Nature Communications 2095 (19) (2019)

Authors
Mark Budolfson
Rutgers University - New Brunswick
Marc Fleurbaey
Princeton University
Abstract
The health co-benefits of CO2 mitigation can provide a strong incentive for climate policy through reductions in air pollutant emissions that occur when targeting shared sources. However, reducing air pollutant emissions may also have an important co-harm, as the aerosols they form produce net cooling overall. Nevertheless, aerosol impacts have not been fully incorporated into cost-benefit modeling that estimates how much the world should optimally mitigate. Here we find that when both co-benefits and co-harms are taken fully into account, optimal climate policy results in immediate net benefits globally, overturning previous findings from cost-benefit models that omit these effects. The global health benefits from climate policy could reach trillions of dollars annually, but will importantly depend on the air quality policies that nations adopt independently of climate change. Depending on how society values better health, economically optimal levels of mitigation may be consistent with a target of 2 °C or lower.
Keywords Consequentialism  Global climate policy  health and wellbeing  health co-benefits  climate change  economics  climate economics  climate ethics
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,079
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Carbon Pricing Ethics.Kian Mintz-Woo - 2022 - Philosophy Compass 17 (1):e12803.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Case for Valuing Non-Health and Indirect Benefits.Govind Persad & Jessica du Toit - 2020 - In Ole F. Norheim, Ezekiel J. Emanuel & Joseph Millum (eds.), Global Health Priority-Setting: Beyond Cost-Effectiveness. New York, NY, USA: pp. 207-222.
Climate Ethics and Population Policy.Philip Cafaro - 2012 - WIREs Climate Change 3 (1):45–61.
What Climate Policy Can a Utilitarian Justify?Bernward Gesang - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (2):377-392.
Climate Change Matters.Cheryl Cox Macpherson - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (4):288-290.
Anthropocentrism in Climate Ethics and Policy.Katie McShane - 2016 - Midwest Studies in Philosophy 40 (1):189-204.
Why 'Health' is Not a Central Category for Public Health Policy.Stephen John - 2009 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (2):129-143.
Two Moral Arguments for a Global Social Cost of Carbon.Kian Mintz-Woo - 2018 - Ethics, Policy and Environment 21 (1):60-63.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2020-05-15

Total views
10 ( #899,442 of 2,506,032 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #277,268 of 2,506,032 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes