Skip to main content

Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges

Abstract

This paper assesses three key energy sustainability objectives: energy security improvement, climate change mitigation, and the reduction of air pollution and its human health impacts. We explain how the common practice of narrowly focusing on singular issues ignores potentially enormous synergies, highlighting the need for a paradigm shift toward more holistic policy approaches. Our analysis of a large ensemble of alternate energy-climate futures, developed using MESSAGE, an integrated assessment model, shows that stringent climate change policy offers a strategic entry point along the path to energy sustainability in several dimensions. Concerted decarbonization efforts can lead to improved air quality, thereby reducing energy-related health impacts worldwide: upwards of 2–32 million fewer disability-adjusted life years in 2030, depending on the aggressiveness of the air pollution policies foreseen in the baseline. At the same time, low-carbon technologies and energy-efficiency improvements can help to further the energy security goals of individual countries and regions by promoting a more dependable, resilient, and diversified energy portfolio. The cost savings of these climate policy synergies are potentially enormous: $100–600 billion annually by 2030 in reduced pollution control and energy security expenditures (0.1–0.7 % of GDP). Novel aspects of this paper include an explicit quantification of the health-related co-benefits of present and future air pollution control policies; an analysis of how future constraints on regional trade could influence energy security; a detailed assessment of energy expenditures showing where financing needs to flow in order to achieve the multiple energy sustainability objectives; and a quantification of the relationships between different fulfillment levels for energy security and air pollution goals and the probability of reaching the 2 °C climate target.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. Note that in addition to PM2.5, each scenario of the large ensemble possesses unique emissions trajectories for sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), black carbon (BC), organic carbon (OC), and ammonia (NH3).

  2. m j is constrained to be between 0 and 1 to ignore the contribution of resources that are net exported (i.e., with negative m j ’s); otherwise, the diversity indicator of exporting regions would be artificially improved.

  3. The term climate sensitivity (CS) refers to the equilibrium global average warming expected if CO2 concentrations were to be sustained at double their pre-industrial values. A CS of 3 °C has a (cumulative) likelihood of 53.9 % using the uniform prior climate sensitivity probability density function from Forest et al. (2002), which is in the middle of the range found in the literature. See SM.

References

  • Amann M, Bertok I, Borken-Kleefeld J, Cofala J, Heyes C, Hoeglund-Isaksson L, Klimont Z, Purohit P, Rafaj P, Schoepp W, Toth G, Wagner F, Winiwarter W (2009) Potentials and Costs for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Annex I Countries: Methodology, IIASA Interim Report IR-09-043. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen J, Hers S, van der Zwaan B (2010) An integrated assessment of climate change, air pollution, and energy security policy. Energy Policy 38:4021–4030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clarke L, Edmonds J, Krey V, Richels R, Rose S, Tavoni M (2009) International climate policy architectures: overview of the EMF 22 international scenarios. Energy Econ 31:S64–S81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cofala J, Amann M, Asman W, Bertok I, Heyes C, Isaksson LH, Klimont Z, Schoepp W, Wagner F (2010) Integrated assessment of air pollution and greenhouse gases mitigation in Europe. Arch Environ Protect 36:29–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper CD, Alley FC (2010) Air Pollution Control: A Design Approach, 4th edn. Waveland Pr Inc, p 839. http://books.google.com/books?id=Xfi7bwAACAAJ

  • Dentener F, Drevet J, Lamarque JF, Bey I, Eickhout B, Fiore AM, Hauglustaine D, Horowitz LW, Krol M, Kulshrestha UC, Lawrence M, Galy-Lacaux C, Rast S, Shindell D, Stevenson D, Van Noije T, Atherton C, Bell N, Bergman D, Butler T, Cofala J, Collins B, Doherty R, Ellingsen K, Galloway J, Gauss M, Montanaro V, Müller JF, Pitari G, Rodriguez J, Sanderson M, Strahan S, Schultz M, Solmon F, Sudo K, Szopa S, Wild O (2006) Nitrogen and sulphur deposition on regional and global scales: a multi-model evaluation. Global Biogeochem Cycles GB4003:21

    Google Scholar 

  • Forest CE, Stone PH, Sokolov AP, Allen MR, Webster MD (2002) Quantifying uncertainties in climate system properties with the use of recent climate observations. Science 295:113–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldemberg J, Johansson TB (2004) World Energy Assessment: Overview 2004 Update. United Nations Development Programme, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007—Fourth Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen JC, Arkel WGv, Boots MG (2004) Designing indicators of long-term energy supply security. Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands (ECN), p. 35. ftp://ecn.nl/pub/www/library/report/2004/c04007.pdf

  • Krol M, Houweling S, Bregman B, Van Den Broek M, Segers A, Van Velthoven P, Peters W, Dentener F, Bergamaschi P (2005) The two-way nested global chemistry-transport zoom model TM5: algorithm and applications. Atmos Chem Phys 5:417–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruyt B, van Vuuren DP, de Vries HJM, Groenenberg H (2009) Indicators for energy security. Energy Policy 37:2166–2181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landau E (2011) Why (or why not) nuclear energy? CNN, Online edn, Japan. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-26/us/nuclear.energy_1_nuclear-power-commercial-nuclear-reactors-nuclear-projects?_s=PM:US. Accessed 26 Mar 2011

  • McCollum D, Krey V, Riahi K (2011) An integrated approach to energy sustainability. Nat Clim Chang 1:428–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Kolp P, Riahi K, Kainuma M, Hanaoka T (2006) Assessment of emissions scenarios revisited. Environ Econ Policy Stud 7:137–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Nemet GF, Holloway T, Meier P (2010) Implications of incorporating air quality co-benefits into climate change policymaking. Environ Res Lett 5:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafaj P, Rao S, Klimont Z, Kolp P, Schoepp W (2010) Emissions of air pollutants implied by global long-term energy scenarios, Interim Report IR-10-019. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria, p 32

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan V, Xu Y (2010) The Copenhagen Accord for limiting global warming: criteria, constraints, and available avenues. Proc Natl Acad Sci 107:8055–8062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao S, Chirkov V, Dentener F, Dingenen Rv, Pachauri S, Purohit P, Amann M, Heyes C, Kinney P, Kolp P, Klimont Z, Riahi K, Schoepp W (2012) Environmental Modeling and Methods for Estimation of the Global Health Impacts of Air Pollution. Environ Model Assess. doi:10.1007/s10666-012-9317-3; http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10666-012-9317-3?LI=true

  • Riahi K, Grübler A, Nakicenovic N (2007) Scenarios of long-term socio-economic and environmental development under climate stabilization. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 74:887–935

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riahi K, Dentener F, Gielen D, Grubler A, Jewell J, Klimont Z, Krey V, McCollum D, Pachauri S, Rao S, van Ruijven B, van Vuuren DP, Wilson C (2012) Energy Pathways for Sustainable Development, in Global Energy Assessment: Toward a Sustainable Future. IIASA, Laxenburg, and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and USA.

  • Rogelj J, Hare W, Lowe J, van Vuuren DP, Riahi K, Matthews B, Hanaoka T, Jiang K, Meinshausen M (2011) Emission pathways consistent with a 2 deg C global temperature limit. Nat Clim Chang 1:413–418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith SJ, van Aardenne J, Klimont Z, Andres RJ, Volke A, Delgado Arias S (2011) Anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions: 1850–2005. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1101–1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Allen RB, Berntsen T, Bindoff NL, Chen Z, Chidthaisong A, Gregory JM, Hegerl GC, Heimann M, Hewitson B, Hoskins BJ, Joos F, Jouzel J, Kattsov V, Lohmann U, Matsuno T, Molina M, Nicholls N, Overpeck J, Raga G, Ramaswamy V, Ren J, Rusticucci M, Somerville R, Stocker TF, Whetton P, Wood RA, Wratt D (2007) Technical Summary, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Solomon S, D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (ed.), Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. http://ecite.utas.edu.au/50315 and http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ts.html

  • Sovacool BK, Brown MA (2010) Competing dimensions of energy security: an international perspective. Annu Rev Environ Resour 35:77–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The White House (2011) Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. Washington, D.C. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/blueprint_secure_energy_future.pdf

  • UNEP (2011) Near-term Climate Protection and Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-Lived Climate Forcers. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • van Vuuren DP, Cofala J, Eerens HE, Oostenrijk R, Heyes C, Klimont Z, den Elzen MGJ, Amann M (2006) Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe. Energy Policy 34:444–460

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • WHO (2006) Air quality guidelines. Global update 2005. World Health Organization, Copenhagen, p 484

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper describes work partially undertaken within the framework of the Global Energy Assessment. Financial support was provided by the Global Environment Facility, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth, and US National Academy of Sciences.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David L. McCollum.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOCX 3.16 MB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCollum, D.L., Krey, V., Riahi, K. et al. Climate policies can help resolve energy security and air pollution challenges. Climatic Change 119, 479–494 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0710-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0710-y

Keywords

  • Climate Policy
  • Selective Catalytic Reduction
  • Decarbonization
  • Baseline Scenario
  • Energy Security