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/