4.8 Article

Health and Climate Change 3 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: low-carbon electricity generation

期刊

LANCET
卷 374, 期 9706, 页码 2006-2015

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61715-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. Department of Health, National Institute for Health Research
  3. Royal College of Physicians
  4. Academy of Medical Sciences
  5. Economic and Social Research Council
  6. US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  7. WHO
  8. Pfizer
  9. Medical Research Council [G0801056B] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this report, the third in this Series on health and climate change, we assess the changes in particle air pollution emissions and consequent effects on health that are likely to result from greenhouse-gas mitigation measures in the electricity generation sector in the European Union (EU), China, and India. We model the effect in 2030 of policies that aim to reduce total carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 50% by 2050 globally compared with the effect of emissions in 1990. We use three models: the POLES model, which identifies the distribution of production modes that give the desired CO2 reductions and associated costs; the GAINS model, which estimates fine particulate matter with aerodynamic diameter 2.5 mu m or less (PM2.5) concentrations; and a model to estimate the effect of PM2.5 on mortality on the basis of the WHO'S Comparative Risk Assessment methods. Changes in modes of production of electricity to reduce CO2 emissions would, in all regions, reduce PM2.5 and deaths caused by it, with the greatest effect in India and the smallest in the EU. Health benefits greatly offset costs of greenhouse-gas mitigation, especially in India where pollution is high and costs of mitigation are low. Our estimates are approximations but suggest dear health gains (co-benefits) through decarbonising electricity production, and provide additional information about the extent of such gains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据