Cost–benefit Analysis of Final Policy Scenarios for the EU Clean Air Package

The assistance of staff at IIASA, particularly Chris Heyes who provided input data for the modelling presented here, is gratefully acknowledged. Acknowledgement is also made of the contribution to the methods that underpin this analysis by numerous contributors in the past, particularly members of the ExternE Project team and those who collaborated on the CBA under the CAFE Project and subsequent work on revision of the Gothenburg Protocol and assessment of air pollution co-benefits of climate policies. The modelling approach that has been used for this report has been updated under the EC4MACS (European Consortium for the Modelling of Air pollution and Climate Strategies) project with financial contributions of the LIFE financial instrument of the European Community. Disclaimer: The orientation and content of this report cannot be taken as indicating the position of the European Commission or its services. This report has been prepared as part of the process to inform the revision of the EU's Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. The general method used here follow those adopted for the development of the Strategy in 2005 under the Clean Air For Europe (CAFE). Methods have been kept under review since 2005 and refinements made. This includes the adoption of updated health functions, incidence data, etc. for PM 2.5 and ozone based on the REVIHAAP and HRAPIE studies led by WHO-Europe. The analysis is linked to IIASA's TSAP Report11: The final policy scenarios of the EU Clean Air Policy Package. The IIASA report considers the anticipated development of emissions and their effects over the period to 2030, with detailed scenarios presented for policy analysis for both 2025 and 2030. Results are presented for scenarios describing current legislation (CLE), a Maximum Technically Feasible Reduction (MTFR) scenario, and a series of intermediate scenarios for 2025 and 2030 (see Table 1). Particular interest is given to scenarios developed around a position that approximates the point at which the marginal benefits associated with reducing mortality from PM 2.5 exposure are estimated to be equal to marginal costs. The CBA has focused on the health benefits of improved air quality under the scenarios. Under the CLE baseline scenario it is estimated that there would be an annual loss of 2.7 million life years in the EU28 as a consequence of exposure to PM 2.5 by 2025, despite measures that have already been introduced to curb air pollution. This could fall to 2.0 million under the …

[1]  O. Chanel,et al.  Monetary values for risk of death from air pollution exposure: a context-dependent scenario with a control for intra-familial altruism , 2014 .

[2]  Dg Xi.  Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for Tropospheric Ozone , 1998 .

[3]  D. Abbey,et al.  Estimated long-term ambient concentrations of PM10 and development of respiratory symptoms in a nonsmoking population. , 1995, Archives of environmental health.

[4]  Jens Borken-Kleefeld,et al.  Policy Scenarios for the revision of the thematic strategy on air pollution , 2013 .

[5]  Ann Netten,et al.  Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2002 , 2000 .

[6]  M. Amann.  Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for Tropospheric Ozone , 1998 .

[7]  Christian Schindler,et al.  Improvements in PM10 exposure and reduced rates of respiratory symptoms in a cohort of Swiss adults (SAPALDIA). , 2009, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[8]  M Britton,et al.  The burden of COPD in the U.K.: results from the Confronting COPD survey. , 2003, Respiratory medicine.

[9]  Dominique Ami,et al.  Economic valuation of air pollution mortality: A 9-country contingent valuation survey of value of a life year (VOLY) , 2011 .

[10]  Markus Amann,et al.  Future emissions of air pollutants in Europe - Current legislation baseline and the scope for further reductions , 2012 .

[11]  G. Mills,et al.  Ozone pollution: A hidden threat to food security , 2011 .

[12]  F. Speizer,et al.  PM10, and children's respiratory symptoms and lung function in the PATY study , 2012, European Respiratory Journal.

[13]  B. Brunekreef,et al.  Effect of photochemical air pollution on acute respiratory symptoms in children. , 1995, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[14]  J. Izquierdo,et al.  The burden of COPD in Spain: results from the Confronting COPD survey. , 2003, Respiratory medicine.

[15]  L. Curtis,et al.  Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2016 , 2015 .

[16]  B. Ostro,et al.  Air pollution and acute respiratory morbidity: an observational study of multiple pollutants. , 1989, Environmental research.

[17]  T. Similowski,et al.  The burden of COPD in France: results from the Confronting COPD survey. , 2003, Respiratory medicine.

[18]  Kazuhiko Ito,et al.  Long-term ozone exposure and mortality. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  R. Burnett,et al.  Air pollution and disability days in Toronto: results from the national population health survey. , 2002, Environmental research.

[20]  M. Dickie,et al.  VALUING HEALTH IN THE HOUSEHOLD: ARE KIDS WORTH MORE THAN PARENTS? * , 2001 .

[21]  B. Ostro,et al.  Air pollution and morbidity revisited: A specification test , 1987 .

[22]  J. Sliggers.  Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution , 2011 .

[23]  E. Wouters.  The burden of COPD in The Netherlands: results from the Confronting COPD survey. , 2003, Respiratory medicine.

[24]  J. Ayres,et al.  Particulate air pollution and panel studies in children: a systematic review , 2004, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[25]  D. Abbey,et al.  Chronic respiratory symptoms associated with estimated long-term ambient concentrations of fine particulates less than 2.5 microns in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5) and other air pollutants. , 1995, Journal of exposure analysis and environmental epidemiology.

[26]  M. Holland,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground Level Ozone in Europe , 1999 .