Reducing biomass burning is key to decrease PM2.5 exposure in European cities.

Throughout the world, ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is the environmental factor that poses the greatest risk to health and most European citizens continue to be exposed to PM2.5 levels well above World Health Organization guidelines. Here we present a comprehensive PM2.5 modelling-based source allocation assessment in 708 urban areas in Europe. The results show that urban cores, together with their commuting zones, contribute an average of 22% to urban PM2.5 concentrations levels. The residential sector is the highest source sector in 56% of cities. Its average contribution to PM2.5 formation is 27%, with a cluster of cities in Northern Italy and Eastern Europe contributing to more than 50%. Industry, agriculture and road transport show average contributions of 18%, 17% and 14%, respectively. Most emissions from residential sectors are anthropogenic primary PM2.5 which includes a condensable fraction. Furthermore, anthropogenic primary PM2.5 represents the precursor with the highest contribution in most cities (72%), contributing an average of 35% to urban PM2.5 levels. Emissions of anthropogenic primary PM2.5 by the residential sector are almost entirely (with exceptions of few countries) due to biomass burning. These results suggest that the residential sector should be a key target of any policy to improve air quality and that climate policies promoting biomass as a climate-neutral fuel could have a detrimental effect on air quality. A more integrated approach to climate and air quality policy design is desirable.

Simultaneously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food security.

Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC) contribute to both degraded air quality and global warming. We considered ~400 emission control measures to reduce these pollutants by using current technology and experience. We identified 14 measures targeting methane and BC emissions that reduce projected global mean warming ~0.5°C by 2050. This strategy avoids 0.7 to 4.7 million annual premature deaths from outdoor air pollution and increases annual crop yields by 30 to 135 million metric tons due to ozone reductions in 2030 and beyond. Benefits of methane emissions reductions are valued at $700 to $5000 per metric ton, which is well above typical marginal abatement costs (less than $250). The selected controls target different sources and influence climate on shorter time scales than those of carbon dioxide-reduction measures. Implementing both substantially reduces the risks of crossing the 2°C threshold.

Global air quality and health co-benefits of mitigating near-term climate change through methane and black carbon emission controls.

BACKGROUND: Tropospheric ozone and black carbon (BC), a component of fine particulate matter (PM ≤ 2.5 µm in aerodynamic diameter; PM(2.5)), are associated with premature mortality and they disrupt global and regional climate. OBJECTIVES: We examined the air quality and health benefits of 14 specific emission control measures targeting BC and methane, an ozone precursor, that were selected because of their potential to reduce the rate of climate change over the next 20-40 years. METHODS: We simulated the impacts of mitigation measures on outdoor concentrations of PM(2.5) and ozone using two composition-climate models, and calculated associated changes in premature PM(2.5)- and ozone-related deaths using epidemiologically derived concentration-response functions. RESULTS: We estimated that, for PM(2.5) and ozone, respectively, fully implementing these measures could reduce global population-weighted average surface concentrations by 23-34% and 7-17% and avoid 0.6-4.4 and 0.04-0.52 million annual premature deaths globally in 2030. More than 80% of the health benefits are estimated to occur in Asia. We estimated that BC mitigation measures would achieve approximately 98% of the deaths that would be avoided if all BC and methane mitigation measures were implemented, due to reduced BC and associated reductions of nonmethane ozone precursor and organic carbon emissions as well as stronger mortality relationships for PM(2.5) relative to ozone. Although subject to large uncertainty, these estimates and conclusions are not strongly dependent on assumptions for the concentration-response function. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to climate benefits, our findings indicate that the methane and BC emission control measures would have substantial co-benefits for air quality and public health worldwide, potentially reversing trends of increasing air pollution concentrations and mortality in Africa and South, West, and Central Asia. These projected benefits are independent of carbon dioxide mitigation measures. Benefits of BC measures are underestimated because we did not account for benefits from reduced indoor exposures and because outdoor exposure estimates were limited by model spatial resolution.