The European Union Emissions Trading System might yield large co-benefits from pollution reduction.

Mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and reducing air pollution represent two pressing and interwoven environmental challenges. While international carbon markets, such as the European Union emissions trading system (EU ETS), have demonstrated their effectiveness in curbing carbon emissions (CO[Formula: see text]), their indirect impact on hazardous co-pollutants remains understudied. This study investigates how key toxic air pollutants-sulfur dioxide (SO[Formula: see text]), fine particulate matter (PM[Formula: see text]), and nitrogen oxides (NO[Formula: see text])-evolved after the introduction of the EU ETS with a comparative analysis of regulated and unregulated sectors. Leveraging the generalized synthetic control method, we offer an ex post analysis of how the EU ETS and concurrent emission standards may have jointly generated sizable pollution reductions in regulated sectors between 2005 and 2021. We provide an aggregate assessment that these pollution reductions could translate into large health co-benefits, potentially in the hundreds of billions of Euros, even when bounding the effect of emission standards. These order-of-magnitude estimates underscore key implications for policy appraisal and motivate further microlevel research around the health co-benefits of carbon abatement.

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries.

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.