Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China; State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), and School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China; Tsinghua-Rio Tinto Joint Research Centre for Resources, Energy and Sustainable Development, International Joint Laboratory on Low Carbon Clean Energy Innovation, Laboratory for Low Carbon Energy, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
State Key Joint Laboratory of Environment Simulation and Pollution Control (SKLESPC), and School of Environment, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Lancet Planet Health. 2021 Nov;5(11):e808-e817. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(21)00252-7. Epub 2021 Nov 7.
The announcement of China's 2060 carbon neutrality goal has drawn the world's attention to the specific technology pathway needed to achieve this pledge. We aimed to evaluate the health co-benefits of carbon neutrality under different technology pathways, which could help China to achieve the carbon neutrality goal, air quality goal, and Healthy China goal in a synergetic manner that includes health in the decision-making process.
In this modelling study, we used Shared Socioeconomic Pathway 2 with no climate policy as the reference scenario, and two representative carbon neutrality scenarios with identical emission trajectories and different technology pathways-one was led by renewable energies and the other was led by negative emission technologies. We had three modules to analyse health co-benefits and mitigation costs for each policy scenario. First, we used a computable general equilibrium model that captures the operation of the whole economic system to investigate the carbon mitigation costs and air pollutant emission pathways of different technology portfolios. Second, we used a reduced complexity air quality model to estimate the concentrations of particulate matter in the atmosphere from the air pollutant emission pathways. Finally, we used a health impact evaluation model to estimate premature deaths, morbidity, and the resulting loss of life expectancy, then these health impacts were monetised according to value of a statistical life and cost of illness. We compared the monetised health co-benefits against the corresponding mitigation costs to explore the cost-effectiveness of different technology portfolios. A series of uncertainties embodied in carbon neutrality pathways and models were considered.
In our models, sole dependence on improving end-of-pipe air pollution control measures is not sufficient for all Chinese provinces to meet the 2005 WHO PM standards (10 μg/m) by 2060. Only a combination of strong climate and air pollution control policies can lead to substantial improvement of air quality across China. If the carbon neutrality pathway led by developing renewable energies was followed, the air quality of all provinces could meet the WHO guideline by 2060. With the realisation of carbon neutrality goals, the total discounted mitigation costs (discount rate 5%) from 2020-60 would range from 40-125 trillion Chinese yuan (CNY), and 22-50 million cumulative premature deaths could be avoided. China has the potential to increase the associated life expectancy by 0·88-2·80 years per person in 2060 versus the reference scenario. The health benefits are higher in the renewable energies-led scenarios, whereas the mitigation costs are smaller in the negative emission technologies-led scenarios. If the value of a statistical life is set higher than 12·5 million CNY (39% of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development value), the health co-benefits will be higher than mitigation costs, even when considering all included uncertainties, implying the cost-effectiveness of China's carbon neutrality goal.
The life expectancy increase from the realisation of China's 2060 carbon neutrality goal could be equivalent to the past 5-10 years of life expectancy growth in China. Choosing an appropriate carbon neutrality pathway affects the health of China's population both today and in the future. Our findings suggest that, if China incorporates health co-benefits into climate policy making and puts a high value on people's health, it should choose a carbon neutrality pathway that relies more on developing renewable energies and avoid over-reliance on negative emission technologies.
National Key R&D Program of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Tsinghua-Toyota Joint Research Fund, Tsinghua-Rio Tinto Joint Research Centre for Resources, and Global Energy Interconnection Group.
For the Chinese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
中国提出 2060 年实现碳中和目标，引起了国际社会对实现这一承诺所需具体技术路径的关注。我们旨在评估不同技术路径下实现碳中和的健康协同效益，这有助于中国在决策过程中纳入健康因素，以协同方式实现碳中和目标、空气质量目标和健康中国目标。
在这项建模研究中，我们使用了没有气候政策的共享社会经济路径 2 作为参考情景，以及两个具有相同排放轨迹但技术路径不同的代表性碳中和情景——一个由可再生能源主导，另一个由负排放技术主导。我们有三个模块来分析每个政策情景的健康协同效益和减排成本。首先，我们使用了一个可计算的一般均衡模型，该模型捕捉了整个经济系统的运行情况，以研究不同技术组合的碳减排成本和空气污染物排放路径。其次，我们使用简化复杂性空气质量模型来估计从空气污染物排放路径得出的大气中颗粒物的浓度。最后，我们使用健康影响评估模型来估计过早死亡、发病率以及由此导致的预期寿命损失，然后根据生命统计价值和疾病成本将这些健康影响货币化。我们比较了货币化的健康协同效益与相应的减排成本，以探索不同技术组合的成本效益。考虑了碳中和路径和模型中包含的一系列不确定性。
在我们的模型中，仅依靠改善末端治理空气污染控制措施不足以使中国所有省份都能在 2060 年达到世卫组织的 PM2.5 标准（10μg/m3）。只有通过实施强有力的气候和空气污染控制政策，才能使中国的空气质量得到显著改善。如果遵循以发展可再生能源为主的碳中和路径，到 2060 年，所有省份的空气质量都将达到世卫组织的指导标准。随着碳中和目标的实现，2020-2060 年的总贴现减排成本（贴现率 5%）将在 40-125 万亿元人民币之间，累计可避免 2200-5000 万人过早死亡。与参考情景相比，中国在 2060 年每人的预期寿命可能会增加 0.88-2.80 年。在可再生能源主导的情景中，健康效益更高，而在负排放技术主导的情景中，减排成本更小。如果生命统计价值设定高于 1250 万元人民币（经合组织价值的 39%），即使考虑到所有包含的不确定性，健康协同效益也将高于减排成本，这意味着中国实现 2060 年碳中和目标的成本效益。
实现中国 2060 年碳中和目标带来的预期寿命增长，相当于中国过去 5-10 年的预期寿命增长。选择合适的碳中和路径不仅会影响中国当前的人口健康，也会影响中国未来的人口健康。我们的研究结果表明，如果中国将健康协同效益纳入气候政策制定，并高度重视人民的健康，那么它应该选择更多地依赖发展可再生能源的碳中和路径，避免过度依赖负排放技术。
国家重点研发计划、国家自然科学基金、清华大学-丰田研究基金、清华大学-力拓联合资源研究中心以及全球能源互联网发展合作组织。
