Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-kw98b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-02-24T16:39:39.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Lessons for policy makers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 July 2014

Ari Rabl
Affiliation:
Ecole des Mines, Paris
Joseph V. Spadaro
Affiliation:
Basque Centre for Climate Change, Bilbao, Spain
Mike Holland
Affiliation:
Ecometrics Research and Consulting (EMRC)
Get access

Summary

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of issues linked to damage cost assessments, drawing on the material provided in earlier chapters. It also provides a list of applications of external costs analysis to demonstrate that the approaches outlined here are part of the policy toolkit for many authorities. Much of the focus is on applications within Europe, the area with which the authors are most familiar, although applications in other parts of the world are also discussed. The examples provided demonstrate a great breadth in policy applications, covering not only environmental quality standards but also the energy, industry, waste, transport, chemicals and domestic sectors.

Choice of method

There is a range of methods for sustainability appraisal of projects and strategies, as noted in Chapter 2 of this book. In addition to the impact pathway approach (IPA) to the quantification of externalities and associated cost–benefit analysis (CBA) they include life cycle analysis (LCA), cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Work performed for the Sustools project (Rabl et al., 2004) reviewed these methods and came to the view that each has a role to play: individually they all have their limitations, but used together they can provide a thorough overview of issues and present information in a form that is directly relevant to the decision making process. This is an important lesson for policy makers, that no matter how convinced an analyst is of the superiority of his or her own method, for most policy applications a single tool is unlikely to provide all of the answers.

Type
Chapter
Information
How Much Is Clean Air Worth?
Calculating the Benefits of Pollution Control
, pp. 626 - 646
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

AEA 1998. Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for Tropospheric Ozone Part C: Economic Benefit Assessment. Report to European Commission DG XI.
AEA 1999. Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for CO and Benzene. Report to European Commission DG XI.
AEA 2001. Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for PAHs. Report to European Commission DG XI.
AEA 2002–2006. Various reports relating to the development and application of methods for cost-benefit analysis of European air pollution policies, available at: ,
AEA 2006a. Assessing the air pollution benefits of further climate measures in the EU up to 2020. Report to European Commission DG Environment.
AEA 2006b. London Low Emission Zone Health Impact Assessment Final Report. Report to Transport for London.
AEA 2010. Cost Benefit Analysis for the Revision of the National Emission Ceilings Directive Interim Report. Report to European Commission DG Environment.
Bell, M. L., Davis, D. L. and Fletcher, T. (2004) A retrospective assessment of mortality from the London Smog Episode of 1952: The role of influenza and pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives 112: 6–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bosch, P., Coenen, P., Fridell, E. et al. 2009. Cost Benefit Analysis to Support the Impact Assessment accompanying the revision of Directive 1999/32/EC on the Sulphur Content of Certain Liquid Fuels, for European Commission DG Environment.
Clinch, H. G. 1955. Atmospheric Pollution in London and the Home Counties: A Report on Known Facts. London and Home Counties Smoke Abatement Advisory Council.Google Scholar
Davis, D. 2002. The Great Smog. History Today, 52. .Google Scholar
EEA. 2011. Revealing the costs of air pollution from industrial facilities in Europe. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Denmark. .Google Scholar
EEA 2013. Road user charges for heavy goods vehicles (HGV). European Environment Agency, Technical report No 1/2013. .Google Scholar
EMRC (2008) The co-benefits for health of strong climate change policy. Report to the Health and Environment Alliance (HEAL).
Entec 2001. Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for Heavy Metals. Report to European Commission DG XI.
Entec 2010. Assessment of the Possible Development of an EU-wide NOx and SO Trading Scheme for IPPC Installations. Report to European Commission DG Environment.
ETSU 1997. Cost-benefit analysis of the draft directive on the incineration of non-hazardous waste. Report to European Commission DG XI.
Eunomia 2001. Economic Analysis of the Options for Managing the Biodegradable Fraction of Municipal Waste, Report to European Commission DG Environment.
Eunomia 2009. International Review of Waste Management Policy, Report for Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government (Republic of Ireland), September 2009.
ExternE 1998. Volume 10, National Implementation, pp. 150–154. .
Forster, D., Korkeala, O., Warmington, J., Holland, M. and Smith, A. 2013. Review of the impacts of carbon budget measures on human health and the environment. Report for the UK’s Climate Change Committee.
Hammingh, P, Holland, M. R., Gellenkirchen, G. P., Jonson, J. E. and Maas, R. J. M. 2012. Assessment of the environmental impacts and health benefits of a Nitrogen Emission Control Area in the North Sea. Report to PBL / Netherlands Environmental Protection Agency. .
Hansard, . 1955. Parliamentary debate on the Air Pollution Committee’s Report. .
Holland, M. 2013. Cost-benefit Analysis of Policy Scenarios for the Revision of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution: Version 1 Corresponding to IIASA TSAP Report #10, Version 1. March 2013. Contract report to European Commission DG Environment.
Holland, M. and Krewitt, W. 1996. Benefits of an Acidification Strategy for the European Union and CBA of Pollutant Abatement Options for Large Combustion Plant. In ExternE: Externalities of Energy Volume 10, National Implementation, p. 150–154:
Holland, M., Spadaro, J., Derwent, R., Jenkin, M. and Murrells, T. 2009. Costs, Benefits and Trade-Offs: Volatile Organic Compounds. Contract report for Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London, UK.Google Scholar
Holland, M., King, K. and Forster, D. 1999. Cost-Benefit Analysis for the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground Level Ozone in Europe .
Holland, M., Wagner, A., Hurley, F., Miller, B. and Hunt, A. 2011. Cost Benefit Analysis for the Revision of the National Emission Ceilings Directive: Policy Options for revisions to the Gothenburg Protocol to the UNECE Convention on Long- Range Transboundary Air Pollution .
Holland, M., Amann, M., Heyes, C. et al. 2012. ClimateCost study. Technical Policy Briefing Note number 6: Ancillary Air Quality benefits, .
IAEA 2003. Workshop on the use of the Simpacts Model for estimating Human Health and Environmental Damages from Electricity Generation. Materials from a workshop in Trieste, Italy, 12–23 May 2003. .
IIASA. 1999. Integrated Assessment Modelling for the Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone in Europe. Air & Energy 132, Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Directorate Air and Energy, The Hague, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
IIASA. 2010. Baseline Emission Projections and Further Cost-effective Reductions of Air Pollution Impacts in Europe – A 2010 Perspective. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg Austria. .Google Scholar
IIASA. 2013. Policy Scenarios for the Revision of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution. TSAP Report #10, Version 1.2 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg Austria. Report for European Commission DG Environment. .
IVM (1997) Economic Evaluation of Air Quality Targets for sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, fine and suspended particulate matter and lead. Contract report for European Commission DG XI.
Mayor of London. 2002. 50 years on: The struggle for air quality in London since the great smog of December 1952. Greater London Authority. .
Odén, S. 1967. The acidification of precipitation. Dagens Nyheter, 27/10/1967.
Pye, S. and Holland, M. 2007. Evaluation of the costs and benefits of the implementation of the IPPC Directive on Large Combustion Plant.
Rabl, A., Zoughaib, A., von Blottnitz, H. et al. 2004. Tools for sustainability: Development and application of an integrated framework. Final Technical Report for project SusTools, contract N° EVG3-CT-2002–80010. EC DG Research. .
Rabl, A., Spadaro, J. V. and van der Zwaan, B. 2005. Uncertainty of pollution damage cost estimates: to what extent does it matter?Environmental Science & Technology 39(2): 399–408.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reis, S., Grennfelt, P., Klimont, Z. et al. 2012. From acid rain to climate change. Science 338.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Renberg, I. and Battarbee, R. W. (1990). The SWAP Palaeolimnology Programme: a synthesis. In: The Surface Waters Acidification Programme. Edited by Mason, B. J.. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
UBA 2008 Economic Valuation of Environmental Damage: Methodological convention for estimates of environmental externalities. Umweltbundesamt:
USEPA. 1997. Retrospective Study: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1970 to 1990. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Google Scholar
USEPA. 1999. Prospective Study: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2010. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Google Scholar
USEPA. 2011. Prospective Study: The Benefits and Costs of the Clean Air Act, 1990 to 2020. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×