Pollution and Climate ChangeALLISON LARR, COLUMBIAMATTHEW NEIDELL, COLUMBIA AND NBER

Climate change air quality child well-being

Climate change and ozone◦ Ozone = f(VOC, NOx, temperature, sunlight)◦ If unabated: higher temperatures higher ozone

Climate change mitigation and pollution (co-benefits)◦ Fossil fuels

◦ CO2 emissions◦ Criteria pollutants (PM2.5, SO2, NOx)

◦ If abated: less fossil fuels less PM2.5 and ozone◦ E.g. Clean power plan: reduce SO2 and NOx

Air pollution and well being◦ Early years: birth weight, gestational length, infant mortality◦ Later years

◦ Respiratory diseases. E.g., asthma◦ Performance in school, labor market

Outline 1. Review studies on climate and air quality

◦ Overview of AQ projections◦ Studies that project both:

◦ PM2.5 and ozone◦ BAU and mitigation

2. Review QE studies on PM2.5/ozone and well-being◦ Pollution not randomly assigned. E.g., sorting◦ QE studies limit OVB

3. Combine 1 & 2 above to project future changes in well-being◦ Fraught with heroic assumptions◦ Need evidence in light of uncertainty

4. Comment on other (developing) nations

AQ modeling: 4 steps 1. Carbon emissions: IPCC scenarios (A1, A2, B1, B2)

◦ Fossil fuel reliance◦ Economic and population growth◦ Technological progress

2. Climate change projections◦ General circulation model (GCM) of earth’s climate: temperature, precipitation, etc.◦ Results on coarse spatial resolution, ignore local conditions. E.g., 100 km2, topography

3. Downscaling◦ Modify spatial resolution: country, state, city, etc.◦ Provide local weather

4. AQ models: Community Multi-scale Air Quality (CMAQ) model◦ Simulates chemical and physical processes involved in atmospheric chemical transport◦ Combine emissions & weather local pollution

Table 1. Ozone and PM2.5 projection model scenarios

Emissions Scenario(s) Climate Models and Downscaling Air Quality ModelsProjection Period

Chen et al. 2004 IPCC A2 PCM / MM5 CMAQ / MOZART-2 2045-2054Hogrefe et al. 2004 IPCC A2 GISS GCM / SMOKE / MM5 CMAQ 2053-2057Avise et al. 2009 IPCC A2 PCM/MM5 CMAQ 2045-2054Tao et al. 2007 IPCC A1Fi and B1 PCM / MM5 SAQM 2050Nolte et al. 2008 IPCC A1B and current emissions GISS GCM / MM5 CMAQ 2045-2055Tagaris et al. 2007 IPCC A1B and current emissions GISS GCM / MM5 CMAQ 2049-2051Trail et al. 2014 RCS 4.5 GISS GCM / WRF CMAQ 2048-2052Penrod et al. 2014 IPCC A1B WRF CMAQ 2030Abbreviations: PCM - Parallel Climate Model; MM5 - Fifth-Generation Penn State/NCAR Mesoscale Model; GISS GCM - Goddard Institute of Space Studies General Circulation Model; SMOKE - Sparse Matrix Operator Kernel Emissions Model; CMAQ - Community Multi-Scale Air Quality Model; MOZART-2 - Model for OZone and Related chemical Tracers; SAQM - SJVAQS-AUSPEX RegionalModeling Adaptation Project Air Quality Model

How does AQ affect children? Health effects

◦ Ozone: lung irritant shortness of breath, lung inflammation, asthma exacerbation◦ PM2.5: travels though lungs into bloodstream

◦ Respiratory effects◦ Cardiovascular effects (heart attacks, blood pressure, etc.)

Human capital effects◦ Indirectly via health effects◦ Direct effects: PM2.5 travels up olfactory nerves to brain◦ Latent effects via epigenetic changes (FOH)

Quasi-experimental approach Major concern: sorting

◦ AQ higher in more productive areas (e.g., cities) wealthier families live in dirtier areas◦ AQ capitalized into housing prices wealthier families live in cleaner areas

Two approaches◦ Policy event

◦ 1980-82 recession◦ CAAA as an instrument◦ Military relocation

◦ Area fixed effects◦ People sort on average pollution◦ SR variation within area exogenous

Focus on QE ozone and PM (TSP, PM10, PM2.5) studies

Author Outcome Pollutant Design MagnitudeContemporaneous exposure & infant healthChay and Greenstone (2003a) infant mortality TSP recession 1 unit TSPs --> 4-7 more infant deaths per 100,000 birthsChay and Greenstone (2003b) infant mortality TSP CAAA 1 unit TSPs --> 5-8 more infant deaths per 100,000 birthsSanders & Stoecker (2011) sex ratio TSP CAAA 35 unit TSPs --> male births increase by 3.1 percentage pointsJanke et al. (2009) <15 mortality PM10 fixed effects 10 unit PM10 --> 4 fewer deaths per 100,000 childrenKnittel et al. (2011) infant mortality PM10 fixed effects 1 unit PM10 --> 18 fewer infant deaths per 100,000 live birthsArceo-Gomez et al. (2012) infant mortality PM10 fixed effects 1 unit PM10 --> 0.24 more infant deaths per 100,000 birthsContemporaneous exposure & child healthLleras-Muney (2010) hospitalizations ozone relocation .008 ppm ozone --> respiratory hospitalization decrease by 8-23 percentNeidell (2009) hospitalizations ozone fixed effects 0.01 ppm ozone --> hospital admissions increase by 1.09%, 2.88% with alertsBeatty and Shimshack (2014) hospitalizations ozone fixed effects .0024 ppm ozone --> respiratory treatment increase by 2.5–3.3 percentContemporaneous exposure & human capitalZweig et al. (2009) test scores PM2.5 fixed effects 10% PM2.5 --> increased math by 0.34% and reading by 0.21%Lavy et al. (2012) test scores PM2.5 fixed effects 10 unit PM2.5 --> reduces test scores by .46 points (1.9% of SD)Early exposure & later human capital, productivitySanders (2012) test scores TSP recession 1 SD TSPs --> high school test scores decrease by 6% of SDIsen et al. (2013) earnings TSP CAAA 10 unit TSPs --> reduce earnings by 1%

Projections Focus on Tagaris et al. (2007)

◦ Baseline (2001), BAU (2050), and mitigation (2050)◦ Same model for PM2.5 and ozone◦ Regional projections◦ Smaller unabated ozone projections than others: 1 vs. 5 ppb

Projections for:◦ PM2.5 and infant mortality◦ PM2.5 and adult earnings◦ Ozone and hospitalizations

Table 2. Ozone and PM2.5 Projections by Region

West Plains MidwestM8hO3 PM2.5 M8hO3 PM2.5 M8hO3 PM2.5

year (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppb) (μg/m3)2001 49.75 4.05 48.25 6.925 45.25 11.7252050 46.25 3.65 44.25 5.425 40.5 9.0252050 BAU 49.75 4.15 49 6.875 45.25 12.2

Northeast Southeast USM8hO3 PM2.5 M8hO3 PM2.5 M8hO3 PM2.5

year (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppb) (μg/m3) (ppb) (μg/m3)2001 46.25 9 54 12.3 48.75 82050 41.75 6.425 46.25 8.425 44.25 6.1252050 BAU 46 9.625 55.5 11.975 49.25 8.1Notes: M8hO3 is the annual average of the daily 8-hour maximum ozone. PM2.5 is the annual average of the daily PM2.5.

Infant mortality and PM2.5 projections 1. Number of births by region: NVSS (2012), assume constant

2. δIM/δPM from:◦ Chay and Greenstone: 5.5 per 100k◦ Knittel et al.: 18 per 100k

3. Conversion to PM2.5◦ TSP to PM2.5: 0.16 CG 34 per 100k◦ PM10 to PM2.5: 0.54 KMS 33 per 100k

4. δPM2.5/δCC from Tagaris et al.

5. Impact = 1 X 2 X 3 X 4

Table 3A. Infant mortality and contemporaneous PM2.5

Births Infant death

No mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. no

mitigation

No mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. no

mitigationWest 832,065 5,076 28 -113 -141 0.56% -2.23% -2.79%Plains 635,916 3,879 -11 -324 -314 -0.28% -8.36% -8.08%Midwest 820,761 5,007 133 -753 -886 2.65% -15.05% -17.70%Northeast 835,041 5,094 177 -731 -909 3.48% -14.35% -17.84%Southeast 798,891 4,873 -88 -1,053 -964 -1.81% -21.60% -19.79%All 3,922,674 23,928 133 -2,501 -2,634 0.56% -10.45% -11.01%

Adult earnings and PM2.5 projections 1. Per capita income by region (BEA REIS)

2. δearnings/δPM: 1.1% for 10 unit TSP (Isen et al.)

3. TSP to PM2.5: 0.68% for 1 unit PM2.5

4. δPM2.5/δCC from Tagaris et al.

5. Impact = 1 X 2 X 3 X 4

Table 3B. Adult earnings and early childhood exposure to PM2.5

Per capita income

No mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. no

mitigation

No mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. 2001

Mitigation vs. no

mitigationWest $44,589 -$30 $121 $151 -0.1% 0.3% 0.3%Plains $43,680 $15 $443 $429 0.0% 1.0% 1.0%Midwest $41,548 -$134 $759 $893 -0.3% 1.8% 2.1%Northeast $52,417 -$222 $913 $1,135 -0.4% 1.7% 2.2%Southeast $38,550 $85 $1,011 $926 0.2% 2.6% 2.4%All $44,455 -$30 $564 $594 -0.1% 1.3% 1.3%

Hospitalizations and ozone projections

1. δhosp/δozone from:◦ Lleras-Muney

◦ 1 SD increase 8-23% decrease; 15.8% preferred◦ 1 SD = .008 ppm◦ 1 ppb ozone 1.97% change in hosp.

◦ Beatty & Shimshack◦ 10% ozone increase 2.5-3.3% increase in hospitalizations; choose lowest◦ 10% = 2.43 ppb◦ 1 ppb ozone 1.03% change in hosp.

2. δozone/δCC from Tagaris et al.

3. Impact = 1 X 2

(No good baseline of hospitalizations by region)

Table 3C. Respiratory hospitalizations and contemporaneous ozone

BS LM BS LM BS LMWest 0.0% 0.0% -3.6% -6.9% -3.6% -6.9%Plains 0.8% 1.5% -4.1% -7.9% -4.9% -9.4%Midwest 0.0% 0.0% -4.9% -9.4% -4.9% -9.4%Northeast -0.3% -0.5% -4.6% -8.9% -4.4% -8.4%Southeast 1.5% 3.0% -8.0% -15.3% -9.5% -18.2%All 0.5% 1.0% -4.6% -8.9% -5.1% -9.9%

Mitigation vs. 2001No mitigation vs. 2001Mitigation vs. no

mitigation

Other countries Comparable wealth to US: comparable effects

LMIC could be different◦ More rapid development, higher levels of pollution

◦ Past US pollution like current pollution

Figure 1. Trends in Air Pollution for US, China, and Mexico

China

Pittsburgh

Mexico

Other countries Comparable wealth to US: comparable effects

LMIC could be different◦ More rapid development, higher levels of pollution

◦ Past US pollution like current pollution◦ Arceo-Gomez et al: dose-response comparable (Mexico vs. US)◦ Non-linear relationship (log(y)): larger effects

◦ Often equatorial larger temperature increases◦ If unabated, ozone increases likely bigger

◦ Less likely to mitigate. E.g., Kyoto◦ No co-benefits

Suggest pollution via CC will have larger effects in LMIC countries

Conclusion Unabated climate change minimal effects on child well-being (relative to baseline)

Mitigating climate change large “co-benefits” (relative to BAU and baseline)◦ Reduced infant mortality◦ Reduced respiratory illnesses◦ Improved test scores◦ Increased earnings

Many unknowns involved in projections◦ Suggest immediate benefits from mitigation policies

◦ Not for geoengineering (CCS, solar radiation management)◦ Useful starting point