30-40 kg of lpg is assumed to be used per person per year, costing.3 per kilo. Benefit-cost ratios four cases are considered. Cases 1 and 2 are where Interim Targets 1 and 2 are met; case 3 is for meeting the final Target. Case 4 is for comparison with case 2, to demonstrate the effect of community pollution. Global benefits The global benefits of reaching the initial targets for icss and lpg are 120-270 billion per year, depending on the valuation method used. . The global cost of ics is estimated at nearly 20 billion, with an annualized cost of 5 billion. . The global cost of lpg stoves is also estimated at about 20 billion. .
Atmospheric Pollution Research - journal - elsevier
Monetized values of health effects Two alternative measures are used. The first uses the value of a statistical life (vsl equivalent to 50 times gdp per capita, and the second uses a uniform value of 1,000 or 5,000 per life year. Morbidity is states valued either as 50 of daily wages or using the uniform values for a year of life. The global cost of household solid fuel use in 2012 is estimated at 646 billion, applying vsl for mortality and a fraction of wage rates for morbidity. Using the uniform values for life-years, the cost is 111-555 billion. Non-health benefits Non-health benefits of interventions included in this paper are fuel and cooking time savings. . fuel savings are valued as the time that households spend on fuel collection, and time is valued at 50 of wage rates. Costs of pollution control options Improved biomass and coal stoves vary widely in price. A writing price of 30 is applied to most regions where heating is uncommon. In Latin America and the caribbean, where requirements are different, the cost is taken as 60, and in China a price of 115 is applied, taking account also of heating requirements. The price of an lpg stove is assumed to be 60 in all regions.
Achievement of the final target is expected to reduce pm2.5 exposure to less than 25µg/m3. For the purposes of this analysis, we can define a range of exposure levels as below: level 1 biomass largely used on open fire or in unimproved stove; 250µg/m3 level 2 Chimney stove or other year improved biomass or coal stove with community pollution; 100µg/m3. The three targets selected for assessment of benefits and costs correspond to exposure levels 2, 4 and. Health effects Because the response to reduced exposure is highly non-linear, only one-third of the health benefit is realized by a reduction from 250 to 100µg/m3, with two-thirds coming from the further reduction to 25µg/m3. Even at this level, one-third of the baseline effects of household air pollution remain. An estimated.5 million people died and.7 billion disease days occurred globally in 2012 from household air pollution. . Almost 900,000 deaths and.8 billion disease days could be avoided annually if all households used an improved biomass or coal stove (exposure level 2; 100µg/m3 of PM2.5). . If all households used lpg or other clean fuels, over.3 million deaths and.8 million disease days could be avoided annually (exposure level 5; 25µg/m3 of PM2.5).
A reasonable target for most high income countries in the Americas, europe and Asia/Pacific would be the annual aqg of 10µg/m3. . The interim target of 15-25µg/m3 may be the initial aim for Latin America and the caribbean and much of Eastern Europe. . The interim target of 25-35 µg/m3 may initially be more realistic for many of the low and middle income countries in Western Africa and Asia. Targets for household air pollution The most attractive targets for household air pollution centre on stoves and cooking fuels and these will be assessed in more detail in this paper. To achieve the maximum benefits per dollar spent on household energy and stove interventions, all households would need to participate, and thus achieve a solid fuel use free community or, alternatively, an unimproved stove free community. Benefits and costs of household air pollution control Targets The first and second interim targets (IT-1 and it-2 are for a 50 adoption rate of improved cooking stoves and lpg stoves respectively among households currently using biomass or coal. These interim targets can be pursued concurrently. There is also a longer-term final target (FT) of 100 adoption of lpg or other clean cooking (and heating) options. The interim targets are expected to reduce personal PM2.5 exposure from an average of 250µg/m3 to 100µg/m3 with adoption of improved stoves and to 50µg/m3 with adoption of lpg stoves. .
Environmental Pollution selected Papers from Urban
However, focusing on locations where reductions can be essay achieved at a lower cost may result in a socially unacceptable degree of inequity. Such targets are also difficult to monitor, and progress is therefore difficult to verify and subject to disagreements over evidence base and methodologies. Targets of this sort for aap are easier to monitor and verify if good monitoring equipment is available, although this is currently not the case for the majority of cities in low and middle income countries. Air quality targets may also be economically inefficient if they are nationally or regionally uniform. Monitoring of improvements in households on any scale is costly and impractical. Reductions in sources of pollution The advantage of targeting sources of pollution is the relative ease with which many sources can be monitored and costs of achieving the targets be estimated.
However, for aap the exposure and therefore health effects vary greatly between types of pollution source and location. Such targets are much more practical for households, where types of fuel and stoves can be easily monitored. Zero targets Zero targets are targets that would eliminate outdoor and indoor air pollution (PM2.5 or at least bringing anthropogenic PM2.5 concentrations outdoors and indoors below the level known to cause health effects (about.8µg/m3). . In summary practice, this is impossible to achieve everywhere because not all sources are anthropogenic (desert dust, for example). Achieving such a target where possible would mean the complete elimination of solid fuels in the home and other external sources of pollution. Currently, only a small number of locations, mainly in small, pristine areas of Australia, canada, new zealand and the United States meet the.8µg/m3 standard. Selected targets Targets for ambient air pollution As discussed above, air quality targets for aap are easier to measure and verify and these will be assessed in more detail in this paper.
The predominant source of hap, in terms of global health effects, is the use of solid fuels by households for cooking and other purposes. . About 41 of the worlds population.8 billion - used mainly solid fuels for cooking in 2010. As a proportion of the global population, this has declined, but the absolute number has increased slightly, to nearly.9 billion today, mostly in China, india and other southern Asian countries, sub-Saharan Africa and south East Asia. Globally, about 15 of the urban population uses solid fuels while 67 of the rural population does. Wood is the most widely used fuel for cooking, straw and dung are widely used in a few countries and use of coal is quite widespread in China and Mongolia for both cooking and heating.
Concentrations of PM2.5 in homes burning wood, dung or straw are often several hundred micrograms per cubic metre; coal gives lower levels of particulates, but these tend to be more carcinogenic. Use of improved biomass stoves with a chimney or a hood reduces particulate levels from several hundred to 75-125µg/m3, but the health benefit is only perhaps 20-30 because of the highly non-linear exposure-response relationship. Also, vented smoke from improved stoves contributes to outdoor air pollution in the community. For a community-wide improvement, the use of modern energy sources such as lpg is needed. The reduction in health effects for individual households may be of the order of 40-50, but this can rise to over 65 if all households if the entire community stops using solid fuels. Targets, domains of targets, reductions in health effects, the advantage of targeting a reduction in health effects of air pollution at regional or national levels is the flexibility this provides in how to achieve the targets.
Paper manufacturing and air pollution
The exposure-response relationships in reviews the ier model are highly non-linear with declining marginal relative risks of health outcomes at higher PM2.5 exposure levels. Ambient air pollution exposure, nearly 90 of the worlds population lived in areas with ambient outdoor PM2.5 concentrations exceeding whos Air quality guideline of 10µg/m3 (annual average) in 2005; for many people, exposure is much higher. The highest average concentrations (weighted by population) were in a belt extending from western sub-Saharan Africa through the middle east, south and East Asia and high income Asia pacific countries. In south Asia, 99 of the population was exposed to pm2.5 at average concentrations above10µg/m3, while the figure in Western Europe. Nearly one third of the global population was exposed to fine particulates at a concentration above 35µg/m3, the whos level 1 Interim Target. Most of the locations where this level was exceeded were in Asia. Household air pollution exposure.
Benefit for every dollar Spent 50 of those using unimproved cookstoves switch to improved cookstoves of those using unimproved cookstoves switch to lpg cookstoves of those using unimproved cookstoves switch to lpg cookstoves, outdoor particulate matter.5 does not exceed 35 µg/m3 50.3. The last two decades have seen a large body of evidence of substantial health effects for long term exposure to air pollution especially fine particulate matter be it in writer the form of outdoor ambient air pollution (AAP) or household air pollution (HAP) from the use. There are compelling arguments that air pollution should feature in a new set of post-2015 development goals. Global health effects and exposure to air pollution. Health effects, nearly 6 million deaths were attributed to aap and hap in 2010. . This is more than from alcohol and drugs, about the same as from active and passive tobacco smoking and four times more than from child and maternal under-nutrition. Of 67 risk factors assessed, it is only surpassed by total dietary risk factors and high blood pressure, of which the latter is influenced by air pollution, tobacco smoking and diet. . In 2012, who updated the estimate to 7 million deaths, with aap associated with.7 million and hap from solid fuel use associated with.3 million. An integrated PM2.5 exposure-response model (IER) was developed to estimate overall health effects.
does not properly cover the heterogeneity; for example, most solid fuel users have low incomes and hence low vsls. The implications of preferences for behavior are often ignored by deterministic analyses. For example in India even among relatively wealthy rural households who own alternative stoves (mostly lpg traditional stove use remains ubiquitous for cooking tasks such as making bread or simmering. On the other hand, some factors such as the broader environmental benefits of cleaner stoves are also left out of the assessment papers analysis. In spite of the clear negative implications of household use of solid fuels, it has proven difficult for many to make the switch to cleaner technologies. A successful approach must allow for tailoring of policies and interventions to local realities, must engage local institutions, and must acknowledge the fact that traditional technologies generate a large set of benefits for users that are systematically mischaracterized or ignored). Summary of Targets from the paper. Target, cost.
Existing work supports the idea that there is something households and individuals like about traditional stoves. The study also owl ignores the fact that strikingly few households who obtain a cleaner biomass stove end up using it exclusively. In fact, surprisingly little is known at this time about how to induce the behavior change that effectively delivers long-term benefits. As such, setting technology-based targets creates a risk that policies designed to reach them will repeat the hard failures of related domains (e.g., water and sanitation, and malaria prevention which generally failed to incentivize the pursuit of locally-responsive and desired solutions. Making prescriptive recommendations about the specific stoves that people should or should not own will likely result in dissemination of large numbers of stoves that households do not want or use. Behavior may also change and reduce the cost-effectiveness of interventions. In the case of clean stove promotion, one example of this type of behavioral feedback would be if household members increase the amount of time spent and cooking done indoors, thereby offsetting anticipated reductions in harmful exposures. The author is deeply skeptical of the meaning and usefulness of the deterministic benefit-cost calculations used to justify promotion of cleaner stoves.
New Speech Topics Short Essay writing Topic for High
The assessment paper provides an accessible entry into a problem of major global importance for both health and environmental sustainability. As discussed in Larsens paper, there are a number of important challenges with setting targets related to hap. Unfortunately, technology-based targets do not properly address these issues because they may have undesirable side effects, and because air quality and the costs and benefits of specific changes vary considerably across households and locations. Thus, it is puzzling that this important variation does not figure in the subsequent benefit-cost analysis of clean cooking interventions, which instead looks like an analysis based on hypothetical air quality (not technology-based) targets. The most striking omission is a significant discussion of the role and implications of behavior. In practice, individual decisions to invest in preventive health or environmental improvements usually involve a rational tradeoff with consumption of other goods and leisure. But people for often make decisions which would seem to endanger their well-being, sometimes because they misunderstand the risks they face. Also, because of the non-linear response to air pollution, a relatively large investment may not be enough to deliver substantial health benefits.