Pro-equity Effects of Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Policies:A Case Study of Human Health Impacts of Outdoor Air Pollution in New Delhi

Garg, A (2011) "Pro-equity Effects of Ancillary Benefits of Climate Change Policies:A Case Study of Human Health Impacts of Outdoor Air Pollution in New Delhi" World Development Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 1002–1025, 2011

• Looks at human health impacts of pollution . Esp harmful for poor people so co-benefits from climate change policies have +ve equity impacts.
• Intro -  Climate change policies in reducing GHG from transport can -> reduced health impacts. Based on studies impacts are large compared to costs. This could be amplified if people already poor and have health issues. Questions such as risks for different income groups, do polluters pay?What are the costs of policies and who pays?have policies been effective in Delhi? What is the benfit distribution.
• Focus on PM10 as the most damaging pollutant. Method was using national health data to map concentration-response for various areas.
• Health risks and income inequality -  Existing data collection methods unreliable due to methods and capability of some of the poor to respond. Surveys provide data on fertility, mortality, family planning, and health, nutrition, healthcare, and disease. Sample size relatively small for some income age groups. Used the MPCE as a guage for standard of living - adding scores for housing, water, land, assets, goods and appliances. 5% urban (1.3% rural) fall in low,  (0-425rp), 23.6% urban (24% rural) mid (425-775rp) and 71% urban (69% rural) fall in high (>775). Delhi has 9 districts and 27 subdistricts. Each district is divided into low, medium and high also. The survey is based on tracking exposure of various cohorts of people. While duration of exposure for a sample size is not certain however there is a good sample size and estimation of impact.  Note - look at the various graphs and tables.
•  Although the table is inconclusive, several scientists have brought evidence of a link. The statistics seem to indicate that low and mid have higher propensity to asthma. Reporting increases with income so could be higher. Data on smoking not collected so need to be careful. Tuberculosis has a similar story.
• Extent of outdoor airpollution in Delhi -   One of the megacities that experiences serious photochemical pollution.  10,000 people per km2. 5 million veichles 3 coal fired power plants,  many brick kilns (responsible for major part of emmissions). CEntral pollution control board of india (CPCB) monitors. PM10 is taken as as prevelance criterian for morbity. There are 7 CPCB monitoring stations in Delhi 5 resi and 3 industrial.PM10 have been 2-3 times higher than considered safe for several years. No single source - rather biomass, road-dust, diesel, and unidentified each contribute 20%. Winter has highest PM - monsoon lowest as rain suspends.
• Population, income, and pollution profiles -   Hard to capture slums particularly squatters. Urban pov may be worse than captured in MPCE records as they dont capture access to water, sanitation, hygine. Therefore wide variety of health levels for urban poor based on access to infrastructure. Some results - 74% of poor exposed to annual 24 h our average PM10 levels above 150ug/m3 compared to 58% each in mid and high. Safe is 60 ug/m3. More pop in lower income exposed to very high (>180). In poorest area of North and Central Delhi with very low income 170-180 ug/m3. More children in the lower income groups are exposed.
• Income inequality and general health -  Infant mortality is a accepted proxy for health. By this measure those on low incomes have lower health in Delhi.
• Poor gain more due to improvements in ambient air quality -  They analysed health costs avoided if PM10 brought down significantly. Used Concentrated - Response (C-R) figures used for developing countries since there are no better available for India (but may be underestimation as Delhi is high in PM10).  REsult is that low income gain maximum amounts in mortality, bronchitis etc. Most accute for kids under 15. Monetary benefits of this valuing an average human life as a 10 discounted wage stream. US $1.93 per day -> $4208 per life. Should also include costs of treatment and perhaps human suffering.  From studies - higher % of poor would benefit. Also poor may be forced to work even with acute issues.  Note if PM10 were brought down to 25 ug/m3 would be between $23-101 (m).
• Ancillary benefits of GHG emission mitigation -  Several issues have -> reduction in PM10 up to 2005 - low sufler fuel, closing/moving of industry, supply of only pre-mix gasoline, phasing out of old veichles, 3 coal fired plants switch to beneficial fuel, inc natural gas, reduction in elec dist losses, intro of metro rail, replacement of traffic lights with flyovers, timer indications at major traffic lights to encourage turn-off of motors. Also has beneficial climate change - CNG lower CO2 for cars - most polices have contributed.  To calculate the CO2 and PH10 emissions they use combustion baed emission loads by multiplying total activity levels (fuel based) with technology emission factors. This shows that CO2 have rised continuously while PH10 have declined after 2000.  Drivers  are different. PM10 reduced due to govt initiatives, while CO2 the emissions intensity has improved but is worse in absolute terms. Reducing CO2 does conversly contribute to PM10 reduction.
• Who pays for air pollution mitigation -  Rich could bear higher cost. Only 38% own private transport (high and mid level income). Any trasport based tax would hit them anyway. Brick kilns are a big contributor - and they are owned by rich. More efficient kilns would reduce PM10 and CO2. Oportunities to make existing coal fire power plants more efficient, and address distribution losses. These losses are more complex as it also relates to slums and other areas where electricity not distributed.  Mostly will be borne by rich
• Conclusions -  Lower income have higher concentrations. Costs of mitigation policies would be borne by high income and the benefits of PM10 pollution accrue to the rich anyway while poor bear disproportionate % of health costs. While cleaning local air is govt's liability to citizens, incremental costs for Co2 are not climate change policies would have to be pusued for own sake in India. Paper shows that they would also have pro-equity effects through larger health benefits for poor.