Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation.

In this report, the third in this Series on health and climate change, we assess the changes in particle air pollution emissions and consequent effects on health that are likely to result from greenhouse-gas mitigation measures in the electricity generation sector in the European Union (EU), China, and India. We model the effect in 2030 of policies that aim to reduce total carbon dioxide (CO(2)) emissions by 50% by 2050 globally compared with the effect of emissions in 1990. We use three models: the POLES model, which identifies the distribution of production modes that give the desired CO(2) reductions and associated costs; the GAINS model, which estimates fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 microm or less (PM(2.5)) concentrations; and a model to estimate the effect of PM(2.5) on mortality on the basis of the WHO's Comparative Risk Assessment methods. Changes in modes of production of electricity to reduce CO(2) emissions would, in all regions, reduce PM(2.5) and deaths caused by it, with the greatest effect in India and the smallest in the EU. Health benefits greatly offset costs of greenhouse-gas mitigation, especially in India where pollution is high and costs of mitigation are low. Our estimates are approximations but suggest clear health gains (co-benefits) through decarbonising electricity production, and provide additional information about the extent of such gains.

Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies.

A rapid and deep decarbonization of power supply worldwide is required to limit global warming to well below 2 °C. Beyond greenhouse gas emissions, the power sector is also responsible for numerous other environmental impacts. Here we combine scenarios from integrated assessment models with a forward-looking life-cycle assessment to explore how alternative technology choices in power sector decarbonization pathways compare in terms of non-climate environmental impacts at the system level. While all decarbonization pathways yield major environmental co-benefits, we find that the scale of co-benefits as well as profiles of adverse side-effects depend strongly on technology choice. Mitigation scenarios focusing on wind and solar power are more effective in reducing human health impacts compared to those with low renewable energy, while inducing a more pronounced shift away from fossil and toward mineral resource depletion. Conversely, non-climate ecosystem damages are highly uncertain but tend to increase, chiefly due to land requirements for bioenergy.