Large-Scale Carbon Removal Will Create Public Health, Economic, and Climate Trade-Offs
大規模な二酸化炭素除去は、公衆衛生、経済、気候のトレードオフを生み出す (AI 翻訳)
Parisa Javadi, Patrick O’Rourke, Jay Fuhrman, Daniel H. Loughlin, Scott C. Doney, William Shobe, João Ferreira, Andrés F. Clarens
🤖 gxceed AI 要約
日本語
本論文は、米国を対象に6つの二酸化炭素除去（CDR）ポートフォリオの地域的な大気質と公衆衛生への影響を定量分析した。高CDRと低CDRの両方で気候被害回避額は同程度だが、公衆衛生便益は低CDRの方が大きく、CDR技術への過度な依存は公衆衛生と経済のトレードオフを生むことを示している。
English
This paper systematically quantifies the regional air quality and public health implications of six carbon dioxide removal (CDR) portfolios for the U.S. It finds that while both high- and low-CDR deployment avoid similar climate damages, the low-CDR pathway offers larger public health benefits but higher upfront costs. Heavy reliance on CDR creates trade-offs between climate goals, public health, and economic costs.
Unofficial AI-generated summary based on the public title and abstract. Not an official translation.
📝 gxceed 編集解説 — Why this matters
日本のGX文脈において
日本でもCDRの導入が議論されているが、本論文は公衆衛生便益を考慮した総合評価の重要性を示す。日本のエネルギー政策におけるCDRの位置づけと、大気質改善効果を考慮したコスト便益分析に示唆を与える。
In the global GX context
This paper provides a comprehensive framework for evaluating CDR trade-offs, relevant to global climate policy discussions on net-zero pathways. It highlights that CDR deployment decisions must account for public health co-benefits, which are often overlooked in cost-effectiveness analyses.
👥 読者別の含意
🔬研究者:Quantifies trade-offs between CDR and health/economic outcomes; useful for integrated assessment modeling.
🏢実務担当者:Highlights that CDR-heavy strategies may reduce air quality benefits; relevant for corporate decarbonization planning and health impact assessments.
🏛政策担当者:Provides evidence that CDR deployment decisions have significant public health and economic implications beyond climate; informs national climate policy design.
📄 Abstract（原文）
Economy-wide efforts to achieve net-zero emissions offer climate and air quality-related public health benefits from reducing fossil fuel combustion. However, carbon dioxide removal (CDR) may be necessary to meet emissions targets cost-effectively, and relying on CDR would forego some air-quality benefits. Here, we systematically quantify the regional air quality and public health implications of six CDR portfolios for the U.S. using a coupled modeling approach and compare those to a no U.S. climate action scenario. While both high- and low-CDR deployment avoid about $2.5-5.8 trillion USD2020 (or 0.4-0.8% of cumulative GDP (CGDP)) in climate damages, the high-CDR pathway costs $11-13 trillion USD2020 (or 1.8-1.9% of CGDP) by 2050, whereas the low-CDR pathway costs $16-20 trillion USD2020 (or 2.6-2.9% of CGDP) due to deeper near-term fossil fuel reductions. Public health benefits reach $2.8-6.5 trillion USD2020 (or 0.5-0.9% of CGDP) under high-CDR and are $3.5-8 trillion USD2020 (0.6-1.2% of CGDP) under low-CDR, reflecting greater reductions in particulate matter and ozone exposure and preventing approximately 12,600 additional premature deaths by mid-century. However, heavy reliance on CDR technologies could generate $5-6 trillion USD2020 (∼0.8-0.9% of CGDP) in CDR revenues by 2050, exemplifying the trade-offs between public health, economy, and climate.
🔗 Provenance — このレコードを発見したソース
- openalex https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5c17950first seen 2026-06-10 05:04:40
🔔 こうした論文の新着を逃したくない方は キーワードアラート に登録（無料・3キーワードまで）。
gxceed は公開メタデータに基づく研究支援データセットです。要約・翻訳・解説は AI 支援で生成されています。 最終的な解釈・検証は利用者が原典資料に基づいて行うことを前提とします。