Europaudvalget 2008-09
Det Europæiske Råd 15-16/10-08 Bilag 5
Offentligt
598327_0001.png
The co-benefits to health
of a strong EU climate change policy
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
598327_0002.png
ThE Co-bEnEfiTs of DiffErEnT AmbiTion LEvELs for GrEEnhoUsE GAs
AbATEmEnT in ThE EU by 2020
The Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Climate Action Network (CAN) and WWF Europe
commissioned this report to demonstrate the huge health benefits of meeting internationally re-
commended targets on climate change.
The aim is to show to Members of the European Parliament the value of supporting the target of a
minimum reduction of 30% in domestic EU greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 (from 1990 levels).
This would replace the current target of 20%.
The findings demonstrate that if the European Union were to raise its target on greenhouse gas
emissions from the current 20% to 30% in line with recommendations of the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the additional health savings from control of non-greenhouse gases (fine
particles, nitrogen oxide and sulphur dioxide) would amount to between 6.5 and 25 billion Euros
euros per year. This calculation is based on economic evaluations of reduced loss of life and health
due to cleaner air associated with climate change policy, as well as savings to industry from reduced
loss of working days and to governments from reduced costs to health services.
The report also mentions other co-benefits of a higher target on climate change action, such as the
protection of forests, water supplies and biodiversity. It also points to the considerable savings to
European companies involved in implementing air pollution abatement measures.
Author Dr M R Holland, EMRC - Ecometrics Research and Consulting, UK
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.emrc.co.uk
Reviewed by:
Christer Ågren, Director, Air Pollution and Climate Secretariat, Sweden
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.acidrain.org
Christian Farrar-Hockley, Senior Policy Adviser, Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL), Brussels, Belgium.
E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.env-health.org
2
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
sUmmAry
The objective of this paper is to quantify
important co-benefits of greenhouse gas (GHG)
mitigation under scenarios where domestic
GHG emissions are reduced by 30% across
the European Union by 2020 compared to 1990
levels, rather than by the 20% considered in the
proposal by the European Commission (EC).
These co-benefits for EU citizens result from
the reduction in emissions of the air pollutants
sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx)
and particulate matter (PM) that would arise
as a result of a reduction in carbon dioxide
(CO2) emissions and are additional to benefits
from reduced greenhouse gas emissions.
The methods used to quantify these co-benefits
were developed under the Clean Air For Europe
(CAFE) Programme of the European Commission’s
Directorate General for Environment and have
been subject to detailed debate with stakeholders
including the World Health Organization
(WHO) and an independent peer review.
The findings show that the co-benefits to
health of increasing the current European
Union target of a 20% greenhouse gas
emission reduction for 2020 (from 1990
levels) to a target of 30% are very significant.
While the health benefits in economic terms from
achieving the 20% target are substantial (between
13 and 52 billion Euros), raising the target to 30%
is estimated to increase them by 48% to between
20 and 76 billion Euros in the year 2020 alone.
Additional benefits compared to the EC
proposal are between 6.5 and 25 billion Euros.
These benefits would accrue year on year.
In terms of health improvements, the paper
estimates that the additional co-benefits in the year
2020 of better air quality due to reaching a 30%
cut in greenhouse gas emissions would include:
•
•
•
•
105,000
reduction
in
life
years
lost
5,300 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis
2,800
less
hospital
admissions
Many million fewer days of restricted
activity due to respiratory symptoms.
There are other significant benefits of reduced
emissions of SO2, NOx and PM. In Europe,
a great deal of concern has been expressed
about the effects of air pollution on forests
as well as other terrestrial and freshwater
ecosystems and historical buildings.
These
co-benefits are not quantified here and would
therefore add to the health benefits described.
In moving away from the most polluting fuels,
action on climate change also brings benefit
to industry in terms of a reduction in the costs
to companies of meeting air pollution control
regulations. Though not quantified here, the
Commission’s Impact Assessment highlights that
these savings can be of a similar magnitude to
the health benefits that have been quantified.
3
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
598327_0004.png
impACTs of Air poLLUTAnTs
The term “co-benefits” relates to the indirect
consequences of GHG controls. The co-benefits
quantified here largely concern the health
impacts of three of the main air pollutants that
operate at the continental scale – fine particles
(PM2.5), NOx and SO2. Since these pollutants
are released by some of the major sources of
CO2, their emission can be reduced by many
measures taken to control CO2 emissions.
Two ongoing processes demonstrate the
necessity and intention in Europe to further reduce
emissions of these pollutants: the revision of the
National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD)
and the Gothenburg Protocol to the Convention
on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
PM2.5, SO2 and NOx emissions have been linked
to higher rates of death and respiratory illnesses,
including bronchitis and the exacerbation of
asthma symptoms, and respiratory and cardiac
hospital admissions. The evidence comes
from a large number of studies published over
the last 20 years. Particularly compelling are
the results of ‘intervention’ studies in which
population health is monitored following action
to reduce air pollution concentrations, such as
after the ban on coal burning in Dublin, Ireland.
Emissions of these pollutants also damage
other receptors, such as ecosystems through
acidification and eutrophication (including the
process whereby lakes, estuaries and streams
receive excess nutrients that stimulate excessive
growth of algae and other plants). The critical load
for eutrophication of terrestrial ecosystems is widely
exceeded across Europe, with the resulting risk
of significant ecosystem change. The emissions
also affect agriculture through reduced crop yields
and
damage to buildings including cultural heritage.
mEThoDs AnD kEy DATA soUrCEs
The methods used in this study to quantify and
value the impacts of PM2.5, NOx and SO2 are
based on those developed under the European
Commission’s Clean Air For Europe (CAFE)
Programme, which underpinned the development
of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. The
method follows the impact pathway approach,
which proceeds logically through the steps
between emission, impact and valuation (Figure 1).
Figure 1. The impact pathway approach for quantifying
benefits of emission reductions, from emission to
valuation.
Emission
Dispersion and
atmospheric chemistry
Exposure of population
crops, materials, ecosystems
Quantification of impacts using
concentration response functions
Valuation
These methods were developed under CAFE
in partnership with WHO and various other
European experts, and were adopted following
extensive discussion with stakeholders and an
independent peer review. For the present analysis
one change has been made to the methods
recommended for mortality valuation under CAFE.
In CAFE, stakeholders requested that mortality
be valued using two approaches: one based
on the loss of life expectancy and valued using
the value of a life year (VOLY), and the other
4
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
598327_0005.png
valuation made against the number of deaths
linked to pollution exposure valued using the
value of a statistical life (VSL)
1
. For the former,
an estimate of 52,000 Euros was adopted for the
VOLY, which drew on EU research then available.
However, further research on the value of a lost
life year (VOLY) has been carried out in a larger
number of European countries since the original
CAFE methodology was agreed. This has led to a
downward revision of the recommended VOLY to
40,000 Euros, a figure that has been applied here.
The analysis of co-benefits through economic
valuation is most developed for health impact
assessment, on which the present paper is
focused.
Impacts are quantified against:
•
Changes in concentration of particulate
matter accounting for primary particles
(particles
directly
emitted),
and,
Secondary particles (sulphate and nitrate
aerosols formed in the atmosphere following
release of SO2 and NOx respectively).
•
International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis (IIASA) (2006) consideration of the co-
benefits of climate policy in relation to air quality
for the European Environment Agency
4
, and
European
Commission
(2008)
Annex
to the joint impact assessment on the
package
of
implementation
measures
for the EU’s objectives on climate
change and renewable energy for 2020
5
.
•
sCEnArios
The positions examined by the European
Commission
5
focused on cuts in emissions
of GHGs of 20% and 30% by 2020. The
20% cut is achieved purely through domestic
savings, whereas the 30% cut also permits
access to the Joint Implementation and Clean
Development Mechanisms (JI/CDM).
The
effect on EU energy demand and energy mix
is almost identical for the two positions, the
JI/CDM providing most of the additional 10%
saving for the 30% reduction case. In this
report, the co-benefits of the 30% cut are
calculated for a domestic 30% GHG reduction,
in other words, without accessing JI/CDM.
The scenario analysis of the Wuppertal
Institute
6
, demonstrating a 30% cut in EU GHG
emissions by 2020 has been compared with
scenarios considered by the Commission. The
EC proposal without renewable energy sources
trading gives a near 30% cut but by 2030 instead
of 2020. The energy mix for the two scenarios
is broadly similar, which implies a general
consistency in the modelling. Extrapolation
of the health benefits of the 20% reduction in
GHG emissions by 2020 has been made to a 30%
saving through consideration of the additional
reduction in use of the most polluting fuels (coal,
lignite and oil) estimated for the latter case.
•
Separate quantification of the direct effects of
exposure to SO2 and NO2 is not performed as
it is considered likely to double count some part
of the effects attributed to particle exposure.
Following WHO advice, the analysis assumes
that the different types of particle are equally
damaging per unit mass and that there is no
threshold for impacts at the level of the population
2
.
This
assessment
is
largely
based
on
consideration
of
the
results
of
three
studies that have applied these methods:
•
AEA (2006) assessment of the air quality
benefits of further climate measures up to
2020 on behalf of the European Commission
3
The present author’s strong preference is for the approach based on valuation of life years lost.
This does not preclude thresholds for individuals in good health.
3
http://www.cafe-cba.org/assets/further_climate_measures_benefits.pdf
4
http://reports.eea.europa.eu/technical_report_2006_4/en
5
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/climat_action/climate_package_ia_annex.pdf
6
Updated study on: how to achieve a domestic 30% GhG emission reduction target in the EU by 2020. Draft, August 2008.
1
2
5
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
598327_0006.png
rEsULTs
Table 1 shows the benefits of stronger climate
change action based on estimates of health impacts
in 2020 (figures from the European Commission’s
proposal) and a new, second proposal giving
impacts for a 30% cut in GHG emissions.
The first column of figures shows the breakdown
of annual health impacts in the baseline for
2020, without additional legislation. The second
column shows the change in these effects
under a domestic 20% cut in GHG emissions
in the EU by 2020. These figures are based
on results given in the impact assessment
of the European Commission’s proposal.
The third column shows the change in impacts from
a 30% cut in domestic EU emissions for the year
2020. The final column shows the additional health
benefits of the 30% proposal over the 20% proposal.
For example, it is foreseen that air pollution
will reduce life expectancy across the EU
population by 2.8 million life years per year
in 2020 (roughly equivalent to 7 months per
person).
The Commission’s proposal is
predicted to reduce this by 218,000 life years
per year. If the target were increased to 30%,
an additional 105,000 life years would be saved,
a 48% improvement over the 20% proposal.
Table 1. Estimated health impacts in 2020 based on the Commission’s proposal and a second proposal giving a 30%
cut in GHG emissions
Air pollution impacts
– baseline 2020
Change in health
impacts through
20% cut by 2020
Change in health
impacts through
30% cut by 2020
Additional
change from
30% cut over
20% cut
-105,151
Health impacts – cases attributed to air pollution exposure
Mortality: Life years
2,800,000
-218,182
lost among people
over 30 years
Chronic bronchitis,
142,168
-11,078
population over 27
years
Hospital admissions
75,319
-5,869
Restricted activity
246,333,947
-19,194,869
days, people of
working age
Days with respira-
tory medication use by
adults and children
25,155,404
-1,960,163
-323,333
-16,417
-5,339
-8,698
-28,445,700
-2,829
-9,250,831
-2,904,850
-944,687
6
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
598327_0007.png
Table 2 shows the valuation of these additional health benefits in monetary terms. The lower estimates
use the value of life years (VOLY) for mortality valuation whilst the higher estimates use the value of
statistical life (VSL). The health benefits shown for the 20% proposal are a little higher than in the
Commission’s Impact Assessment as they include effects of ill health as well as impacts on mortality.
Table 2. Economic equivalents of health impacts and benefits of climate policies.
Air pollution
impacts – baseline
2020
Health benefit,
172,441
million euros,
Low
Health benefit,
665,895
million euros, High
Change in health
impacts through
20% cut by 2020
-13,437
-51,888
Change in health
impacts through
30% cut by 2020
-19,913
-76,895
Additional change
from 30% cut over
20% cut
-6,476
-25,007
“Restricted activity days” (see Table 1) take several forms, including workdays lost, which
result in a loss of productivity. Associated results on loss of workdays are shown in Table
3, noting that they are part of the results already shown, and hence not additional to them.
Table 3. Work loss days and associated productivity losses
Baseline scenario
impacts for 2020
Loss of work days
Equivalent loss in
productivity, Euro
million
56,531,183
4,975
Change in health
impacts through
20% cut by 2020
-4,405,031
-388
Change in health
impacts through
30% cut by 2020
-6,528,004
-574
Additional change
from 30% cut over
20% cut
-2,122,973
-187
7
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
598327_0008.png
ConCLUsions
1. Climate change policies can make a substantial
contribution to reducing air pollution. This
would contribute to the objectives of the 6th
Environmental Action Programme of the EU.
2. Existing targets to combat climate change will
deliver considerable co-benefits in air pollution
abatement due to a higher level of reductions in
domestic green house gases (GHG) by 2020.
3.
The co-benefits to health of increasing the EU’s
current level of ambition on reducing domestic
GHG (20% reduction in emissions) to 30% will be:
•
Reduced
air
leading
to
public
health
•
•
•
•
pollutant
emissions
improvements
in
indicators,
such
as:
In addition to the benefits for health and the environment,
action on climate change will reduce the overall costs
to industry of controlling air pollutant emissions as a
result of moving away from the most polluting fuels.
The European Commission Impact Assessment
7
shows that the current cost to industry of air
pollution legislation is 83 billion Euros per year
and that this would fall by around 10 billion Euros
per year under the proposal for a 20% cut. A 30%
cut would further reduce demand for the most
polluting fuels leading to a further significant fall
in non-greenhouse gas emission control costs.
105,000 reduction in life years lost
5,300 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis
2,800
less
hospital
admissions
Many
million
fewer
days
of
restricted
activity
and
days
with
respiratory
symptoms.
•
The monetary value of this health
improvement is estimated at between 6.5
and 25 billion Euros per year in 2020.
These benefits would accrue year-on-year.
•
7
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pdf/climat_action/climate_package_ia_annex.pdf
8
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
9
 PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files
598327_0010.png
Climate Action Network Europe (CAN-E) is recognised as Europe’s leading network
working on climate and energy issues. Keeping global warming below 2 degrees
Celsius is the focus of the ‘Time to Lead’ campaign – www.timetolead.eu – from
Climate Action Network Europe, Friends of the Earth Europe, Greenpeace and WWF.
For further information:
Tomas Wyns, Climate Action Network Europe
Tel: +32 2 295 52 23
Mobile: +32 473 840 322
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.climnet.org
Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL) aims to raise awareness of how
environmental protection and sustainability improve health and to empower the
health community to contribute their expertise to policy-making. Since its inception,
HEAL’s membership has grown to include a diverse network of more than 50
citizens’, patients’, women’s, health professionals’ and environmental organisations
across Europe which together have a strong track record in increasing public
and expert engagement in both EU debates and the decision-making process.
Fur further information:
Génon K. Jensen, Executive Director, Health & Environment Alliance
Tel: +32 2 234 36 41
Mobile: +32 495 808 732
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.env-health.org
WWF is one of the world’s largest and most respected independent conservation
organisations, with almost 5 million supporters and a global network active in over 100
countries. WWF’s mission is to stop the degradation of the earth’s natural environment
and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by conserving
the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources
is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.
For further information:
Delia Villagrasa, Senior Advisor to WWF
Tel: +32 2 740 09 35
Mobile: +32 486 440 223
E-mail: [email protected]
Web: www.panda.org/eu