Anne Grambsch

Climate change and human health impacts in the united states: an update on the results of the U.S. National Assessment

The health sector component of the first U.S. National Assessment, published in 2000, synthesized the anticipated health impacts of climate variability and change for five categories of health outcomes: impacts attributable to temperature, extreme weather events (e.g., storms and floods), air pollution, water- and food-borne diseases, and vector- and rodent-borne diseases. The Health Sector Assessment (HSA) concluded that climate variability and change are likely to increase morbidity and mortality risks for several climate-sensitive health outcomes, with the net impact uncertain. The objective of this study was to update the first HSA based on recent publications that address the potential impacts of climate variability and change in the United States for the five health outcome categories. The literature published since the first HSA supports the initial conclusions, with new data refining quantitative exposure–response relationships for several health end points, particularly for extreme heat events and air pollution. The United States continues to have a very high capacity to plan for and respond to climate change, although relatively little progress has been noted in the literature on implementing adaptive strategies and measures. Large knowledge gaps remain, resulting in a substantial need for additional research to improve our understanding of how weather and climate, both directly and indirectly, can influence human health. Filling these knowledge gaps will help better define the potential health impacts of climate change and identify specific public health adaptations to increase resilience.

Variation in Estimated Ozone-Related Health Impacts of Climate Change due to Modeling Choices and Assumptions

Background: Future climate change may cause air quality degradation via climate-induced changes in meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, and emissions into the air. Few studies have explicitly modeled the potential relationships between climate change, air quality, and human health, and fewer still have investigated the sensitivity of estimates to the underlying modeling choices. Objectives: Our goal was to assess the sensitivity of estimated ozone-related human health impacts of climate change to key modeling choices. Methods: Our analysis included seven modeling systems in which a climate change model is linked to an air quality model, five population projections, and multiple concentration–response functions. Using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP), we estimated future ozone (O3)-related health effects in the United States attributable to simulated climate change between the years 2000 and approximately 2050, given each combination of modeling choices. Health effects and concentration–response functions were chosen to match those used in the U.S. EPA’s 2008 Regulatory Impact Analysis of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for O3. Results: Different combinations of methodological choices produced a range of estimates of national O3-related mortality from roughly 600 deaths avoided as a result of climate change to 2,500 deaths attributable to climate change (although the large majority produced increases in mortality). The choice of the climate change and the air quality model reflected the greatest source of uncertainty, with the other modeling choices having lesser but still substantial effects. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need to use an ensemble approach, instead of relying on any one set of modeling choices, to assess the potential risks associated with O3-related human health effects resulting from climate change.

Challenges in applying the paradigm of welfare economics to climate change

Abstract This paper discusses the challenges inherent in developing benefit-cost analysis (BCAs) of climate change. Challenges are explored from three perspectives: meeting the foundational premises for conducting BCA within the framework of welfare economics, methodological considerations that affect the application of the tools and techniques of BCA, and practical limitations that arise out of resource constraints and the nature of the question, project, or policy being evaluated. Although economic analysts frequently face – and overcome – conceptual and practical complications in developing BCAs, climate change presents difficulties beyond those posed by more conventional environmental problems. Five characteristics of the climate system and associated impacts on human and natural systems are identified that pose particular challenges to BCA of climate change, including ubiquity of impacts, intangibility, non-marginal changes, long timeframes, and uncertainty. These characteristics interact with traditional economic challenges, such as valuing non-market impact, addressing non-marginal changes, accounting for low-probability but high-impact events, and the eternal issue of appropriately discounting the future. A mapping between the characteristics of climate change and traditional economic challenges highlights the difficulties analysts are likely to encounter in conducting BCA. Despite these challenges, the paper argues that the fundamental ability of economic analysis to evaluate alternatives and tradeoffs is vital to decision making. Climate-related decisions span a wide range in terms of their scope, complexity, and depth, and for many applications of economic analyses the issues associated with climate change are tractable. In other cases it may require improved economic techniques or taking steps to ensure uncertainty is more fully addressed. Augmenting economic analysis with distribution analysis or an account of physical effects, and exploring how economic benefit and cost estimates can be incorporated into broader decision making frameworks have also been suggested. The paper concludes that there are opportunities for BCA to play a key role in informing climate change decision-making.

Introduction to a special issue entitled Perspectives on Implementing Benefit-Cost Analysis in Climate Assessment

Abstract Over the past half-century or more, economists have developed a robust literature on the theory and practice of benefit-cost analysis (BCA) as applied to diverse projects and policies. Recent years have seen a growing demand for practical applications of BCA to climate change policy questions. As economists seek to meet this demand, they face challenges that arise from the nature of climate change impacts, such as the long time frame and the potential for non-marginal changes, the importance of intangible effects, and the need to grapple with Knightian uncertainty. As a result of these and other characteristics of climate change, many of the fundamental tenets of BCA are coming under scrutiny and the limits of BCA’s methodological and practical boundaries are being tested. This special issue assembles a set of papers that review the growing body of literature on the economics of climate change. The papers describe the state of the literature valuing climate change impacts, both globally and at more disaggregated levels. The papers also discuss the challenges economists face in applying BCA to support climate change decision making and adaptation planning. This introduction provides background and context on the current use of BCA in climate change analysis, and sets each paper firmly in that context, identifying also areas for future research. While the challenges in conducting BCA and interpreting its results are significant, across the papers it becomes clear that economic analysis in general, and the tools and methods of BCA in particular, have a central role to play in supporting decision-making about how to respond to climate change.

Neither Fish nor Fowl? Can Environmental Accounts Guide Economic Policy, Environmental Policy, Both or Neither? Conclusions from a United States Case Study

Neither fish nor fowl. This expression carries with it the connotation that something appears not to fit easily into ordinary classifications. Think of a penguin. It cannot fly and yet it can swim. That would seem to make it a fish but it is not. A flying fish can fly but it is not a bird. How would an animal that could fly and swim be categorized?