The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector
Fossil fuel combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with co-pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and others. These emissions result in environmental externalities primarily in terms of climate and air quality. Here we quantify the cost of co-pollutant emissions pe...
Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
IOP Publishing
2019-01-01
|
Series: | Environmental Research Letters |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3 |
_version_ | 1797748018058887168 |
---|---|
author | Irene C Dedoussi Florian Allroggen Robert Flanagan Tyler Hansen Brandon Taylor Steven R H Barrett James K Boyce |
author_facet | Irene C Dedoussi Florian Allroggen Robert Flanagan Tyler Hansen Brandon Taylor Steven R H Barrett James K Boyce |
author_sort | Irene C Dedoussi |
collection | DOAJ |
description | Fossil fuel combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with co-pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and others. These emissions result in environmental externalities primarily in terms of climate and air quality. Here we quantify the cost of co-pollutant emissions per ton of CO _2 emissions from US electric power generation. We measure the co-pollutant cost of carbon (CPCC) as the total value of statistical life associated with US-based premature mortalities attributable to co-pollutant emissions, per mass of CO _2 . We find an average CPCC of ∼$45 per metric ton (mt) of CO _2 for the year 2011 (in 2017 USD). This is ∼20% higher than the central Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) measure of climate damages that was used by the Obama administration in its regulatory impact analysis for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and >8 times higher than the SCC used by the Trump administration in its analysis for the Plan’s repeal. At the state-level, the CPCC ranged from ∼$7/mt CO _2 for Arizona to ∼$96/mt CO _2 for New Jersey. We calculate the CPCC trends from 2002 to 2017 and find a 71% decrease at the national level, contributing to total savings of ∼$1 trillion in averted mortality from power plant emissions over this period. By decomposing the aggregate and fuel-specific co-pollutant intensities into simultaneous (CO _2 -driven) and autonomous components, we conclude that the CPCC trends originated mainly from targeted efforts to reduce co-pollutant emissions, e.g. through fuel switching (from coal to natural gas) and autonomous changes in co-pollutant emissions. The results suggest that the overall benefit to society from policies to curtail carbon emissions may be enhanced by focusing on pollution sources where the associated air-quality co-benefits are greatest. At the same time, continued efforts to reduce co-pollutant intensities, if technologically feasible, could help to mitigate the air-quality damages of the CPP’s repeal and replacement. |
first_indexed | 2024-03-12T15:58:56Z |
format | Article |
id | doaj.art-b2fa54d151444fa995de7814e852d945 |
institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
issn | 1748-9326 |
language | English |
last_indexed | 2024-03-12T15:58:56Z |
publishDate | 2019-01-01 |
publisher | IOP Publishing |
record_format | Article |
series | Environmental Research Letters |
spelling | doaj.art-b2fa54d151444fa995de7814e852d9452023-08-09T14:44:42ZengIOP PublishingEnvironmental Research Letters1748-93262019-01-0114909400310.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sectorIrene C Dedoussi0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8966-9469Florian Allroggen1https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0712-2310Robert Flanagan2Tyler Hansen3Brandon Taylor4Steven R H Barrett5https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4642-9545James K Boyce6https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7711-6752Massachusetts Institute of Technology , 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of America; Delft University of Technology , Kluyverweg 1, 2629 HS, Delft, The NetherlandsMassachusetts Institute of Technology , 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of AmericaIntensity Corporation, 12730 High Bluff Drive, San Diego, CA 92130, United States of AmericaUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst , 418 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01002, United States of AmericaUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst , 418 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01002, United States of AmericaMassachusetts Institute of Technology , 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States of AmericaUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst , 418 N. Pleasant St., Amherst, MA 01002, United States of AmericaFossil fuel combustion releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere along with co-pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and others. These emissions result in environmental externalities primarily in terms of climate and air quality. Here we quantify the cost of co-pollutant emissions per ton of CO _2 emissions from US electric power generation. We measure the co-pollutant cost of carbon (CPCC) as the total value of statistical life associated with US-based premature mortalities attributable to co-pollutant emissions, per mass of CO _2 . We find an average CPCC of ∼$45 per metric ton (mt) of CO _2 for the year 2011 (in 2017 USD). This is ∼20% higher than the central Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) measure of climate damages that was used by the Obama administration in its regulatory impact analysis for the Clean Power Plan (CPP), and >8 times higher than the SCC used by the Trump administration in its analysis for the Plan’s repeal. At the state-level, the CPCC ranged from ∼$7/mt CO _2 for Arizona to ∼$96/mt CO _2 for New Jersey. We calculate the CPCC trends from 2002 to 2017 and find a 71% decrease at the national level, contributing to total savings of ∼$1 trillion in averted mortality from power plant emissions over this period. By decomposing the aggregate and fuel-specific co-pollutant intensities into simultaneous (CO _2 -driven) and autonomous components, we conclude that the CPCC trends originated mainly from targeted efforts to reduce co-pollutant emissions, e.g. through fuel switching (from coal to natural gas) and autonomous changes in co-pollutant emissions. The results suggest that the overall benefit to society from policies to curtail carbon emissions may be enhanced by focusing on pollution sources where the associated air-quality co-benefits are greatest. At the same time, continued efforts to reduce co-pollutant intensities, if technologically feasible, could help to mitigate the air-quality damages of the CPP’s repeal and replacement.https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3air pollutionparticulate matterco-pollutantselectric powergenerationhuman health |
spellingShingle | Irene C Dedoussi Florian Allroggen Robert Flanagan Tyler Hansen Brandon Taylor Steven R H Barrett James K Boyce The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector Environmental Research Letters air pollution particulate matter co-pollutants electric power generation human health |
title | The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector |
title_full | The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector |
title_fullStr | The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector |
title_full_unstemmed | The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector |
title_short | The co-pollutant cost of carbon emissions: an analysis of the US electric power generation sector |
title_sort | co pollutant cost of carbon emissions an analysis of the us electric power generation sector |
topic | air pollution particulate matter co-pollutants electric power generation human health |
url | https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab34e3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT irenecdedoussi thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT florianallroggen thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT robertflanagan thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT tylerhansen thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT brandontaylor thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT stevenrhbarrett thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT jameskboyce thecopollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT irenecdedoussi copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT florianallroggen copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT robertflanagan copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT tylerhansen copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT brandontaylor copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT stevenrhbarrett copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector AT jameskboyce copollutantcostofcarbonemissionsananalysisoftheuselectricpowergenerationsector |