Interventions in the energy sector offer significant opportunities for reducing both greenhouse and other health-damaging pollution, resulting in what are called “co-benefits.” The health community plays a critical role in evaluating such interventions to optimize progress of both sorts because both affect health. In detail, analyses require sophisticated modeling and specific local information. As a starting point, however, we offer here a set of scoping methods for obtaining a quick assessment of these co-benefits for interventions in the energy sector, the arena with the highest potential for significant co-benefits. Thus we combine relevant methods developed separately in recent years for cost-effectiveness assessments in the climate change, health, and development communities. We offer sample calculations, which illustrate the apparent high degree of co-benefit effectiveness for targeted interventions in the household energy sector in developing countries.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. Aunan K, Berntsen T, O'Connor D, Persson TH, Vennemo H, Zhai F. 1.  2007. Benefits and costs to China of a climate policy. Environ. Dev. Econ. 12:471–97 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aunan K, Fang J, Hu T, Seip HM, Vennemo H. 2.  2006. Climate change and air quality—measures with co-benefits in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:4822–29 [Google Scholar]
  3. Aunan K, Fang J, Vennemo H, Oye K, Seip HM. 3.  2004. Co-benefits of climate policy—lessons learned from a study in Shanxi, China. Energy Policy 32:567–81 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bailis R, Ezzati M, Kammen DM. 4.  2005. Mortality and greenhouse gas impacts of biomass and petroleum energy futures in Africa. Science 308:98–103 [Google Scholar]
  5. Baltussen R, Floyd K, Dye C. 5.  2005. Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies for tuberculosis control in developing countries. Br. Med. J. 331:1364–68 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bond TC, Sun H. 6.  2005. Can reducing black carbon emissions counteract global warming. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:5921–26 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bruce N, Rehfuess E, Mehta S, Hutton G, Smith KR. 7.  2006. Indoor air pollution. See Ref. 36 pp.793–815
  8. Burtraw D, Krupnick A, Palmer K, Paul A, Toman M, Bloyd C. 8.  2003. Ancillary benefits of reduced air pollution in the United States from moderate greenhouse gas mitigation policies in the electricity sector. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 45:650–73 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bussolo M, O'Connor D. 9.  2001. Clearing the Air in India: The Economics of Climate Policy with Ancillary Benefits Paris: OECD Dev. Cent. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chiu K, Green C, Sibold K. 10.  2003. Air quality and greenhouse gas co-benefits of integrated strategies in China. Sinosphere J. 6:40–47 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cifuentes L, Borja-Aburto VH, Gouveia N, Thurston G, Davis DL. 11.  2001. Climate change. Hidden health benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation. Science 293:1257–59 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cohen AJ, Anderson HR, Ostro B, Pandey KD, Krzyzanowski M et al.12.  2004. Mortality impacts of urban air pollution. See Ref. 18 pp.1353–433
  13. 13. Comm. Macroecon. Health 2001. Macroeconomics and Health: Investing in Health for Economic Development Geneva: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  14. Concha-Barrientos M, Nelson DI, Driscoll T, Steenland NK, Punnett L et al.14.  2004. Selected occupational risk factors. See Ref. 18 pp.1651–801
  15. Dasgupta P. 15.  2001. Human Well-Being and the Natural Environment New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  16. Davis DL, Krupnick A, Thurston G. 16.  2000. Ancillary benefits and costs of greenhouse gas mitigation: an overview Presented at Workshop Assess. Ancillary Benefits Costs Greenh. Gas Mitig. Strateg., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  17. Desai MA, Mehta S, Smith KR. 17.  2004. Indoor Smoke from Solid Fuels: Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease Geneva: Prot. Hum. Environ., World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  18. 18.  Ezzati M, Rodgers A, Lopez A, Murray C. eds. 2004. Comparative Quantification of Health Risks: Global and Regional Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risk Favors Geneva: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  19. 19.  Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russel LB, Weinstein MC. eds. 1996. Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  20. Gold MR, Stevenson D, Fryback DG. 20.  2002. HALYS and QALYS and DALYS, oh my: similarities and differences in summary measures of population health. Annu. Rev. Public Health 23:115–34 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gravelle H, Smith D. 21.  2001. Discounting for health effects in cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Econ. 10:587–99 [Google Scholar]
  22. Haines A, Kovats RS, Campbell-Lendrum D, Corvalan C. 22.  2006. Climate change and human health: impacts, vulnerability, and mitigation. Lancet 367:2101–9 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hansen JE. 23.  2002. Air pollution as a climate forcing Presented at Air Pollution as a Climate Forcing, Honolulu Hawaii [Google Scholar]
  24. Hansen JE. 24.  2005. Air Pollution as a Climate Forcing: A Second Workshop Presented at Air Pollut. Climate Forcing Second Workshop, Honolulu [Google Scholar]
  25. Hogan DR, Baltussen R, Hayashi C, Lauer JA, Salomon JA. 25.  2005. Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies to combat HIV/AIDS in developing countries. Br. Med. J. 331:1431–37 [Google Scholar]
  26. 26.  Holdren JP, Smith KR. 2000. Energy, the environment, and health. In World Energy Assessmenteds. J Goldemberg, T Johansson pp.61–110 New York: U. N. Dev. Program., U. N. Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff., World Energy Counc. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hutton G, Rehfuess E. 27.  2006. Guidelines for Conducting Cost-Benefit Analysis of Household Energy and Health Interventions Geneva: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hutton G, Rehfuess E, Tediosi F, Weiss S. 28.  2006. Evaluation of the Costs and Benefits of Household Energy and Health Interventions at Global and Regional Levels Geneva: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hutubessy R, Chisholm D, Tan-Torres Edejer T. 29.  2003. Generalized cost-effectiveness analysis for national-level priority-setting in the health sector. Cost Effectiveness Res. Alloc. 1:8–20 [Google Scholar]
  30. 30. IPCC 1990. Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  31. 31. IPCC 1996. Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climate Change: Contributions of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. IPCC 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis: Contributions of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. IPCC 2007. WG I: the physical science basis, summary for policy makers. In Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changeed. IPoC Change Geneva: IPCC-World Meteorol. Organ. [Google Scholar]
  34. Jakob M. 34.  2006. Marginal costs and co-benefits of energy efficiency investments: the case of the Swiss residential sector. Energy Policy 34:172–87 [Google Scholar]
  35. Jamison DT. 35.  2002. Cost-effectiveness analysis: concept and applications. In Oxford Textbook of Public Healthed. RG Detels, J McEwen, R Beaglehole, H Tanaka pp.903–19 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  36. 36.  Jamison DT, Breman JG, Measham AR, Alleyne G, Claeson M et al. eds. 2006. Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries New York: Oxford Univ. Press/World Bank [Google Scholar]
  37. Krupnick A, Burtraw D, Markandya A. 37.  2000. The ancillary benefits and costs of climate change mitigation: a conceptual framework Presented at Workshop Assess. Ancillary Benefits Costs Greenh. Gas Mitig. Strateg., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  38. Laden F, Neas LM, Dockery DW, Schwartz J. 38.  2000. Association of fine particulate matter from different sources with daily mortality in six US cities. Environ. Health Perspect. 108:941–47 [Google Scholar]
  39. 39.  Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJL. eds. 2006. Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors Washington, DC: Oxford Univ. Press/World Bank [Google Scholar]
  40. Manne AS, Richels RG. 40.  2001. An alternative approach to establishing trade-offs among greenhouse gases. Nature 410:675–77 [Google Scholar]
  41. Markandya A, Rübbelke DTG. 41.  2003. Ancillary benefits of climate policy FEEM Work. Pap. No. 105.2003. http://ssrn.com/abstract=478862 [Google Scholar]
  42. Matus KJ. 42.  2005. Health impacts from urban air pollution in China: the burden to the economy and the benefits of policy. PhD thesis. Mass. Inst. Technol., Eng. Syst. Div., Technol. Policy Program
  43. McKinley G, Zuk M, Hojer M, Avalos M, Gonzalez I et al.43.  2005. Quantification of local and global benefits from air pollution control in Mexico City. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:1954–61 [Google Scholar]
  44. McMichael AJ, Woodruff RE, Hales S. 44.  2006. Climate change and human health: present and future risks. Lancet 367:859–69 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mehta S, Shahpar C. 45.  2004. The health benefits of interventions to reduce indoor air pollution from solid fuel use: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Energy Sustain. Dev. 8:53–59 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mestl HES, Aunan K, Fang J, Seip HM, Skjelvik JM, Vennemo H. 46.  2004. Cleaner production as climate investment: integrated assessment in Taiyuan City, China. J. Clean. Prod. 13:57–70 [Google Scholar]
  47. Morel CM, Lauer JA, Evans DB. 47.  2005. Cost effectiveness analysis of strategies to combat malaria in developing countries. Br. Med. J. 331:1299–302 [Google Scholar]
  48. Morgenstern RD. 48.  2000. Baseline issues in the estimation of the ancillary benefits of GHG mitigation policies Presented at Workshop Assess. Ancillary Benefits Costs Greenh. Gas Mitig. Strateg., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  49. Murray CJL, Lauer JA, Hutubessy RCW, Niessen L, Tomijima N et al.49.  2003. Effectiveness and costs of interventions to lower systolic blood pressure and cholesterol: a global and regional analysis on reduction of cardiovascular-disease risk. Lancet 361:717–25 [Google Scholar]
  50. 50.  Murray CJL, Lopez AD. eds. 1996. The Global Burden of Disease: A Comprehensive Assessment of Mortality and Disability from Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors in 1990 and Projected to 2020 Cambridge, MA: Harvard Sch. Public Health/World Health Organ./World Bank [Google Scholar]
  51. Musgrove P, Fox-Rusby J. 51.  2006. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Priority Setting. See Ref. 36 pp.271–85
  52. Newell R, Pizer W. 52.  2001. Discounting the Benefits of Climate Change Mitigation Washington, DC: Resour. Fut. [Google Scholar]
  53. O'Connor D. 53.  2000. Ancillary benefits estimation in developing countries: a comparative assessment. In Ancillary Benefits and Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation pp.1–17 Paris: OECD Dev. Cent. [Google Scholar]
  54. Olsen JA, Smith RD. 54.  2001. Theory versus practice: a review of “willingness-to-pay” in health and health care. Health Econ. 10:39–52 [Google Scholar]
  55. Ostro B. 55.  2004. Outdoor Air Pollution: Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease at National and Local Levels Geneva: Prot. Hum. Environ./World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  56. Pearce D. 56.  2000. Policy frameworks for the ancillary benefits of climate change policies Presented at Expert Workshop Assess. Ancillary Benefits Costs Greenh. Gas Mitig. Strateg., Paris [Google Scholar]
  57. 57.  Portney PR, Weyant JP. eds. 1999. Discounting and Intergenerational Equity Washington, DC: Resour. Fut. [Google Scholar]
  58. Prüss-Üstün A, Kay D, Fewtrell L, Bartram J. 58.  2004. Unsafe water, sanitation, and hygiene. See Ref. 18 pp.1321–52
  59. Rübbelke DTG. 59.  2002. International Climate Policy to Combat Global Warming: An Analysis of the Ancillary Benefits of Reducing Carbon Emissions Cheltenham, UK: Elgar [Google Scholar]
  60. Ryan M, Scott DA, Reeves C, Bate A, van Teijlingen ER et al.60.  2001. Eliciting public preferences for healthcare: a systematic review of techniques. Health Technol. Assess. 5:1–186 [Google Scholar]
  61. Sims REH, Rogner HH, Gregory K. 61.  2003. Carbon emission and mitigation cost comparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation. Energy Policy 31:1315–26 [Google Scholar]
  62. Smith KR. 62.  1995. Health, energy, and greenhouse-gas impacts of biomass combustion. Energy Sustain. Dev. 1:23–29 [Google Scholar]
  63. Smith KR, Khalil MAK, Rasmussen RA, Thorneloe SA, Manegdeg F, Apte M. 63.  1993. Greenhouse gases from biomass and fossil-fuel stoves in developing countries—a Manila pilot study. Chemosphere 26:479–505 [Google Scholar]
  64. Smith KR, Mehta S, Maeusezahl-Feuz M. 64.  2004. Indoor air pollution from household use of solid fuels. See Ref. 18 pp.1435–93
  65. Smith KR, Uma R, Kishore VVN, Zhang J, Joshi V, Khalil MAK. 65.  2000. Greenhouse implications of household stoves: an analysis for India. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. 25:741–63 [Google Scholar]
  66. Swart R, Amann M, Raes F, Tuinstra W. 66.  2004. A good climate for clean air: linkages between climate change and air pollution. An editorial essay. Clim. Change 66:263–69 [Google Scholar]
  67. 67.  Tan-Torres Edejer T, Baltussen R, Adam T, Hutubessy R, Acharya A et al. eds. 2003. WHO Guide to Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Geneva: World Health Organ. [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. U. N. Dev. Program 2006. Human Development Report 2006 New York: UNDP [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. U. N. Dev. Program., U. N. Dep. Econ. Soc. Aff., World Energy Counc 2004. World Energy Assessment: 2004 Updateed. J Goldemberg, T Johansson New York: UNDP/UNDESA/WEC [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency 2003. The Integrated Environmental Strategies Handbook Washington, DC: USEPA [Google Scholar]
  71. van Vuuren DP, Cofala J, Eerens HE, Oostenrijk R, Heyes C et al.71.  2006. Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe. Energy Policy 34:444–60 [Google Scholar]
  72. Vennemo H, Aunan K, Jinghua F, Holtedahl P, Tao H, Seip HM. 72.  2006. Domestic environmental benefits of China's energy-related CDM potential. Clim. Change 75:215–39 [Google Scholar]
  73. Wang X, Smith KR. 73.  1999. Secondary benefits of greenhouse gas control: health impacts in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 33:3056–61 [Google Scholar]
  74. West JJ, Fiore AM, Horowitz LW, Mauzerall DL. 74.  2006. Global health benefits of mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 103:3988–93 [Google Scholar]
  75. West JJ, Osnaya P, Laguna I, Martinez J, Fernandez A. 75.  2004. Co-control of urban air pollutants and greenhouse gases in Mexico City. Environ. Sci. Technol. 38:3474–81 [Google Scholar]
  76. Woodruff RE, McMichael T, Butler C, Hales S. 76.  2006. Action on climate change: the health risks of procrastinating. Aust. N.Z. J. Public Health 30:567–71 [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. Woods Hole Res. Cent 2006. Linking Climate Policy With Development Strategy: “Win-Win” Options For Brazil, China, And India Falmouth, MA: WHRC [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. WorldBank 2003. World Development Report: Investing in Health New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. World Health Organ 2002. Global burden of disease database. In Burden of Disease Statistics Geneva: WHO [Google Scholar]
  80. Zhang J, Smith KR, Ma Y, Ye S, Jiang F et al.80.  2000. Greenhouse gases and other airborne pollutants from household stoves in China: a database for emission factors. Atmos. Environ. 34:4537–49 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error