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

• Autores: Alison C. Smith, Michael Holland, Outi Korkeala, Jamie Warmington, Daniel Forster, Helen ApSimon, Tim Oxley, Roald Dickens, Stephen M. Smith
• Localización: Climate Policy, ISSN-e 1752-7457, ISSN 1752-7457, Vol. 16, Nº. 3, 2016, págs. 253-283
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • 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 UK's 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.