Economics
105
1 0 5
consequences for health, including everything from general quality of life, to
illness and time lost from work, to effects on mortality.
The most significant benefits from improving air quality can usually be
enjoyed in urban communities. This has to do with two factors: Cities tend
to have the highest rates of poor air quality (due to the amount of pollution
being emitted) and cities have the largest populations in a compact area (high
population density). Thus, the transition to combustion- free processes, both
to generate electricity and for transportation, has huge potential to improve
life in large cities. The progress in reducing the costs of electricity from wind
and solar energy, along with the reductions in battery costs, are contributing
to a reduction in the costs of improving air quality. In summary, this again is
a moving target in terms of economic analysis. Nevertheless, it is clear that
the social value of living in an air environment that meets all of the regulatory standards is very great.
If all large cities met the air quality guidelines of the World Health
Organization (WHO), the annual social cost of air pollution would decrease
by more than $2 trillion because many large cities have air quality with contaminant concentrations that far exceed the values recommended by the
WHO (WHO, 2018). The analysis of costs and benefits associated with the US
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments shows that the estimated benefits are of the
order of $1.9 trillion per year, and the costs are of the order of $65 billion per
year in 2020 (US EPA, 2011). To put those numbers in context relative to each
other, the annual benefits are roughly 30 times greater than the annual costs.
Among the largest costs in the above figure are those associated with fuels
and pollution control devices for on- road vehicles (about $28 billion). Costs
such as these will decrease as EVs become more common.
Efforts to improve air quality have been a high priority in California for
more than 50 years. The recent emphasis on the electrification of transportation has helped, along with many other steps, to improve air quality. In
Southern California, the ozone concentration has decreased over time
from concentrations greater than 300 ppb to values that are less than half
of that (Parrish et al., 2016). The particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations
have been decreasing by about 6.2% per year. The latest data show that air
quality in the Los Angeles metro area still does not meet air quality standards
on many occasions (albeit on fewer occasions than in the past). On more
than 100 days per year, the ozone concentration exceeds the recommended
value (ALA, 2018). Progress has been better in terms of compliance with the
regulations for PM2.5. Even as only a partial success, though, the significant
health benefits of improving air quality have far exceeded the costs in Los
Angeles (Parrish et al., 2016).
In Los Angeles, as with elsewhere, there is a continuing need to reduce
emissions, and efforts to do this are moving forward. This is not just a part of
the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change,
but also because the benefits of improved air quality on people’s quality of
105
1 0 5
consequences for health, including everything from general quality of life, to
illness and time lost from work, to effects on mortality.
The most significant benefits from improving air quality can usually be
enjoyed in urban communities. This has to do with two factors: Cities tend
to have the highest rates of poor air quality (due to the amount of pollution
being emitted) and cities have the largest populations in a compact area (high
population density). Thus, the transition to combustion- free processes, both
to generate electricity and for transportation, has huge potential to improve
life in large cities. The progress in reducing the costs of electricity from wind
and solar energy, along with the reductions in battery costs, are contributing
to a reduction in the costs of improving air quality. In summary, this again is
a moving target in terms of economic analysis. Nevertheless, it is clear that
the social value of living in an air environment that meets all of the regulatory standards is very great.
If all large cities met the air quality guidelines of the World Health
Organization (WHO), the annual social cost of air pollution would decrease
by more than $2 trillion because many large cities have air quality with contaminant concentrations that far exceed the values recommended by the
WHO (WHO, 2018). The analysis of costs and benefits associated with the US
1990 Clean Air Act Amendments shows that the estimated benefits are of the
order of $1.9 trillion per year, and the costs are of the order of $65 billion per
year in 2020 (US EPA, 2011). To put those numbers in context relative to each
other, the annual benefits are roughly 30 times greater than the annual costs.
Among the largest costs in the above figure are those associated with fuels
and pollution control devices for on- road vehicles (about $28 billion). Costs
such as these will decrease as EVs become more common.
Efforts to improve air quality have been a high priority in California for
more than 50 years. The recent emphasis on the electrification of transportation has helped, along with many other steps, to improve air quality. In
Southern California, the ozone concentration has decreased over time
from concentrations greater than 300 ppb to values that are less than half
of that (Parrish et al., 2016). The particulate matter (PM2.5) concentrations
have been decreasing by about 6.2% per year. The latest data show that air
quality in the Los Angeles metro area still does not meet air quality standards
on many occasions (albeit on fewer occasions than in the past). On more
than 100 days per year, the ozone concentration exceeds the recommended
value (ALA, 2018). Progress has been better in terms of compliance with the
regulations for PM2.5. Even as only a partial success, though, the significant
health benefits of improving air quality have far exceeded the costs in Los
Angeles (Parrish et al., 2016).
In Los Angeles, as with elsewhere, there is a continuing need to reduce
emissions, and efforts to do this are moving forward. This is not just a part of
the efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change,
but also because the benefits of improved air quality on people’s quality of