IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/climat/v114y2012i3p441-461.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scenarios of methane emission reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality

Author

Listed:
  • J. West

    ()

  • Arlene Fiore
  • Larry Horowitz

Abstract

Methane emissions contribute to global baseline surface ozone concentrations; therefore reducing methane to address climate change has significant co-benefits for air quality and human health. We analyze the costs of reducing methane from 2005 to 2030, as might be motivated to reduce climate forcing, and the resulting benefits from lower surface ozone to 2060. We construct three plausible scenarios of methane emission reductions, relative to a base scenario, ranging from 75 to 180 Mton CH 4 yr −1 decreased in 2030. Using compilations of the global availability of methane emission reductions, the least aggressive scenario (A) does not incur any positive marginal costs to 2030, while the most aggressive (C) requires discovery of new methane abatement technologies. The present value of implementation costs for Scenario B are nearly equal to Scenario A, as it implements cost-saving options more quickly, even though it adopts positive cost measures. We estimate the avoided premature human mortalities due to surface ozone decreases by combining transient full-chemistry simulations of these scenarios in a global atmospheric chemical transport model, with concentration-mortality relationships from a short-term epidemiologic study and projected global population. An estimated 38,000 premature mortalities are avoided globally in 2030 under Scenario B. As benefits of methane reduction are positive but costs are negative for Scenario A, it is justified regardless of how avoided mortalities are valued. The incremental benefits of Scenario B also far outweigh the incremental costs. Scenario C has incremental costs that roughly equal benefits, only when technological learning is assumed. Benefits within industrialized nations alone also exceed costs in Scenarios A and B, assuming that the lowest-cost emission reductions, including those in developing nations, are implemented. Monetized co-benefits of methane mitigation for human health are estimated to be $13–17 per ton CO 2 eq, with a wider range possible under alternative assumptions. Methane mitigation can be a cost-effective means of long-term and international air quality management, with concurrent benefits for climate. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Suggested Citation

  • J. West & Arlene Fiore & Larry Horowitz, 2012. "Scenarios of methane emission reductions to 2030: abatement costs and co-benefits to ozone air quality and human mortality," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 114(3), pages 441-461, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:114:y:2012:i:3:p:441-461
    DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0426-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10584-012-0426-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John P. Weyant, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, and Geoff J. Blanford, 2006. "Overview of EMF-21: Multigas Mitigation and Climate Policy," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 1-32.
    2. Burtraw, Dallas & Krupnick, Alan & Palmer, Karen & Paul, Anthony & Toman, Michael & Bloyd, Cary, 2003. "Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the US from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 650-673, May.
    3. Ekin, Paul, 1996. "The secondary benefits of CO2 abatement: How much emission reduction do they justify?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 13-24, January.
    4. van Vuuren, Detlef P. & Weyant, John & de la Chesnaye, Francisco, 2006. "Multi-gas scenarios to stabilize radiative forcing," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 102-120, January.
    5. Riahi, Keywan & Rubin, Edward S. & Taylor, Margaret R. & Schrattenholzer, Leo & Hounshell, David, 2004. "Technological learning for carbon capture and sequestration technologies," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 539-564, July.
    6. Rubin, Edward S & Taylor, Margaret R & Yeh, Sonia & Hounshell, David A, 2004. "Learning curves for environmental technology and their importance for climate policy analysis," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 29(9), pages 1551-1559.
    7. K. Aunan & H.E. Mestl & H.M. Seip & J. Fang & D.O'Connor & H. Vennemo & F. Zhai, 2003. "Co-benefits of CO 2 -reducing policies in China - a matter of scale?," International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 3(3), pages 287-304.
    8. Benjamin J. DeAngelo, Francisco C. de la Chesnaye, Robert H. Beach, Allan Sommer and Brian C. Murray, 2006. "Methane and Nitrous Oxide Mitigation in Agriculture," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Special I), pages 89-108.
    9. Aunan, Kristin & Fang, Jinghua & Vennemo, Haakon & Oye, Kenneth & Seip, Hans M., 2004. "Co-benefits of climate policy--lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 567-581, March.
    10. Syri, Sanna & Amann, Markus & Capros, Pantelis & Mantzos, Leonidas & Cofala, Janusz & Klimont, Zbigniew, 2001. "Low-CO2 energy pathways and regional air pollution in Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(11), pages 871-884, September.
    11. Dutton, John M. & Thomas, Annie & Butler, John E., 1984. "The History of Progress Functions as a Managerial Technology," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 204-233, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Toon Vandyck & Kimon Keramidas & Stéphane Tchung-Ming & Matthias Weitzel & Rita Dingenen, 2020. "Quantifying air quality co-benefits of climate policy across sectors and regions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 163(3), pages 1501-1517, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pittel, Karen & Rübbelke, Dirk T.G., 2008. "Climate policy and ancillary benefits: A survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 210-220, December.
    2. Takeshita, Takayuki, 2012. "Assessing the co-benefits of CO2 mitigation on air pollutants emissions from road vehicles," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 225-237.
    3. Alain Bernard & Marc Vielle, 2008. "GEMINI-E3, a general equilibrium model of international–national interactions between economy, energy and the environment," Computational Management Science, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 173-206, May.
    4. Samuel Carrara & Giacomo Marangoni, 2013. "Non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation modeling with marginal abatement cost curv es: technical change, emission scenarios and policy costs," ECONOMICS AND POLICY OF ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2013(1), pages 91-124.
    5. Tol, Richard S.J., 2012. "A cost–benefit analysis of the EU 20/20/2020 package," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 288-295.
    6. Milan Ščasný & Emanuele Massetti & Jan Melichar & Samuel Carrara, 2015. "Quantifying the Ancillary Benefits of the Representative Concentration Pathways on Air Quality in Europe," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 62(2), pages 383-415, October.
    7. Nam, Kyung-Min & Selin, Noelle E. & Reilly, John M. & Paltsev, Sergey, 2010. "Measuring welfare loss caused by air pollution in Europe: A CGE analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(9), pages 5059-5071, September.
    8. Bollen, Johannes, 2015. "The value of air pollution co-benefits of climate policies: Analysis with a global sector-trade CGE model called WorldScan," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 90(PA), pages 178-191.
    9. Kenneth Rødseth & Eirik Romstad, 2014. "Environmental Regulations, Producer Responses, and Secondary Benefits: Carbon Dioxide Reductions Under the Acid Rain Program," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 59(1), pages 111-135, September.
    10. Yeh, Sonia & Rubin, Edward S., 2012. "A review of uncertainties in technology experience curves," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 762-771.
    11. Jouvet, Pierre-André & Schumacher, Ingmar, 2012. "Learning-by-doing and the costs of a backstop for energy transition and sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 122-132.
    12. Neij, Lena, 2008. "Cost development of future technologies for power generation--A study based on experience curves and complementary bottom-up assessments," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(6), pages 2200-2211, June.
    13. Sergi, Brian & Azevedo, Inês & Xia, Tian & Davis, Alex & Xu, Jianhua, 2019. "Support for Emissions Reductions Based on Immediate and Long-term Pollution Exposure in China," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 26-33.
    14. Steven Smith & J. West & Page Kyle, 2011. "Economically consistent long-term scenarios for air pollutant emissions," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 619-627, October.
    15. Finus, Michael & Rubbelke, Dirk T G, 2008. "Coalition Formation and the Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2008-13, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    16. Eory, Vera, 2015. "Evaluating the use of marginal abatement cost curves applied to greenhouse gas abatement in agriculture," Working Papers 199777, Scotland's Rural College (formerly Scottish Agricultural College), Land Economy & Environment Research Group.
    17. Tol, Richard S.J., 2013. "Targets for global climate policy: An overview," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 911-928.
    18. Halkos, George, 2014. "The Economics of Climate Change Policy: Critical review and future policy directions," MPRA Paper 56841, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Zhou, Wenji & Zhu, Bing & Fuss, Sabine & Szolgayová, Jana & Obersteiner, Michael & Fei, Weiyang, 2010. "Uncertainty modeling of CCS investment strategy in China's power sector," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 87(7), pages 2392-2400, July.
    20. Wang, Lining & Patel, Pralit L. & Yu, Sha & Liu, Bo & McLeod, Jeff & Clarke, Leon E. & Chen, Wenying, 2016. "Win–Win strategies to promote air pollutant control policies and non-fossil energy target regulation in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 244-253.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:climat:v:114:y:2012:i:3:p:441-461. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.