Co-benefits of mitigation
Many recent studies have demonstrated significant benefits of carbon-mitigation strategies on human health, mainly because they also reduce other airborne emissions, for example, SO2, NOx and particulate matter. This is projected to result in the prevention of tens of thousands of premature deaths in Asian and Latin American countries annually, and several thousands in Europe. However, monetization of mortality risks remains controversial, and hence a large range of benefit estimates can be found in the literature. However, all studies agree that the monetized health benefits may offset a substantial fraction of the mitigation costs (high agreement, much evidence) [11.8].
In addition, the benefits of avoided emissions of air pollutants have been estimated for agricultural production and the impact of acid precipitation on natural ecosystems. Such near-term benefits provide the basis for a no-regrets GHG-reduction policy, in which substantial advantages accrue even if the impact of human-induced climate change turns out to be less than current projections show. Including co-benefits other than those for human health and agricultural productivity (e.g., increased energy security and employment) would further enhance the cost savings (high agreement, limited evidence) [11.8].
A wealth of new literature has pointed out that addressing climate change and air pollution simultaneously through a single set of measures and policies offers potentially large reductions in the costs of air-pollution control. An integrated approach is needed to address those pollutants and processes for which trade-offs exist. This is, for instance, the case for NOx controls for vehicles and nitric acid plants, which may increase N2O emissions, or the increased use of energy-efficient diesel vehicles, which emit relatively more fine particulate matter than their gasoline equivalents (high agreement, much evidence) [11.8].