High-resolution projections of ambient heat for major European cities using different heat metrics

Heat stress in cities is projected to strongly increase due to climate change. The associated health risks will be exacerbated by the high population density in cities and the urban heat island effect. However, impacts are still uncertain, which is among other factors due to the existence of multiple metrics for quantifying ambient heat and the typically rather coarse spatial resolution of climate models. Here we investigate projections of ambient heat for 36 major European cities based on a recently produced ensemble of regional climate model simulations for Europe (EURO-CORDEX) at 0.11∘ spatial resolution (∼ 12.5 km). The 0.11∘ EURO-CORDEX ensemble provides the best spatial resolution currently available from an ensemble of climate model projections for the whole of Europe and makes it possible to analyse the risk of temperature extremes and heat waves at the city level. We focus on three temperature-based heat metrics – yearly maximum temperature, number of days with temperatures exceeding 30 ∘C, and Heat Wave Magnitude Index daily (HWMId) – to analyse projections of ambient heat at 3 ∘C warming in Europe compared to 1981–2010 based on climate data from the EURO-CORDEX ensemble. The results show that southern European cities will be particularly affected by high levels of ambient heat, but depending on the considered metric, cities in central, eastern, and northern Europe may also experience substantial increases in ambient heat. In several cities, projections of ambient heat vary considerably across the three heat metrics, indicating that estimates based on a single metric might underestimate the potential for adverse health effects due to heat stress. Nighttime ambient heat, quantified based on daily minimum temperatures, shows similar spatial patterns to daytime conditions, albeit with substantially higher HWMId values. The identified spatial patterns of ambient heat are generally consistent with results from global Earth system models, though with substantial differences for individual cities. Our results emphasise the value of high-resolution climate model simulations for analysing climate extremes at the city level. At the same time, they highlight that improving the predominantly rather simple representations of urban areas in climate models would make their simulations even more valuable for planning adaptation measures in cities. Further, our results stress that using complementary metrics for projections of ambient heat gives important insights into the risk of future heat stress that might otherwise be missed.</p

Climate policy and ancillary benefits : a survey and integration into the modelling of international negotiations on climate change

Currently informal and formal international negotiations on climate change take place in an intensive way since the Kyoto Protocol expires already in 2012. A post-Kyoto regulation to combat global warming is not yet stipulated. Due to rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emission levels, industrialized countries urge major polluters from the developing world like China and India to participate in a future agreement. Whether these developing countries will do so, depends on the prevailing incentives to participate in international climate protection efforts. This paper identifies ancillary benefits of climate policy to provide important incentives to attend a new international protocol and to positively affect the likelihood of accomplishing a post-Kyoto agreement which includes commitments of developing countries

The future for beef

Beef is a fast-growing, multi -billion dollar industry today in the United States. And the outlook for tomorrow is most favorable. Beef consumption has increased by 26 pounds per capita during the past 15 years, hitting an all-time high of 90 pounds per capita in 1962. During the same period quality has improved, and now. beef commands even wider consumer acceptance than in the mid-1940\u27s. New technology has lowered production and marketing costs. But even a strong, healthy industry must be sensitive to change--and take advantage of new opportunities for growth and improvement. The beef industry is no exception.https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/card_reports/1016/thumbnail.jp

Climate Change and Developing-Country Cities: Implications For Environmental Health and Equity

Climate change is an emerging threat to global public health. It is also highly inequitable, as the greatest risks are to the poorest populations, who have contributed least to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The rapid economic development and the concurrent urbanization of poorer countries mean that developing-country cities will be both vulnerable to health hazards from climate change and, simultaneously, an increasing contributor to the problem. We review the specific health vulnerabilities of urban populations in developing countries and highlight the range of large direct health effects of energy policies that are concentrated in urban areas. Common vulnerability factors include coastal location, exposure to the urban heat-island effect, high levels of outdoor and indoor air pollution, high population density, and poor sanitation. There are clear opportunities for simultaneously improving health and cutting GHG emissions most obviously through policies related to transport systems, urban planning, building regulations and household energy supply. These influence some of the largest current global health burdens, including approximately 800,000 annual deaths from ambient urban air pollution, 1.2 million from road-traffic accidents, 1.9 million from physical inactivity, and 1.5 million per year from indoor air pollution. GHG emissions and health protection in developing-country cities are likely to become increasingly prominent in policy development. There is a need for a more active input from the health sector to ensure that development and health policies contribute to a preventive approach to local and global environmental sustainability, urban population health, and health equity

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions

Background: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. Objective: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. Methods: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. Results: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. Discussion: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice

Ancillary human health benefits of improved air quality resulting from climate change mitigation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation policies can provide ancillary benefits in terms of short-term improvements in air quality and associated health benefits. Several studies have analyzed the ancillary impacts of GHG policies for a variety of locations, pollutants, and policies. In this paper we review the existing evidence on ancillary health benefits relating to air pollution from various GHG strategies and provide a framework for such analysis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We evaluate techniques used in different stages of such research for estimation of: (1) changes in air pollutant concentrations; (2) avoided adverse health endpoints; and (3) economic valuation of health consequences. The limitations and merits of various methods are examined. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for ancillary benefits analysis and related research gaps in the relevant disciplines.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found that to date most assessments have focused their analysis more heavily on one aspect of the framework (e.g., economic analysis). While a wide range of methods was applied to various policies and regions, results from multiple studies provide strong evidence that the short-term public health and economic benefits of ancillary benefits related to GHG mitigation strategies are substantial. Further, results of these analyses are likely to be underestimates because there are a number of important unquantified health and economic endpoints.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Remaining challenges include integrating the understanding of the relative toxicity of particulate matter by components or sources, developing better estimates of public health and environmental impacts on selected sub-populations, and devising new methods for evaluating heretofore unquantified and non-monetized benefits.</p

Coalition Formation and the Ancillary Benefits of Climate Policy

Several studies found ancillary benefits of environmental policy to be of considerable size. These additional private benefits imply not only higher cooperative but also noncooperative abatement targets. However, beyond these largely undisputed important quantitative effects, there are qualitative and strategic implications associated with ancillary benefits: climate policy is no longer a pure but an impure public good. In this paper, we investigate these implications in a setting of non-cooperative coalition formation. In particular, we address the following questions. 1) Do ancillary benefits increase participation in international environmental agreements? 2) Do ancillary benefits raise the success of these treaties in welfare terms

Guidelines for Modeling and Reporting Health Effects of Climate Change Mitigation Actions.

BACKGROUND: Modeling suggests that climate change mitigation actions can have substantial human health benefits that accrue quickly and locally. Documenting the benefits can help drive more ambitious and health-protective climate change mitigation actions; however, documenting the adverse health effects can help to avoid them. Estimating the health effects of mitigation (HEM) actions can help policy makers prioritize investments based not only on mitigation potential but also on expected health benefits. To date, however, the wide range of incompatible approaches taken to developing and reporting HEM estimates has limited their comparability and usefulness to policymakers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this effort was to generate guidance for modeling studies on scoping, estimating, and reporting population health effects from climate change mitigation actions. METHODS: An expert panel of HEM researchers was recruited to participate in developing guidance for conducting HEM studies. The primary literature and a synthesis of HEM studies were provided to the panel. Panel members then participated in a modified Delphi exercise to identify areas of consensus regarding HEM estimation. Finally, the panel met to review and discuss consensus findings, resolve remaining differences, and generate guidance regarding conducting HEM studies. RESULTS: The panel generated a checklist of recommendations regarding stakeholder engagement: HEM modeling, including model structure, scope and scale, demographics, time horizons, counterfactuals, health response functions, and metrics; parameterization and reporting; approaches to uncertainty and sensitivity analysis; accounting for policy uptake; and discounting. DISCUSSION: This checklist provides guidance for conducting and reporting HEM estimates to make them more comparable and useful for policymakers. Harmonization of HEM estimates has the potential to lead to advances in and improved synthesis of policy-relevant research that can inform evidence-based decision making and practice. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6745