Dataset Information

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers.

Objective

The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions.

Methods

An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies.

Results

The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting.

Discussion

This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745.

SUBMITTER: Hess JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7654632 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

Hess Jeremy J JJ Ranadive Nikhil N Boyer Chris C Aleksandrowicz Lukasz L Anenberg Susan C SC Aunan Kristin K Belesova Kristine K Bell Michelle L ML Bickersteth Sam S Bowen Kathryn K Burden Marci M Campbell-Lendrum Diarmid D Carlton Elizabeth E Cissé Guéladio G Cohen Francois F Dai Hancheng H Dangour Alan David AD Dasgupta Purnamita P Frumkin Howard H Gong Peng P Gould Robert J RJ Haines Andy A Hales Simon S Hamilton Ian I Hasegawa Tomoko T Hashizume Masahiro M Honda Yasushi Y Horton Daniel E DE Karambelas Alexandra A Kim Ho H Kim Satbyul Estella SE Kinney Patrick L PL Kone Inza I Knowlton Kim K Lelieveld Jos J Limaye Vijay S VS Liu Qiyong Q Madaniyazi Lina L Martinez Micaela Elvira ME Mauzerall Denise L DL Milner James J Neville Tara T Nieuwenhuijsen Mark M Pachauri Shonali S Perera Frederica F Pineo Helen H Remais Justin V JV Saari Rebecca K RK Sampedro Jon J Scheelbeek Pauline P Schwartz Joel J Shindell Drew D Shyamsundar Priya P Taylor Timothy J TJ Tonne Cathryn C Van Vuuren Detlef D Wang Can C Watts Nicholas N West J Jason JJ Wilkinson Paul P Wood Stephen A SA Woodcock James J Woodward Alistair A Xie Yang Y Zhang Ying Y Ebi Kristie L KL

Environmental health perspectives 20201110 11

<h4>Background</h4>Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected ...[more]

PMID: 33170741

Similar Datasets

Project description:Climate change-driven temperature increases worsen air quality in places where coal combustion powers electricity for air conditioning. Climate solutions that substitute clean and renewable energy in place of polluting coal and promote adaptation to warming through reflective cool roofs can reduce cooling energy demand in buildings, lower power sector carbon emissions, and improve air quality and health. We investigate the air quality and health co-benefits of climate solutions in Ahmedabad, India-a city where air pollution levels exceed national health-based standards-through an interdisciplinary modeling approach. Using a 2018 baseline, we quantify changes in fine particulate matter (PM2.5) air pollution and all-cause mortality in 2030 from increasing renewable energy use (mitigation) and expanding Ahmedabad's cool roofs heat resilience program (adaptation). We apply local demographic and health data and compare a 2030 mitigation and adaptation (M&A) scenario to a 2030 business-as-usual (BAU) scenario (without climate change response actions), each relative to 2018 pollution levels. We estimate that the 2030 BAU scenario results in an increase of PM2.5 air pollution of 4.13 µg m-3 from 2018 compared to a 0.11 µg m-3 decline from 2018 under the 2030 M&A scenario. Reduced PM2.5 air pollution under 2030 M&A results in 1216-1414 fewer premature all-cause deaths annually compared to 2030 BAU. Achievement of National Clean Air Programme, National Ambient Air Quality Standards, or World Health Organization annual PM2.5 Air Quality Guideline targets in 2030 results in up to 6510, 9047, or 17 369 fewer annual deaths, respectively, relative to 2030 BAU. This comprehensive modeling method is adaptable to estimate local air quality and health co-benefits in other settings by integrating climate, energy, cooling, land cover, air pollution, and health data. Our findings demonstrate that city-level climate change response policies can achieve substantial air quality and health co-benefits. Such work can inform public discourse on the near-term health benefits of mitigation and adaptation.

Project description:BackgroundThe Global Calculator is an open-source model of the world's energy, land, and food systems. It is a pioneering online calculator to project the impact of interventions to mitigate climate change on global temperature. A few studies have been conducted to evaluate the health co-benefits of climate change mitigation, though they are still fragmentary.ObjectivesOur objectives are to identify which sectors could yield the greatest results in terms of climate change mitigation and suggest whether existing evidence could be used to weight mitigation actions based on their ancillary impacts on human health or health co-benefits.MethodsUsing the International Energy Agency (IEA) 4DS scenario as a referent (i.e., the "4-degree Celsius increase scenario"), we simulated changes in different policy "levers" (encompassing 43 potential technological and behavioral interventions, grouped by 14 sectors) and assessed the relative importance of each lever in terms of changes in annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2050 and cumulative emissions by 2100. In addition, we examined existing estimates for the health co-benefits associated with different interventions, using evidence from the Lancet Pathfinder and four other tools.DiscussionOur simulations suggest that-after accounting for demographic change-transition from fossil fuels to renewables and changes in agriculture, forestry, land use, and food production are key sectors for climate change mitigation. The role of interventions in other sectors, like carbon capture and storage (CCS) or nuclear power, is more modest. Our work also identifies mitigation actions that are likely to have large health co-benefits, including shifts to renewable energy and changes in land use as well as dietary and travel behaviors. In conclusion, some of the sectors/interventions which have been at the center of policy debate (e.g., CCS or nuclear power) are likely to be far less important than changes in areas such as dietary habits or forestry practices by 2050. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP14906.

Dataset Information

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets