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 K. Dubash, Yang Liu, Bhargav Krishna, Marc Fleurbaey, Pengfei Wang, Shaouhui Zhang, Gregor Keisewetter, Steven J. Smith, Francis Dennig, Wei Peng, Mark Budolfson
The Lancet Global Health, Vol. 14, Issue 4, pp. e512–e523 (2026)
10.1016/s2214-109x(26)00006-9
PMID: 41856137
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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. FUNDING: United States National Science Foundation.
Topics
Field: Environmental Science · Subfield: Pollution
Keywords
Air quality index,Environmental justice,Global health,Air pollution,Climate change,Global climate,Public health,Economic Justice
MeSH Terms
UN Sustainable Development Goals
- Climate action (0.61)
All Available Versions
- Landing page — The Lancet Global Health publishedVersion
- Landing page — PubMed publishedVersion
- PDF Landing page — IIASA PURE (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis) submittedVersion
- Landing page — DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) submittedVersion cc-by-sa
Citations by Year
| 2026 |
|---|
| 3 |
Continue on JournalsHub
Put what you just read into practice with these free tools.