Mike Holland

Costs and benefits of nitrogen for Europe and implications for mitigation.

Cost-benefit analysis can be used to provide guidance for emerging policy priorities in reducing nitrogen (N) pollution. This paper provides a critical and comprehensive assessment of costs and benefits of the various flows of N on human health, ecosystems and climate stability in order to identify major options for mitigation. The social cost of impacts of N in the EU27 in 2008 was estimated between €75-485 billion per year. A cost share of around 60% is related to emissions to air. The share of total impacts on human health is about 45% and may reflect the higher willingness to pay for human health than for ecosystems or climate stability. Air pollution by nitrogen also generates social benefits for climate by present cooling effects of N containing aerosol and C-sequestration driven by N deposition, amounting to an estimated net benefit of about €5 billion/yr. The economic benefit of N in primary agricultural production ranges between €20-80 billion/yr and is lower than the annual cost of pollution by agricultural N which is in the range of €35-230 billion/yr. Internalizing these environmental costs would lower the optimum annual N-fertilization rate in Northwestern Europe by about 50 kg/ha. Acknowledging the large uncertainties and conceptual issues of our cost-benefit estimates, the results support the priority for further reduction of NH3 and NOx emissions from transport and agriculture beyond commitments recently agreed in revision of the Gothenburg Protocol.

The potential impact of ozone on materials in the U.K.

Recent reports have highlighted the potential damage caused to a range of media, including materials, by ozone (O3). The limited data available indicate significant damage to rubber products and surface coatings but either insignificant or unquantifiable damage to textiles and other polymeric materials at the range of atmospheric concentrations encountered in the U.K. Materials in the indoor environment have been excluded from economic analyses. Legislation was put in place in 1993 in the U.K. in order to reduce NOx (NOx = NO + NO2) and VOC (volatile organic compounds) emissions from motor vehicles which is likely to result in reduced peak O3 episodes but increased average levels of O3 in urban areas which may result in increased damage to materials. A detailed assessment of the costs of O3 damage to materials is not currently possible because of insufficient information on relevant dose-response functions and the stock at risk. Alternative methods were thus adopted to determine the potential scale of the problem. Scaling of U.S. estimates made in the late 1960s provides a range for the U.K. of £170 million-£345 million yr−1 in current terms. This includes damage to surface coatings and elastomers, and the cost of antiozonant protection applied to rubber goods. Independent estimates were made of the costs of protecting rubber goods in the U.K. These were based on the size of the antiozonant market, and provide cost ranges of £25 million-£63 million yr−1 to manufacturers and £25 million-£189 million yr−1 to consumers. The only rubber goods for which a damage estimate (not including protection costs) could be made were tyres, using data from the U.S.A. and information on annual tyre sales in the U.K. A range of £0-£4 million yr−1 was estimated. The cost of damage to other rubber goods could not be quantified because of a lack of data on both the stock at risk and exposure-response functions. The effect of O3 on the costs of repainting were estimated under scenarios of increased urban concentrations of O3 using damage functions derived from the literature. The cost was estimated to be in the range of £0-£60 million yr−1 for a change from 15 to 20 ppb O3, and £0 to £182 million yr−1 for a change from 15 to 30 ppb O3. The wide ranges derived for effects on surface coatings are a reflection of the uncertainty associated with the dose-response functions used.

The European Nitrogen Assessment: Costs and benefits of nitrogen in the environment

Single issue policies have been an effective means of reducing reactive nitrogen (N_r) emissions in the EU, but to make further reductions more-integrated approaches are required.

Comparing costs and environmental benefits of strategies to combat acidification and ozone in Europe

The European Commission has adopted a strategy to combat acidification; this program will reduce significantly the extent of the areas in the European Union where the tolerance of sensitive ecosystems to acidity is exceeded. Benefits due to reduced adverse effects on human health, crop production, and building materials resulting from the implementation of emission reduction strategies are assessed and compared against the emission control costs required to implement these strategies. Results indicate that in spite of considerable uncertainties (for example, in valuation of mortality related to air pollution), the avoided environmental damage costs by far exceed the control costs. The analysis of the spatial distribution of burdens and benefits shows, however, that benefits are not evenly distributed throughout Europe.

Health and environmental co-benefits and conflicts of actions to meet UK carbon targets

Many actions to reduce GHG emissions have wider impacts on health, the economy, and the environment, beyond their role in mitigating climate change. These ancillary impacts can be positive (co-benefits) or negative (conflicts). This article presents the first quantitative review of the wider impacts on health and the environment likely to arise from action to meet the UKs legally-binding carbon budgets. Impacts were assessed for climate measures directed at power generation, energy use in buildings, and industry, transport, and agriculture. The study considered a wide range of health and environmental impacts including air pollution, noise, the upstream impacts of fuel extraction, and the lifestyle benefits of active travel. It was not possible to quantify all impacts, but for those that were monetized the co-benefits of climate action (i.e. excluding climate benefits) significantly outweigh the negative impacts, with a net present value of more than £85 billion from 2008 to 2030. Substantial benefits arise from reduced congestion, pollution, noise, and road accidents as a result of avoided journeys. There is also a large health benefit as a result of increased exercise from walking and cycling instead of driving. Awareness of these benefits could strengthen the case for more ambitious climate mitigation action. Policy relevance This article demonstrates that actions to mitigate GHG emissions have significant wider benefits for health and the environment. Including these impacts in cost–benefit analysis would strengthen the case for the UK (and similar countries) to set ambitious emissions reduction targets. Understanding co-benefits and trade-offs will also improve coordination across policy areas and cut costs. In addition, co-benefits such as air quality improvements are often immediate and local, whereas climate benefits may occur on a longer timescale and mainly in a distant region, as well as being harder to demonstrate. Dissemination of the benefits, along with better anticipation of trade-offs, could therefore boost public support for climate action.

A pharmacoeconomic approach to assessing the costs and benefits of air quality interventions that improve health: a case study

Objective This paper explores the use of pharmacoeconomic methods of valuation to health impacts resulting from exposure to poor air quality. In using such methods, interventions that reduce exposure to poor air quality can be directly compared, in terms of value for money (or cost-effectiveness), with competing demands for finite resources, including other public health interventions. Design Using results estimated as part of a health impact assessment regarding a West Yorkshire Low Emission Zone strategy, this paper quantifies cost-saving and health-improving implications of transport policy through its impact on air quality. Data source Estimates of health-related quality of life and the National Health Service (NHS)/Personal Social Services (PSS) costs for identified health events were based on data from Leeds and Bradford using peer-reviewed publications or Office for National Statistics releases. Population Inhabitants of the area within the outer ring roads of Leeds and Bradford. Main outcomes measures NHS and PSS costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Results Averting an all-cause mortality death generates 8.4 QALYs. Each coronary event avoided saves £28 000 in NHS/PSS costs and generates 1.1 QALYs. For every fewer case of childhood asthma, there will be NHS/PSS cost saving of £3000 and a health benefit of 0.9 QALYs. A single term, low birthweight birth avoided saves £2000 in NHS/PSS costs. Preventing a preterm birth saves £24 000 in NHS/PSS costs and generates 1.3 QALYs. A scenario modelled in the West Yorkshire Low Emission Zone Feasibility Study, where pre-EURO 4 buses and HGVs are upgraded to EURO 6 by 2016 generates an annual benefit of £2.08 million and a one-off benefit of £3.3 million compared with a net present value cost of implementation of £6.3 million. Conclusions Interventions to improve air quality and health should be evaluated and where improvement of population health is the primary objective, cost-effectiveness analysis using a NHS/PSS costs and QALYs framework is an appropriate methodology.

Global Energy and Climate Outlook 2017: How climate policies improve air quality

This study shows that achieving the climate change mitigation target of staying below 2°C temperature rise is possible technically – thanks to an acceleration of decarbonisation trends, an increased electrification of final demand and large changes in the primary energy mix that include a phase out of coal and a reduction of oil and gas – and is consistent with economic growth. It yields co-benefits via improved air quality – including avoided deaths, reduction of respiratory diseases and agricultural productivity improvement – that largely offset the cost of climate change mitigation. These co-benefits arise without extra investment costs and are additional to the benefits of avoiding global warming and its impact on the economy.

Damages to Land

Using spatially desegregated data on measures of pollution to derive economic damage estimates, the main purpose of the book is to gauge the environmental damage sustained as a result of economic activities and to offer an insight into how the information generated can be used in conjunction with conventional economic accounts. The first few chapters review recent developments in both green accounting and pathway analysis. The book goes on to evaluate the progress made in estimating dose response functions and valuing environmental damages. The authors discuss the methodology used for the estimation of damages caused by ambient air pollution and the cost of defensive expenditures. They also present the results of the analysis and draw important policy conclusions for environmental accounting, particularly in the EU.

How Much Is Clean Air Worth?: Tools for environmental impact and damage assessment

Summary Countless tools, models and software packages have been developed for the analysis of environmental problems. This chapter focuses on tools that allow the assessment of environmental impacts and the comparison of technologies and policy choices. Impact Pathway Analysis (IPA) is presented in some detail because it is the correct approach for quantifying impacts and damage costs of pollution. Section 2.2 is an introduction to IPA; detailed discussions of the various elements follow in Chapters 3 to 9. We also discuss Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and the relation between LCA and IPA. Difficulties and problems with the use of the various tools are addressed in Sections 2.4 and 2.5. Section 2.6 proposes an integrated framework for the analysis of environmental questions. Overview of tools Starting point: the DPSIR framework There are a great number of tools, methods and models for the analysis of environmental problems. They differ in approach and objectives, but there is also much overlap and they are difficult to classify in a systematic scheme. We will not attempt a systematic survey but will focus instead on a few key features that are crucial for decision making, namely the ability to: define the appropriate scope for the analysis, model the dispersion of the pollutant(s) in the environment, calculate the exposure of the receptors, calculate the impacts, assign monetary values to the impacts, rank the options and identify the best choice(s).

Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Development of Acidification Policy in Europe

Countries that will ratify the new Protocol to abate acidification, eutrophication and ground-level ozone, also known as the Goteborg-protocol, are committed to meet national emission ceilings for SO2, NOx, VOCs and NH3 in 2010. AEA Technology calculated impacts and monetised benefits for four scenarios used during the preparation of the new Protocol, each scenario compared with the situation 1990. The calculated benefits were compared with the costs calculated by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) using the RAINS model. The overall conclusion is that the benefits are likely to exceed the costs of implementing the scenarios considered in the study, by a factor of between two and three. Based on the principal set of assumptions followed in the study, it appeared that impacts on haity and materials were negligible. Impacts on ecosystems remained unquantified.