Global climate justice and the future of air quality co-benefits in low-income and middle-income countries: an energy, climate, and health modelling study

Noah Scovronick, Jinyu Shiwang, Maddalena Ferranna, Fabian Wagner, Frank Errickson, Dan Tong, Xizhe Yan, Navroz Dubash, Yang Liu (), Bhargav Krishna, Marc Fleurbaey (), Pengfei Wang, Shaouhui Zhang, Gregor Keisewetter, Steven Smith, Francis Dennig, Wei Peng and Mark Budolfson
Additional contact information
Noah Scovronick: Emory University [Atlanta, GA]
Jinyu Shiwang: Princeton University, Pennsylania State University
Maddalena Ferranna: USC - University of Southern California
Fabian Wagner: IIASA - International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis [Laxenburg]
Frank Errickson: Princeton University
Dan Tong: THU - Qing hua da xue = Tsinghua University = Université Tsinghoua [Beijing]
Xizhe Yan: THU - Qing hua da xue = Tsinghua University = Université Tsinghoua [Beijing]
Navroz Dubash: Princeton University
Yang Liu: Emory University [Atlanta, GA]
Bhargav Krishna: Sustainable Futures Collaborative
Marc Fleurbaey: PSE - Paris School of Economics - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris, PJSE - Paris Jourdan Sciences Economiques - UP1 - Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne - ENS-PSL - École normale supérieure - Paris - PSL - Université Paris Sciences et Lettres - EHESS - École des hautes études en sciences sociales - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - INRAE - Institut National de Recherche pour l’Agriculture, l’Alimentation et l’Environnement - ENPC - École nationale des ponts et chaussées - IP Paris - Institut Polytechnique de Paris
Pengfei Wang: Princeton University
Shaouhui Zhang: IIASA - International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis [Laxenburg]
Gregor Keisewetter: IIASA - International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis [Laxenburg]
Steven Smith: UMD - University of Maryland [College Park] - University System of Maryland
Francis Dennig: UN Development Programme
Wei Peng: Princeton University
Mark Budolfson: University of Texas at Austin [Austin]

PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) from HAL

Abstract: Background Despite the need to limit climate change and transition to low-carbon energy, there is disagreement about how to share the burden of reducing CO2 emissions. We assess different approaches to global mitigation, accounting for three key factors: avoided climate harms, health (co)benefits from improved air quality, and the economic cost of CO2 policies. We then rank the approaches according to different preferences for inter-generational and intra-generational equity. Methods We compare a reference scenario to three scenarios that limit warming to 2°C: one through least cost, one that shifts mitigation burden towards higher-income countries (referred to as the international equity scenario), and a third that is identical to international equity, but within which low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) also adopt air quality policies to reduce air pollution to the levels that occur in least-cost. Emissions and policy costs are modelled with Global Change Analysis Model, air quality with GEOS-Chem, health impacts with the Global Exposure Mortality Model, and climate benefits with Greenhouse Gas Impact Value Estimator. Findings Climate action to limit global warming to 2°C results in more than 13·5 million avoided premature deaths from air pollution between 2020 and 2050, mostly in middle-income countries. Opting for the least-cost scenario rather than international equity reduces the mitigation burden for LMICs but also reduces their health co-benefits by several million deaths, highlighting a trade-off between mitigation effort (an important component of climate justice) and the urgent need to reduce environmental health burdens in LMICs. The extent to which equity is prioritised determines what to do about that trade-off; as more priority is given to lower-income countries, the international equity scenario is preferred. The most favourable scenario is the combined international equity and air quality scenario, whereby higher-income countries pay more climate mitigation costs, and LMICs use the cost savings to implement conventional air quality controls that offset foregone health co-benefits. Interpretation Justice-centred climate mitigation strategies must ensure that LMICs do not miss an opportunity to realise transformative reductions in air pollution.

Date: 2026-04
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Published in The Lancet global health, 2026, 14 (4), ⟨10.1016/S2214-109X(26)00006-9⟩

There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:pseptp:halshs-05840388

DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(26)00006-9

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in PSE-Ecole d'économie de Paris (Postprint) from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Caroline Bauer ().