CleanTechnica is the #1 cleantech-focused
website
 in the world. Subscribe today!


Air Quality Percent change by 2030 with cap-and-trade and other scenarios (nature.com)

Published on August 27th, 2014 | by Sandy Dechert

4

No-Brainer Proven: Cap-And-Trade Saves 10x Its Cost In Health Benefits

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

August 27th, 2014 by  

Have you ever thought that the health benefits of reducing emitted carbon might pay for the costs associated with implementing clean air policies? A new study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change, has found that savings from health benefits dwarf the estimated $14 billion cost of a cap-and-trade program. It says the health savings outweigh cap-and-trade pollution abatement costs more than 10 times over.


MIT headlines cap-and-trade/health story (MIT)

Tammy M. Thompson, Sebastian Rausch, Rebecca K. Saari, and Noelle E. Selin, all researchers presently or formerly associated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), looked at health benefits using three different types of carbon emissions policies:

  • A clean energy standard (like the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan),
  • A policy aimed at emissions from transportation, and
  • A cap-and-trade program.

All of these resemble energy policies already proposed in the United States. The researchers theorized that because human activities emit greenhouse gases and conventional air pollutants from common sources, policy designed to reduce GHGs might have co-benefits for air quality that would offset some or all of the near-term costs of GHG mitigation.

They used a systems approach to quantify air quality co-benefits of US policies to reduce GHGs. They also examined the sensitivity of co-benefits to key policy-relevant sources of uncertainty and variability. From the abstract:

More flexible policies that minimize costs, such as cap-and-trade standards, have larger net co-benefits than policies that target specific sectors (electricity and transportation). Although air quality co-benefits can be comparable to policy costs for present-day air quality and near-term US carbon policies, potential co-benefits rapidly diminish as carbon policies become more stringent.

The researchers found that in the cap-and-trade scenario, health care–associated savings from a carbon-reducing policy were worth more than 10 times what it cost to implement the emissions reduction policy.

Percent change by 2030 with cap-and-trade and other scenarios (nature.com)

MIT calls the study the “most detailed assessment to date of the interwoven effects of climate policy” on the economy, air pollution, and the health care savings associated with carbon reduction. The savings mostly come from things like avoided hospital visits and sick days and reduced spending on pollution-related illnesses. Says lead author Tammy Thompson:

If cost-benefit analyses of climate policies don’t include the significant health benefits from healthier air, they dramatically underestimate the benefits of these policies.

Thompson’s team found that the lookalike of the EPA’s new proposed power plant rule, which costs about $208 billion to implement, also involves health care savings ($247 billion), albeit much less bountiful than those offered by cap-and-trade policies.

The transportation policy, which set strict standards on fuel economy, did not retrieve its implementation costs ($1 trillion) in health care savings. Cutting vehicle emissions proved to be  four times as expensive as the health benefits (about $250 billion) saved by emissions reform.

What do you know? Another potent reason to implement cap-and-trade.

Access the MIT study here and supplementary information here.

Keep up to date with all the hottest cleantech news by subscribing to our (free) cleantech newsletter, or keep an eye on sector-specific news by getting our (also free) solar energy newsletter, electric vehicle newsletter, or wind energy newsletter.

Share on Google+Share on RedditShare on StumbleUponTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on FacebookPin on PinterestDigg thisShare on TumblrBuffer this pageEmail this to someone

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


About the Author

covers environmental, health, renewable and conventional energy, and climate change news. She's worked for groundbreaking environmental consultants and a Fortune 100 health care firm, writes two top-level blogs on Examiner.com, ranked #2 on ONPP's 2011 Top 50 blogs on Women's Health, and attributes her modest success to an "indelible habit of poking around to satisfy my own curiosity."



  • JamesWimberley

    On the other hand, the bar charts clearly show that the transportation policy is the most effective in reducing CO2 emissions.

    The researchers don’t seem to have normalized the three policies. The cap-and-trade scenario has less total impact than the other two, which makes it difficult to compare effectiveness.

    In any case, cap-and-trade has zero chance of passing the US Congress before 2017 at earliest, and that assumes a Democratic sweep in 2016. Meanwhile the policies in place are regulations and tax breaks. They may not be optimal, but they work.

    • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

      Yeah, I was thinking the other scenarios might warrant articles of their own.

    • Kevin McKinney

      Yes. The co-benefits are nice, but the CO2 is the biggest thing we need to address.

  • http://zacharyshahan.com/ Zachary Shahan

    Nice. Unfortunately, I have a feeling most of the population will never get the memo, and even if everyone did, GOP congresspeople and their media cronies wouldn’t let it sink in.

Back to Top ↑