Advertisement

The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment

, Volume 23, Issue 12, pp 2288–2299 | Cite as

Development of human health damage factors related to CO2 emissions by considering future socioeconomic scenarios

  • Longlong TangEmail author
  • Ryouta Ii
  • Koji Tokimatsu
  • Norihiro Itsubo
DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL SCALE LCIA METHOD

Abstract

Purpose

Global warming is exerting a damaging effect on human health. This damage is not only influenced by future climate conditions but also projected economic development and population growth. That being said, there are no health damage factors related to CO2 emissions which take into account future socioeconomic scenarios in life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). Thus, the purpose of the current research is to calculate human health damage factors based on the Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRESs) developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Methods

The procedure used to calculate the SRES-based damage factors is as follows. First, a framework was developed to calculate damage factors based on multiple parameters: rise in temperature, relative risk increase, mortality rate increase, rise in number of deaths, and disability-adjusted life year (DALY) increase. Secondly, these parameters were calculated for each individual SRES based on the relationship among the parameters and CO2 emissions, GDP, and population values of each scenario. Finally, the damage factor for each SRES was calculated by multiplying all the parameters that had been calculated based on the CO2 emission, GDP, and population data in the corresponding scenarios.

Results and discussion

Using this method, the human health damage factors for four SRESs (A1B, A2, B1, and B2) were calculated. The damage factors consisted of six different items: malaria, diarrhea, cardiovascular disease, malnutrition, coastal flooding, and inland flooding. The calculated results by scenario were 2.0 × 10−7, 6.2 × 10−7, 2.1 × 10−7, and 4.2 × 10−7 DALY/kg CO2, respectively. The damage caused by malnutrition is the greatest, followed by diarrhea. Regions of Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East showed the highest damages due to their high damage from malnutrition and diarrhea. With regard to the differences among the four damage factors, the difference between the projected future mortality rate and DALY per death based on the future GDP per capita is greater than the difference between the increases in temperature among scenarios dependent on future CO2 emission.

Conclusions

The human health damage factors related to CO2 emissions for four SRESs were estimated. As a result of differences between future socioeconomic scenarios, the largest amount of damage per CO2 emission unit was three times greater than the smallest amount. Therefore, sensitive analysis is highly recommended when seeking to compare damage caused by global warming and other impact categories.

Keywords

CO2 Disability-adjusted life years Global warming Human health damage Life cycle impact assessment SRES 

References

  1. CIESIN (Center for International Earth Science Information Network) (2002) Country-Level GDP and Downscaled Projections for the SRES A1, A2, B1 and B2 Marker Scenarios, 1990–2100, Beta Version, from http://sres.ciesin.columbia.edu/tgcia. Accessed 12 Mar 2013
  2. De Schryver AM, Brakkee KW, Goedkoop MJ, Huijbregts MA (2009) Environ Sci Technol 43(6):1689–1695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ezzati M, Lopez AD, Rodgers A, Murray CJL (2004) Comparative quantification of health risks. Global and regional burden of diseases attributable to selected major risk factors. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  4. Itsubo N, Inaba A, Ii R, Ikaga T, Kubo T, Sakagami M, Nagata Y, Hama Y, Hayashi K, Hirosaki J, Motoshita M (2010) LIME2—an environmental impact assessment method supporting decision making, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  5. Itsubo N, Inaba A (2012) LIME2 Life-cycle Impact assessment method based on endpoint modeling, Chapter 2 characterization and damage evaluation methods, jlca (life cycle assessment society of Japan), from http://lca-forum.org/english/pdf/No15_Chapter2.1-2.3.pdf
  6. Mathers CD, Stein C, Fat DM, Rao C, Inoue M, Tomijima N, Lopez AD, Murray CJL (2002) Global burden of disease 2000: version 2 methods and results. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. Mathers CD, Loncar D (2005) Updated projections of global mortality and burden of disease, 2002-2030: data sources, methods and results. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  8. McMichael AJ, Haines A, Slooff R, Kovats RS (1996) Climate change and human health: an assessment prepared by a task group on behalf of the World Health Organization. World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme. World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. Moss RH et al (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Murray CJL (1996) “Rethinking DALYs.”. In: Murray CJL, Lopez AD (eds) The global burden of disease, vol 1, Global Burden of Disease and Injury Series. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–98Google Scholar
  11. Nakicenovic N, Swart R (2000) Special report on emissions scenarios: a special report of Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Parry ML, Canziani OF, Palutikof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (2007) Climate change 2007—impacts, adaptation and vulnerability: Working Group II contribution to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Patz JA, McGeehin MA, Bernard SM, Ebi KL, Epstein PR, Grambsch A, Gubler DJ, Reither P, Romieu I, Rose JB, Samet JM, Trtanj J (2000) The potential health impacts of climate variability and change for the United States: executive summary of the report of the health sector of the US National Assessment. Environ Health Persp 108:367–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, contribution of Working Group I to the fourth assessment report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. UNDP (2006) Human development report 2006. Palgrave Macmillan Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Van Vuuren DP, Kriegler E, O’Neill BC, Ebi KL, Riahi K, Carter TR, Edmonds J, Hallegatte S, Kram T, Mathur R, Winkler H (2013) A new scenario framework for Climate Change Research: scenario matrix architecture. Climatic Change, Special Issue, In: Nakicenovic N, Lempert R, Janetos A (eds) A framework for the development of new socioeconomic scenarios for climate change research.Google Scholar
  17. Van Zelm R, Huijbregts MAJ, Den Hollander HA, Van Jaarsveld HA, Sauter FJ, Struijs J, Van Wijnen HJ, Van de Meent D (2008) European characterization factors for human health damage due to PM10 and ozone in life cycle impact assessment. Atmos Environ 42(3):441–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. WHO (2008) The global burden of disease: 2004 update, from http://www.who.int/healthinfo/global_burden_disease/GBD_report_2004update_full.pdf Accessed 17 Aug 2013
  19. Wigley TML (2008) MAGICC/SCENGEN 5.3: USER MANUAL (version 2), from http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/wigley/magicc/UserMan5.3.v2.pdf. Accessed 8 Apr 2013

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Longlong Tang
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ryouta Ii
    • 2
  • Koji Tokimatsu
    • 3
  • Norihiro Itsubo
    • 4
  1. 1.Natural Resources Inventory CenterNational Institute for Agro-Environmental SciencesTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Pacific Consultants Co., Ltd.Tama-shiJapan
  3. 3.The National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST)TsukubaJapan
  4. 4.Faculty of Environmental StudiesTokyo City UniversityYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations