Victoria N Likhvar1, Mathilde Pascal2, Konstantinos Markakis3, Augustin Colette4, Didier Hauglustaine5, Myrto Valari6, Zbigniew Klimont7, Sylvia Medina8, Patrick Kinney9. 1. LSCE, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEN Saclay-Orme des Merisiers-Bat. 712, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX, France. Electronic address: vlikhvar@gmail.com. 2. InVS, French Institut of Public Health Surveillance (Institut de Veille Sanitaire), 12 rue du Val-d'Osne, 94415 Saint-Maurice Cédex, France. Electronic address: m.pascal@invs.sante.fr. 3. LMD, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL Laboratoire CEA/CNRS/UVSQ, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France. Electronic address: konstantinos.markakis@lmd.polytechnique.fr. 4. INERIS, Institut National de l'Environnement Industriel et des Risques, BP2 60550 Verneuil-en-Halatte, France. Electronic address: augustin.colette@ineris.fr. 5. LSCE, Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEN Saclay-Orme des Merisiers-Bat. 712, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette CEDEX, France. Electronic address: didier.hauglustaine@lsce.ipsl.fr. 6. LMD, Laboratoire de Météorologie Dynamique, IPSL Laboratoire CEA/CNRS/UVSQ, Ecole Polytechnique, 91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France. Electronic address: myrto.valari@lmd.polytechnique.fr. 7. IIASA, International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, 2361 Laxenburg, Austria. Electronic address: klimont@iiasa.ac.at. 8. InVS, French Institut of Public Health Surveillance (Institut de Veille Sanitaire), 12 rue du Val-d'Osne, 94415 Saint-Maurice Cédex, France. Electronic address: s.medina@invs.sante.fr. 9. Columbia University in the City of New York, 722 West 168th Street, Room 1104E, New York, NY 10032, United States. Electronic address: plk3@columbia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ozone and PM₂.₅ are current risk factors for premature death all over the globe. In coming decades, substantial improvements in public health may be achieved by reducing air pollution. To better understand the potential of emissions policies, studies are needed that assess possible future health impacts under alternative assumptions about future emissions and climate across multiple spatial scales. METHOD: We used consistent climate-air-quality-health modeling framework across three geographical scales (World, Europe and Ile-de-France) to assess future (2030-2050) health impacts of ozone and PM₂.₅ under two emissions scenarios (Current Legislation Emissions, CLE, and Maximum Feasible Reductions, MFR). RESULTS: Consistently across the scales, we found more reductions in deaths under MFR scenario compared to CLE. 1.5 [95% CI: 0.4, 2.4] million CV deaths could be delayed each year in 2030 compared to 2010 under MFR scenario, 84% of which would occur in Asia, especially in China. In Europe, the benefits under MFR scenario (219000 CV deaths) are noticeably larger than those under CLE (109,000 CV deaths). In Ile-de-France, under MFR more than 2830 annual CV deaths associated with PM₂.₅ changes could be delayed in 2050 compared to 2010. In Paris, ozone-related respiratory mortality should increase under both scenarios. CONCLUSION: Multi-scale HIAs can illustrate the difference in direct consequences of costly mitigation policies and provide results that may help decision-makers choose between different policy alternatives at different scales.
BACKGROUND: Ozone and PM₂.₅ are current risk factors for premature death all over the globe. In coming decades, substantial improvements in public health may be achieved by reducing air pollution. To better understand the potential of emissions policies, studies are needed that assess possible future health impacts under alternative assumptions about future emissions and climate across multiple spatial scales. METHOD: We used consistent climate-air-quality-health modeling framework across three geographical scales (World, Europe and Ile-de-France) to assess future (2030-2050) health impacts of ozone and PM₂.₅ under two emissions scenarios (Current Legislation Emissions, CLE, and Maximum Feasible Reductions, MFR). RESULTS: Consistently across the scales, we found more reductions in deaths under MFR scenario compared to CLE. 1.5 [95% CI: 0.4, 2.4] million CV deaths could be delayed each year in 2030 compared to 2010 under MFR scenario, 84% of which would occur in Asia, especially in China. In Europe, the benefits under MFR scenario (219000 CV deaths) are noticeably larger than those under CLE (109,000 CV deaths). In Ile-de-France, under MFR more than 2830 annual CV deaths associated with PM₂.₅ changes could be delayed in 2050 compared to 2010. In Paris, ozone-related respiratory mortality should increase under both scenarios. CONCLUSION: Multi-scale HIAs can illustrate the difference in direct consequences of costly mitigation policies and provide results that may help decision-makers choose between different policy alternatives at different scales.
Authors: Raquel A Silva; J Jason West; Jean-François Lamarque; Drew T Shindell; William J Collins; Stig Dalsoren; Greg Faluvegi; Gerd Folberth; Larry W Horowitz; Tatsuya Nagashima; Vaishali Naik; Steven T Rumbold; Kengo Sudo; Toshihiko Takemura; Daniel Bergmann; Philip Cameron-Smith; Irene Cionni; Ruth M Doherty; Veronika Eyring; Beatrice Josse; I A MacKenzie; David Plummer; Mattia Righi; David S Stevenson; Sarah Strode; Sophie Szopa; Guang Zeng Journal: Atmos Chem Phys Date: 2016-08-05 Impact factor: 6.133
Authors: Chris C Lim; Richard B Hayes; Jiyoung Ahn; Yongzhao Shao; Debra T Silverman; Rena R Jones; Cynthia Garcia; Michelle L Bell; George D Thurston Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2019-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Christopher S Malley; Daven K Henze; Johan C I Kuylenstierna; Harry W Vallack; Yanko Davila; Susan C Anenberg; Michelle C Turner; Mike R Ashmore Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2017-08-28 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Erika von Schneidemesser; Charles Driscoll; Harald E Rieder; Luke D Schiferl Journal: Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci Date: 2020-09-28 Impact factor: 4.226