Alison Smith, Environmental Change InstituteCASE Climate Change, Inequality and Social Policy Seminar Series, 16 Feb 2017
Children’s Ring Road, Comitato, Italy
Co‐benefits are the non‐climate benefits of climate change mitigation action
Adverse side‐effects are negative impacts of climate change mitigation action
Reduced air pollution
Energy security, fuel savings
Energy access, fuel poverty, social equity
Reduced resource production impacts (e.g. oil spills, mining, accidents, waste)
Employment, innovation and economy
Healthier lifestyles
Healthy buildings and liveable cities
Food, material and water security
Biodiversity and ecosystem services
Climate adaptation (flood protection, cooling)
Energy efficiency
Material efficiency
Renewable energy
Biofuels
Nuclear
CCS
Active travel
Low meat diets
Soil carbon
Forest carbon
Green space
‐50 0 50 100 150 200
Occ. health / accidentsRecreation
Social or cultural impactsWater security
Ag. production/ Food securityFuel poverty, energy access
Equity / sustainable developmentEmployment / livelihoods
Material securityEnergy security
Cost savingsGrowth/ innovation
Fuel / power production impactsAesthetic landscapes
MicroclimateWaste disposal impacts
Water qualityFlood risk
SoilBiodiversity
Health impacts of dietHealth impacts of physical activity
Productivity of building usersHealth of building users
Noise, congestion, accidentsAQ materials
AQ ecosystemsAQ crops ‐ ozone
AQ indoorAQ outdoor
Air quality
Health
Environment
Social &economic
Adverse effects
Co‐benefits
Papers
Air quality co‐benefits of action to meet a 2oC target for Europe• Mortality falls by 68% for PM2.5 and 85% for ozone (in 2050)• Cost of air pollution control falls by 77%• Benefits offset 85% to 300% of the additional cost of climate policy.
050
100150200250300350400
additionalinvestment costs
co‐benefits
€billion
/ year
Health co‐benefits €50‐300 bn/yr
Reduced cost of air pollution control €42 bn/yr
Source: Schucht et al (2015) Env Sci Pol, using MESSAGE and GAINS models
Global mitigation to limit CO2 to 525 ppm• 1.3 million premature deaths/year from PM2.5 and ozone saved• Benefits worth US$ 50–380 per tonne of CO2, exceed marginal abatement costs.• Co‐benefits greatest in East Asia: 10–70 times the marginal cost in 2030.
Red = benefits (high estimate)Blue = benefits (low estimate)Green = average abatement costs
Source: West et al. (2013), Nature Climate Change
Avoided deaths / y/ 1000 km2
Co‐benefits of the INDCs of the EU, US, China, Canada, Japan, India, Chile and South Africa would increase significantly if the countries adopted a target of 100% renewable energy by 2050, consistent with a 1.5‐2oC global temperature goal
0
1000000
2000000
3000000
4000000
INDCs 100% renewableenergy
Energy import savings(million US $)Early deaths avoided
Extra jobs
Day et al. (2015), New Climate Institute.
• Large and rapidly growing evidence base: >1000 papers showing a wide range of co‐benefits
• Value of co‐benefits often outweighs the cost of climate action
• Some adverse side‐effects: can often be mitigated through well‐designed policy
• Demand reduction measures have more co‐benefits and fewer adverse side‐effects than energy supply
• There are winners and losers, but a big evidence gap on the distribution of impacts
• Air and water quality
• Renewable energy and EVs
• Fuel poverty and housing
• Healthy low‐GHG diets
• Active travel and public transport
• Green space
• Jobs
Source: Boyce and Pastor (2013), Climatic Change
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Black Hispanic Minority Poor
Share of exposure to PM2.5 (%
)
Population sharePower plantsChemicalsMetal manufactureRefineriesAll
Benzene exposure in Detroit, with demographic data
• Cap and trade (CAT) affects all sectors: household, transport, industry, power• Clean energy standard (CES) affects only power plants but emissions leak: coal
prices fall so plants in the rest of the USA burn more• Applying the policies to the whole USA, there are no dis‐benefits
Source: Thompson et al (2016) Air quality co‐benefits of subnational carbon policies
Health co‐benefits in NE USACES CAT $148/t CO2 $80/t CO2
• Solar and wind – becoming cheaper than fossil fuel
• BUT High capital costs exclude low‐income households
• EVs need charging points
• Renters and temporary residents excluded from PV
Solutions
• Grants, subsidies, feed‐in tariffs
• Community energy co‐ops: allow local people to buy renewable electricity directly
Brewster community solar garden, US
Source: Finley‐Brook and Holloman, 2016
Health benefits of active travel (walking & cycling) and dietary change could be very large (though uncertainty is high)
Source: Smith et al. (2015) Climate Policy
Estimated co‐benefits of UK climate mitigation scenario in 2030
02000400060008000
10000120001400016000
mitigationcosts
co‐benefits dietarychange
£ million
Diet: 50% less fatDiet: 30% less fatCongestionWater abstractionWaste & heavy metalsNoiseAccidentsPhysical activityAir quality
• Shift to more plant‐based diets in line with dietary guidelines could reduce global mortality by 6–10% and food‐related greenhouse gas emissions by 29–70% in 2050
• Economic benefits $1–31 trillion, equivalent to 0.4–13% of global GDP in 2050 (upper limit is for 100% vegan diet globally)
• Lower socio‐economic groups and men eat more red and processed meat
• BUT real‐life lower GHG diets are not necessarily healthier – can have lower micronutrients and more sugar
• Target groups may lack access to affordable healthy meat substitutes
• Potential adverse socio‐economic impacts on farming communities
Source: Springmann et al (2016); Payne et al (2016); Clonan et al (2016)
• Public transport and active travel improves mobility for people without cars
• Barriers: air pollution, heavy traffic (accidents), fear of crime, shift‐working
• Congestion charging – speeds up bus journeys; reduces accidents and pollution; revenues can be used to fund public transport
• Integrated solutions: Cycle paths and footpaths, personal travel plans and maps, Green Prescriptions, walking trains to school, cycle training, bike loans, free bike repairs, night buses
Go Barrhead: £1.3 million. Every household contacted; 32% increase in walking, 334% increase in cycling, 34% of residents changed behaviour
>9 million trees planted across 500 square miles in Merseyside
Health benefits, jobs, education, flood protection, urban cooling, increased property prices,….
Nature4Health activities Regeneration of former mining areas
Community woodlandsForest schools
Street trees
• General economic benefits from efficiency and innovation:
• Growth exceeds BAU after 5‐10 years (UNEP Green Economy Report 2011)
• Large‐scale energy efficiency policies can increase economic growth by >1% (IEA 2014)
• Productivity and operational benefits can be over twice the value of energy savings (IEA 2014)
• Energy and material security: more stable prices, lower risks
• Fuel savings: 50% cut in GHGs by 2050 could save $600 billion in Europe, $1000 billion in China and $453 billion in India per year (Dowling and Russ, 2012)
• Jobs: Most studies show more jobs created than lost BUT help needed with transition – training and relocation
• Energy access: small scale renewables
• Decent jobs and industrial innovation: opportunities for women
• Health: indoor (cookstoves) and outdoor air quality
• Food security and livelihoods: soil carbon, agroforestry
Solar PV trainerUN Women, Gaganjit Singh
• Adverse effects: Hydro, REDD+ and biofuels land rights issues
• Yes: Cleaner air, mobility, healthy lifestyles, jobs, warmer homes, lower energy bills
• But: Disadvantaged groups can be excluded from the benefits
• Well‐designed policies with community participation can maximise benefits and minimise adverse side‐effects and leakage
Thank you!
The health co-benefits of the low carbon economy
Paul WilkinsonLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine
LSE16 February 2017
Health impact
Behaviour change
Policies
Infrastructure change
Trends
Exposure change
A chain of influence
Quantified relationshipsAn ‘evidence gap’
reduction of harmful exposures (e.g. air
pollution)
promotion of healthier behaviours (e.g. active travel, improved diet)
lignite
coal
oil
biomassgas
nuclear010
2030
40
Deat
hs fr
om a
ir po
llutio
n an
d ac
cide
nts/
TWh
0 500 1000 1500
A
lignite
coal
oil
biomassgas
nuclear
100
200
30 0
Case
s of s
erio
us il
lnes
s fro
m a
ir po
llutio
n /T
Wh
0 500 1000 1500
B
Equivalent CO2 emissions g/kW.hr-1
0
Air pollution impacts vs CO2 emissions
Source: Markandya A, Wilkinson P. Lancet 2007
UK burdens from outdoor air pollution
• Around 29,000 premature deaths annually (computed on basis of PM2.5)
• Equivalent to loss of life expectancy from birth of around 6 months
• Debate over addition of NO2-related mortality to calculation, but PM2.5 alone probably an underestimate (very roughly by around 30%)
Impact of coal fired power generation in Europe
Source: Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)
Source: Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL)
Active travel: common pathways
Climate change
Environmentalpollution
Physical inactivity
Overweight/obesity
Road injuries
Chronic disease
Mental well-being
Noise/QoL
Vehicle transport
Promotion of active transport
Change in disease burden Change in premature deaths
Ischaemic heart disease 10-19% 1950-4240
Cerebovascular disease 10-18% 1190-2580
Dementia 7-8% 200-240
Breast cancer 12-13% 200-210
Road traffic crashes 19-39% 50-80
Transport scenarios: health impacts by disease
Source: Woodcock et al, Lancet 2009
Annual Motor Vehicle Travel Distance andIncident Obesity
• 9160 people in N. Spain (58% female), follow-up: median of 6.4 years.• Increased risk of becoming overweight or obese in the highest category
of annual travel distance vs the lowest: HR 1.4 (95% CI1.1, 1.7)
Setting Intervention Time course Principalexposures
Main outcomes
India
Improved (clean burning) cookstoveprogramme
150 million stoves over 10 years
Indoor exposure to combustion products
ALRI (children)IHDCOPD
UK
Changes to: fabric, ventilation control, fuel source, temperature setting
2010, with and without intervention
ParticlesRadonETSMouldTemperature (cold)
Cardio-respiratory diseaseLung cancerCold-related death
Household energy
Indian Stoves – Traditional and Modern
Gasifier Stove with Electric Blower(battery recharged with
cell phone charger)
Traditional Biomass Stove
~15-fold reduction in black carbon and other particles
~10-fold reduction in ozoneprecursors
~5-fold reduction in carbonmonoxide
Indian cookstove programme: DALY health benefits by 2020
Impact per million of 2010 population in 1
year
UK householdenergy efficiency
(combined improvements)
India programme of improved cookstoves*
DALYs saved 850 12,500
Deaths averted 90 990
Mt-CO2 (CO2e) saved 0.7 0.1 - 0.2
* Results based on comparison of 2010 population with and without full implementation of programme
Energy efficiency
NutritionLower fuel use & cost
Increased disposable
income
Increased temperature
Alteredventilation
Indoor air quality
Mould growth
Cardio-respiratory
illness
Winter morbidity/mortality
Psycho-social well-being
Reduced emissions
Local and global environmental
impacts
Use of spaceSocial interactionSense of control
VENTILATION
WARMTH
ENERGY USE
Thermal comfort
Summary of the effect of the built stock scenarios for the UK: changes in exposure and CO2 emissions
Change in exposure compared with baseline
Exposure
Scenario 0Baseline
Scenario 1Fabric
insulation
Scenario 2Ventilation
system ‘improved’
Scenario 3Fuel
switching
Scenario 4Occupant behaviour
Scenario 5Combined
PM2.5 [µg.m-3]*
CO [prob(poisoning)]
Radon [Bq.m-3]
ETS [ratio vs baseline]
Mould [% with index>1]
Winter indoor cold [°C]
5.5
10-6
21.7
1
17.7
18.1
0
0
0
0
-0.4
+0.3
-0.9
0
+4.5
+0.1
+2.6
+0.06
-1.8
10-6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
+1
-0.2
-3
0
+4.5
+0.1
+3.1
+0.36
GHG emissions
Change in Mt CO2 vs 201 0 (base) -33 -6 0 2 -41
Cumulative mortality health effects after 52 years for existing and new cohorts under the 2030 energy efficiency retrofit experiment
Source: Hamilton I et al, unpublished
Estimates of total greenhouse-gas emissions for livestock products in the UK
Tonn
es o
f CO
2e p
er to
nne
of
carc
ass
mas
s
Not including emissions resulting from global change in land use
An optimization approach
• Characterization of GHG emissions associated with different foods
• Optimization algorithm:-- minimize GHG emissions-- WHO dietary criteria for health-- penalize departure from current diet
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Red meat
White meat
Fish
Dairy and eggs
Cereals
Vegetables
Beans and pulses
Fruit
Fats and oils
Sweet and sugaryfoods
Savoury snacks
Soft drinks
Nuts and seeds
Current diet
0% GHG reduction
20% GHG reduction
40% GHG reduction
60% GHG reduction
Deviation from current diet
0
50
100
150
200
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Sum
of s
quar
ed p
erce
ntag
e de
viat
ions
from
cu
rren
t die
t (%
)
Target GHG emissions reduction (%)
MaleFemale
01,000,0002,000,0003,000,0004,000,0005,000,0006,000,0007,000,0008,000,0009,000,000
10,000,000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%Cum
ulat
ive
redu
ctio
n in
YLL
ove
r 30
year
s
Achieved GHG emissions reduction (%)
Total
Coronary heartdiseaseStroke
Cancers
Type 2 diabetes
Health impacts
• Strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions have the potential for appreciable net benefit to population health;
• Benefits are not always automatic, however, and care is needed to avoid unintended adverse consequences;
• The greatest challenge is how to achieve change of the required pace and scale.
Conclusions
Are carbon reduction programmes in disadvantaged areas desirable and can they
work?
Ruth Mayne.Environmental Change Institute University of Oxford,
Oxfam GB
Climate Change, Inequality and Social Policy seminar seriesThird seminar, Thursday 16th February 2017 , 12.00 - 13.30
Are carbon reduction programmes in disadvantaged communities desirable ?
• Carbon reduction programmes traditionally focus on reducing the emissions of the biggest emitters.
But the evidence on co-benefits suggests the need to balance this with strategies to share co-benefits with lower emitters, particularly low income groups.
• Failure to do so may mean that co-benefits will accrue to the biggest, often more well resourced, emitters, exacerbating existing inequalities
Examples of inclusive approaches :
Invest in low-cost low carbon public transport modes used by poor people – buses in the UK; Subsidise energy efficiency improvements for low
income households; Tackle barriers that prevent low income people from
accessing low carbon, healthy, low meat/high plant diets; Establish community benefit renewable energy
cooperatives in low income communities and e.g. using share offers in wealthier areas to cross subsidise renewable in poor communities.
Can carbon reduction programmes in disadvantaged communities work?
• EVALOC research project – 4 year action research project led by Brookes and Oxford University with 6 ‘low carbon’ communities’ (LCCs) in the UK -4 were in disadvantaged areas.
LCCs implemented a mix of physical and behavioural activities at community and household level to reduce carbon emissions.
Two disadvantaged LCC achieved reductions in domestic energy use at area level greater than the national average and one disadvantaged LCC achieved equivalent reductions - despite having lower (2008) domestic baselines.
Majority of monitored households (N=62) experienced reductions in energy use, increased comfort levels and some reductions in fuel bills –but some big variations.
• The majority of respondents in monitored households (n=62) were concerned about climate change and felt that that LCCs activities were relevant to them & were bringing benefits to the community.
Kirklees-Hillhouse, Yorkshire
• Demographics – urban, disadvantaged, multi ethnic, 800 households
• LCC – Local Authority multi agency approach• Engagement messages - financial and energy saving• Carbon reduction to programmes -
– Coordinated delivery and installation of free physical EE & renewable measures to residents’ homes
– Plus energy displays • Pros/cons
– Achieved scale but lower levels of motivation& ownership
Easterside, Middlesbrough• Demographics - suburban disadvantaged, • 1,350 households• LCC - partnership approach between citywide
charity, council, agencies & community • Engagement messages – one planet principles emphasising
environmental and health, financial benefits• Carbon reduction programmes
– Coordinated delivery & installation of free EE & renewable measures to residents
– Involved residents in design & implementation– Ran other carbon reduction renewable, food & cycling programmes
• Pros/cons– Higher levels of motivation & ownership revealed in feedback forms at
community events including a hugely well attended eco-gala
Blacon, Cheshire West & Chester• Demographics - suburban, disadvantaged, 5,600
households• LCC - Community led project with paid workers &
volunteers• Engagement messages - energy & financial savings• Carbon reduction programmes
– conditioned the provision of free EE measures on residents participating in a series of six workshops
• Pros/cons– High levels of motivation & ownership, more
behavioural awareness, but smaller scale measures
Oxford focus groupsPurpose To widen LCO engagement to include a more diverse range of civil society
organisations and groups To provide learning to inform future OCC/LCO strategy
Principles – inform, consult and collaborate
Method • 4 focus groups of 8-10 people, in disadvantaged areas of Oxford (Barton
and Littlemore)• City Council helped identify groups - not ‘normal suspects’• Incentive payments for group activity • Draft report shared with groups for comment before being distributed to
the City Council and LCO• Participants offered return/follow up visits to discuss possible follow up
and collaboration
FindingsInform/consult Findings
Positive and negative aspects of living in Oxford
Negative aspects - lack of radial transport links; congestion/pollution; inequality/divided city; cold homes-Positive aspects - green spaces; convenience; historical & beautiful nature of town
Residents’ levels of concern about climate change and priority for group
- Large majority of participants very concerned about it (both for altruistic and self interested reasons).- Climate change a high priority issue for their group to act on. (Other priorities (a) poverty, inequality, exclusion (b) language issues and jobs (c) lack of community centre to enable action
Framing/language of Low Carbon Oxford communication materials
-ve response to ‘clean’ and ‘green’- ve response to ‘low carbon’ or ‘sustainability’ --ve response to ‘prosperity/growth’ messages e.g.
‘growth is concentrated in the hands of a few’ ‘trickle down doesn’t work’, growth will ‘increase traffic’.
Findings: Programmatic PrioritiesPossible priorities for Low Carbon Oxford
(LCO) Put a sticker against thetop 5 priorities
An affordable and green public transport network that provide a convenient way of getting around, reduces traffic and improves air quality
33 ‘votes’ (out of a possible 36)
More trees and green spaces toabsorb pollution and reduce flooding
33
Energy efficient homes that are warmer, healthier, more comfortable, and have lower energy bills
24
Local shops and markets with fresh, healthy, locally-grown food and local products.
15
Clean, renewable energy (from the sun, wind, our waste and rivers) to replace polluting coal and oil, and generate income.
13
February 17, 2017 Presentation title, edit in header and footer (view menu) Page 10
Findings: Programatic Priorities
Waste facilities and education for residents and institutions to reduce, reuse and recycle waste
13
Local green jobs and apprenticeships from low carbon businesses
11
Practical advice and support to help youand your community reduce carbon emissions, save energy and money
11
Safe cycling and pedestrian routes and facilities that provide a cheaper, faster, and healthier way of getting around
9
Facilities for electric cars that improve air quality
7
February 17, 2017 Presentation title, edit in header and footer (view menu) Page 11
FindingsCollaboration Findings
Citizen action -All groups requested a return visit from the research and most wanted follow up activities (although this required practical support)- Action on LCO issues - groups were interested in (a) joining LCO (b) attending or holding their own LCO public engagement events and/or (c) rolling out City Council carbon reduction citizens ‘pledges’ at their events-Action on their own issues in their community/workplace –(a) one group subsequently approached the housing association to get double glazing (b) another asked to for a carbon reduction workshop with members (c) another asked for events on local/seasonal food (d) some participants said they would ask their employers to run workshops etc
Citizens voice - Participants said that they felt their ‘voice would be heard’ by the Council - Participants very well informed on many issues and provided useful advice on the issues raised
Outcomes:
• Demonstrated that it is possible widen public support and engagement for local action on climate change among low income
• Empowered members of the public to take action, both on LCO initiatives & issues in their own communities and workplaces, by:
• Provided a steer for City Council LCO network about their communications and programming priorities
Conclusions Where substantive co-benefits exist carbon reduction policies &
programmes in disadvantaged communities can be desirable and can work.
But requires inclusive design e.g.
- Inclusive engagement messages that highlight environmental benefits and also potential practical co-benefits from carbon reduction
- Participatory governance, upstream consultation & co-design where possible
- Understanding and addressing ‘barriers’:- Technical/economic - subsidised measures & technical support for delivery- Agency and behavioural - Participatory ‘behavioural’ , as well as physical,
interventions- Strong & supportive policy framework and financial incentive framework
Tools to estimate co-benefits would help persuade decision makers
References
EVALOC research project (Grant ref: RES-628-25-001) http://www.evaloc.org.uk/
Building stronger and fairer communities: sharing the co-benefits of local action on climate change .(University of Oxford, IAA granthttp://www.agileox.org/building-stronger-and-fairer-communities-sharing-the-co-benefits-of-local-action-on-climate-change/