 2.6) reduces total pollution costs in Europe by 84 %. Discounted cumulative ancillary benefits are equal to about €1.7 trillion between 2015 and 2100, or €17 per abated tonne of \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) in Europe. The less strict climate policy scenario (RCP 4.5) generates benefits equal to €15.5 per abated tonne of \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\). Without discounting, the ancillary benefits are equal to €46 (RCP 2.6) and €51 (RCP 4.5) per tonne of \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) abated. For both scenarios, the local benefits per tonne of \(\hbox {CO}_{2}\) decline over time and vary significantly across countries.

Keywords

Ancillary benefits Climate change mitigation External costs ExternE Impact pathway analysis Integrated assessment models 

JEL Classification

Q47 Q51 Q53 Q54 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under the grant agreement \(\hbox {n}^{\circ }\) 266992 GLOBAL-IQ “Impacts Quantification of Global changes”. The preparation for the manuscript received support from project ECOCEP (Economic Modelling for Climate-Energy Policy) funded by the People Programme (Marie Curie Actions) of the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7-PEOPLE-2013-IRSES, Grant Agreement No. 609642. This support is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to Thomas Sterner and to an anonymous referee for providing valuable comments and suggestions during the preparation of this paper. We would also like to thank Laura Henderson Macháčková and Alicia Berrios for proofreading this article. Responsibility for any errors remains with the authors.

References

  1. Aaheim HA, Aunan K, Seip HM (1997) Social benefits of energy conservation in Hungary: an examination of alternative methods of evaluation. In: CICERO Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, OsloGoogle Scholar
  2. Abt Associates and Pechan-Avanti Group (1999) Co-control benefits of greenhouse gas control policies. Prepared for Office of Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-W4-0029, http://www.epa.gov
  3. Acemoglu D, Aghion P, Bursztyn L, Hemous D (2012) The environment and directed technical change. Am Econ Rev 102(1):131–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alcamo J, Mayerhofer P, Guardans R et al (2002) An integrated assessment of regional air pollution and climate change in Europe: findings of the AIR-CLIM Project. Environ Sci Policy 5:257–272. doi: 10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00037-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Aunan K, Aaheim HA, Seip HM (2000) Reduced damage to health and environment from energy saving in Hungary. Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation, pp 397–411Google Scholar
  6. Barker T, Rosendahl KE (2000) Ancillary benefits of GHG mitigation in Europe: SO2, NOx and PM10 reductions from policies to meet Kyoto targets using the E3ME model and Externe valuations. In: OECD ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation, proceedings of an expert workshop, Paris, pp 413–450Google Scholar
  7. Barrett S, Stavins R (2003) Increasing participation and compliance in international climate change agreements. Int Environ Agreem 3:349–376. doi: 10.1023/B:INEA.0000005767.67689.28 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bauer N, Bowen A, Brunner S, Edenhofer O, Flachsland C, Jakob M, Stern N (2009) Towards a GlobalGreen recovery. Recommendations for immediate G20 action. Report submitted to the G20 London Summit, 2 April 2009Google Scholar
  9. Bell ML, Davis DL, Cifuentes LA et al (2008) Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation. Environ Health 7:41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bollen J, van der Zwaan B, Brink C, Eerens H (2009) Local air pollution and global climate change: a combined cost-benefit analysis. Resour Energy Econ 31(3):161–181. doi: 10.1016/j.reseneeco.2009.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2006) WITCH—a world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 27(Special Issue 2):13–38Google Scholar
  12. Bosetti V, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2007) The WITCH model. Structure, baseline, solutions. FEEM Nota di Lavoro No. 10.2007Google Scholar
  13. Bosetti V, Tavoni M, De Cian E, Sgobbi A (2009) The 2008 WITCH model: new model features and baseline. Sustainable development, Nota di lavoro//Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiGoogle Scholar
  14. Bosetti V, Carraro C, De Cian E, Massetti E, Tavoni M (2013) Incentives and stability of international climate coalitions: an integrated assessment. Energy Policy 55:44–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bovenberg AL (1999) Green tax reforms and the double dividend: an updated reader’s guide. Int Tax Public Financ 6(3):421–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boyd R, Krutilla K, Viscusi WK (1995) Energy taxation as a policy instrument to reduce \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) emissions: a net benefit analysis. J Environ Econ Manag 29(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brendemoen A, Vennemo H (1994) A climate treaty and the Norwegian economy: a CGE assessment. Energy J 15(1):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K, Paul A, Toman M, Bloyd C (1999) Side effects of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. Resources for the future discussion Paper 99–51 (REV). Resources for the Future, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K et al (2003) Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. J Environ Econ Manag 45:650–673. doi: 10.1016/S0095-0696(02)00022-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Burtraw D, Linn J, Palmer K, Paul A (2014) The costs and consequences of clean air act regulation of \(\text{ CO }_{2}\) from power plants. Am Econ Rev Pap Proc 104(5):557–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Carraro C, Galeotti M, Gallo M (1996) Environmental taxation and unemployment: some evidence on the “double dividend hypothesis” in Europe. J Public Econ 62(1):141–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cifuentes LA, Sauma E, Jorquera H, Soto F (2000) Preliminary estimation of the potential ancillary benefits for Chile. In: OECD ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation, proceedings of an expert workshop, Paris, pp 237–262Google Scholar
  23. Czajkowski M, Ščasný M (2010) Study on benefit transfer in an international setting. How to improve welfare estimates in the case of the countries’ income heterogeneity? Ecol Econ 69(12):2409–2416. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2010.07.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Davis DL, Krupnick A, McGlynn G (2000) Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. In: OECD ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation, proceedings of an Expert Workshop, Paris, pp 9–49Google Scholar
  25. Desaigues B, Ami D, Bartczak A et al (2011) Economic valuation of air pollution mortality: a 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY). Ecol Indic 11:902–910. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2010.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dessus S, O’Connor D (1999) Climate policy without tears. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dudek D, Golub A, Strukova E (2003) Ancillary benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions in transitional economies. World Dev 31(10):1759–1769. doi: 10.1016/S0305-750X(03)00139-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ebi KL, Hallegatte S, Kram T et al (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: background, process, and future directions. Clim Change 122:363–372. doi: 10.1007/s10584-013-0912-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. EMEP/EEA (2013) 1.A.1 combustion in energy and transformation industries. EMEP/EEA air pollutant emission inventory guidebook—2013—European Environment Agency (EEA)Google Scholar
  30. ESPREME (2007) Integrated assessment of heavy metal releases in Europe, exposure response functions, Searl, A. “Workpackage 6 – D05a, Exposure response functions for HM impacts on human health”, 2004. http://espreme.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/
  31. European Commission (1995) Externalities of energy: volume 1: summary; volume 2: methodology; volume 3: coal and lignite; volume 4: oil and gas; volume 5: nuclear; volume 6: wind and hydro fuel cycles. European Commission, Directorate-General XII. Science, Research and DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
  32. European Commission (2005) ExternE—externalities of energy. Methodology (2005) update. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, LuxembourgGoogle Scholar
  33. Fantke P (2008) Parameterisation of the environmental fate and exposure assessment of WATSON. Arbeitsbericht Nr. 5, Universität Stuttgart, Institut für Energiewirtschaft und Rationelle Energieanwendung, Stuttgart. https://administration.ier.uni-stuttgart.de/publications/display/207/de
  34. Garbaccio RF, Ho MS, Jorgenson DW (2000) The health benefits of controlling carbon emissions in China. In: OECD ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation, proceedings of an expert workshop, Paris, pp 343–376Google Scholar
  35. Glomsrød S, Vennemo H, Johnsen T (1992) Stabilization of emissions of \(\text{ CO }_{2}\): a computable general equilibrium assessment. Scand J Econ 94:53–69. doi: 10.2307/3440468 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Goulder LH (1995) Environmental taxation and the double dividend: a reader’s guide. Int Tax Public Financ 2(2):157–183. doi: 10.1007/BF00877495 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Groosman B, Muller NZ, O’Neill-Toy E (2011) The ancillary benefits from climate policy in the United States. Environ Resour Econ 50(4):585–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hammitt JK (2007) Valuing changes in mortality risk: lives saved versus life years saved. Rev Environ Econ Policy 1(2):228–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Heine D, Norregaard J, Parry I (2012) Environmental tax reform: principles from theory and practice to date. IMF Working Paper WP/12/180Google Scholar
  40. Holland M, Amann M, Heyes C et al (2011) The reduction in air quality impacts and associated economic benefits of mitigation policy: summary of results from the EC RTD climate cost project. Technical policy briefing note series. Stockholm Environment Institute, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  41. IPCC (2001) Climate change 2001: synthesis report. A contribution of working groups I, II, and III to the third assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. In: Watson RT, and the Core Writing Team (eds). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 398ppGoogle Scholar
  42. Kiuila O, Markandya A, Šcasný M, Menkyna Tsuchimoto F (2014) The economic and environmental effects of taxing air pollutants and CO2: lessons from a study of the Czech Republic. MPRA Paper 66599, University Library of Munich, Germany. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/66599/1/MPRA_paper_66599.pdf
  43. Laboratory Oak Ridge National (ORNL), Resources for the Future (RFF) (1995) External costs and benefits of fuel cycles (reports 2–8). McGraw-Hill Utility Data Institute, Washington, pp 1994–1998Google Scholar
  44. Leimbach M, Massetti E, Bosello F et al (2014) Global challenges with limited adaptation. GLOBAL IQ Deliverable 4:1Google Scholar
  45. Máca V, Melichar J, Ščasný M (2012) Internalization of external costs of energy generation in central and eastern European countries. J Environ Dev 21(2):181–197. doi: 10.1177/1070496512442504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Markandya A, Armstrong BG, Hales S et al (2009) Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation. Lancet 374:2006–2015. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61715-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Massetti E, Bosello F, Carrara S et al (2014) Scenarios of global challenges with full adaptation. GLOBAL-IQ Deliverable 5:1Google Scholar
  48. Meyer B (1998) Modellierung der Nachhaltigkeitslücke: eine umweltökonometrische Analyse; mit 38 Tabellen. Physica-VerlagGoogle Scholar
  49. Morgenstern RD (2000) Baseline issues in the estimation of the ancillary benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation policies. In: OECD ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation, pp 95–122Google Scholar
  50. Muller NZ, Mendelsohn RO (2007) Measuring the damages of air pollution in the United States. J Environ Econ Manag 54(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Muller NZ, Mendelsohn RO (2009) Efficient pollution regulation: getting the prices right. Am Econ Rev 99(5):1714–1739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Muller NZ, Mendelsohn RO, Nordhaus WD (2011) Environmental accounting for pollution in the United States economy. Am Econ Rev 101(5):1649–1675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Nam KM, Waugh CJ, Paltsev S et al (2013) Carbon co-benefits of tighter SO2 and NOx regulations in China. Global Environ Change 23(6):1648–1661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P (2010) Implications of incorporating air-quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ Res Lett 5(1):014007. doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/5/1/014007
  55. Nordhaus W (2014) Estimates of the social cost of carbon: concepts and results from the DICE-2013R model and alternative approaches. J Assoc Environ Resour Econ 1(1/2):273–312Google Scholar
  56. OECD (2002) Ancillary benefits and costs of GHG mitigation: policy conclusions. Working party on global and structural policies—ENV/EPOC/GSP(2001)13/FINAL. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  57. OECD (2012a) The jobs potential of a shift towards a low-carbon economy. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. OECD (2012b) Mortality risk valuation in environment health and transport policies. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  59. OECD (2014) The cost of air pollution: health impacts of road transport. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  60. Paltsev S, Reilly JM, Jacoby HD, et al (2005) The MIT emissions prediction and policy analysis (EPPA) model: version 4. MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global ChangeGoogle Scholar
  61. Parry I (2014) Carbon pricing: good for you, good for the planet. iMFdirect—The International Monetary Fund’s global economy forumGoogle Scholar
  62. Parry I, Veung C, Heine D (2014) How much carbon pricing is in countries’ own interests? The critical role of co-benefits. Social Science Research Network, RochesterGoogle Scholar
  63. Pearce D (1991) The role of carbon taxes in adjusting to global warming. Econ J 101(407):938–948Google Scholar
  64. Preiss P, Klotz VE (2008) V1. 3: user’s manual & “description of updated and extended draft tools for the detailed site-dependent assessment of external costs.” Institute of Energy Economics and the Rational Use of Energy, University of Stuttgart 63, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  65. Rabl A, Spadaro JV, Holland M (2014) How much is clean air worth? Calculating the benefits of pollution control. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  66. Rečka L, Ščasný M (2013) Environmental regulation impacts on the Czech power system by the dynamic linear optimisation model message. Politická ekonomie 2013:248–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Riekkola AK, Ahlgren EO, Söderholm P (2011) Ancillary benefits of climate policy in a small open economy: the case of Sweden. Energ Policy 39:4985–4998. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2011.06.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Ščasný M, Massetti E, Melichar J, Carrara S (2015) Quantifying the ancillary benefits of the representative concentration pathways on air quality in Europe. Nota di Lavoro 84.2015. Milan, Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiGoogle Scholar
  69. Ščasný M, Rečka L, Balajka J (2012) What is effect of climate change mitigating policies on energy sector in Slovakia? MPRA paper 66606, University Library of Munich, Germany. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/66606/1/MPRA_paper_66606.pdf
  70. Scheraga JD, Leary NA (1993) Costs and side benefits of using energy taxes to mitigate global climate change. In: Proceedings of the annual conference on taxation held under the auspices of the National Tax Association-Tax Institute of America. National Tax Association-Tax Institute of America, pp 133–138Google Scholar
  71. Somanathan E, Sterner T, Sugiyama T et al (2014) National and sub-national policies and institutions. Climate change 2014: mitigation of climate change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  72. Spadaro JV, Rabl A (2007) Global health impacts and costs due to mercury emissions. Risk Anal 28:603–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01041.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Spadaro JV, Rabl A (2008) Estimating the uncertainty of damage costs of pollution: a simple transparent method and typical results. Environ Impact Assess 28(2–3):166–183. doi: 10.1016/j.eiar.2007.04.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stocker TF, Qin D, Plattner GK et al (2013) IPCC, 2013: summary for policymakers. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeGoogle Scholar
  75. Syri S, Amann M, Capros P et al (2001) Low-\(\text{ CO }_{2}\) energy pathways and regional air pollution in Europe. Energy Policy 29:871–884. doi: 10.1016/S0301-4215(01)00022-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Harmelen T, Bakker J, de Vries B et al (2002) Long-term reductions in costs of controlling regional air pollution in Europe due to climate policy. Environ Sci Policy 5:349–365. doi: 10.1016/S1462-9011(02)00043-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Van Vuuren DP, Cofala J, Eerens HE et al (2006) Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto protocol for air pollution in Europe. Energy Policy 34:444–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M et al (2011) The representative concentration pathways: an overview. Clim Change 109:5–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, O’Neill BC et al (2014) A new scenario framework for climate change research: scenario matrix architecture. Clim Change 122:373–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weinzettel J, Havránek M, Ščasný M (2012) A consumption-based indicator of the external costs of electricity. Ecol Indic 17:68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. West JJ, Smith SJ, Silva RA et al (2013) Co-Benefits of Mitigating Global Greenhouse gas Emissions for Future Air Quality and Human Health. Nat Clim Change 3:885–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. WHO Regional Office for Europe, OECD (2015) Economic Cost of the health impact of air pollution in Europe: Clean air, health and wealth. WHO Regional Office for Europe, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Milan Ščasný
    • 1
  • Emanuele Massetti
    • 2
    • 3
  • Jan Melichar
    • 1
  • Samuel Carrara
    • 3
  1. 1.Environment CenterCharles University in PraguePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.Georgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Fondazione Eni Enrico MatteiMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations