3. Results

The results of the analysis are in this chapter given for the mid-estimate values of the components of the analysis. The results from high- and low estimates are presented in Appendix II. We first present the climate damage costs over time of Nordic SLCF emissions. We then present how these climate damage costs compare to more established health and environmental costs of the same emissions. After this we present a comparison of how the total climate, health, and environmental damage costs in the CIAM & TFIAM (2024) BSL scenario compared to the CO₂ climate damage costs as presented in the nationally projected With Existing Measures (WEM) scenarios. Finally, we show results from the calculations of the monetary value of the climate, health and environmental benefits in the Nordic countries of reducing emissions from a Baseline (BSL) emission level into an Maximum Technical Feasible Reduction (MTFR) emission level, i.e. when all known emission control technologies are fully implemented.

As can be guessed from the climate damage costs per tonne pollutant presented above, the total climate damage costs of Nordic SLCFs will increase for future years, despite projected emission reductions in the BSL scenario (Figure 6). Of course, climate damage costs of SLCF emissions with a negative warming impact will be reduced over time. In Figure 6 we show for each Nordic country the climate damage cost associated with the national total emissions for each SLCF considered in this report. Some curves are below zero, which indicates that they have a ‘cooling’ climate impact. The dotted lines show the net total effect when adding the positive and negative trends.

Figure 6 SLCF climate damage costs from BSL emissions for the Nordic countries. Split per SLCP and summarized as Total. All values in million €₂₀₂₀ per year for the mid values of damage costs and climate impact and with a 2% start year discount rate.

There is a relatively large variation between the Nordic countries. For Iceland, the climate damage costs of BSL emissions are overall negative mostly due to large SO₂ emissions, but for both Denmark and Finland, the climate damage costs will correspond to some 800 million €₂₀₂₀ per year in 2050.

In addition to the climate damage costs of SLCF emissions, there are the well- established health and environmental damage costs. As can be expected, in the BSL scenario, the health and environmental damage costs are larger than the climate damage costs (Figure 7). The figure shows the total climate, health and environmental damage costs associated with the BSL emission scenario for SCLF emissions. Note that the climate damage costs have been aggregated together into one block (corresponds to the dotted curve in Figure 6). Note that the climate damage costs are increasing over time at a rate faster than the emission reductions. This is because of the increasing damages of each additional tonne CO₂ emitted in a warmer world and because of richer populations in the future.

Figure 7: SLCF climate damage costs and health damage costs from BSL emissions for the Nordic countries 2015–2050 as in the BSL-scenario. Split per effects on climate change and on human health and the environment. All values in million €₂₀₂₀ per year for the mid values of damage costs and climate impact and with a 2% start year discount rate. Health values are based on the economic value of a life year lost (VOLY).

For the Nordic countries except for Iceland, by 2050, the climate damage costs of SLCF emissions will constitute around 15-20% of the total SLCF damage costs in the BSL scenario. Interestingly enough, the total damage costs from SLCF emissions remains relatively stable for the Nordic countries, with Finland as an exemption.

When comparing the scenario-specific Nordic climate, health, and environmental damage costs of SLCF emissions in the BSL scenario, with the CO₂ damage costs in the WEM scenario, the relative importance of SLCF damage costs will increase over time. This change in relative importance is much due to the assumed successful CO₂ emission reduction in the WEM scenario (Figure 8). The figure sums together all SLCF damage costs presented in Figure 7, and adds also the CO₂ damage costs based on nationally reported WEM emission scenarios.

Figure 8: Socio-economic damage costs from SLCF emissions as in the BSL scenario and CO₂ emissions as in the nationally reported WEM scenario. All values in million €₂₀₂₀ per year for the mid values of damage costs and climate impact and with a 2% start year discount rate. Health values are based on the economic value of a life year lost (VOLY). The Norwegian and Total Nordic values are for the time period 2015–2035 due to the limit to the Norwegian WEM scenario.

As can be seen, most countries expect CO₂ emissions that are so large that the total climate damage costs are expected to decrease in the future. This decrease leads to the interesting result that damage costs of SLCFs will become as high as for CO₂ in the future. Again, the major exception to the rule is Iceland. For Iceland, the relatively high SO₂ emissions change the relationship between SLCF and CO₂ damage costs compared to the other Nordic countries. In addition, as can be expected, Denmark with high relatively high population density and proximity to continental Europe will have relatively high SLCF damage costs. On average for the Nordic countries, the SLCF damage costs are more than 40% of the total SLCF and CO₂ damage costs in 2050.

Of additional policy interest is the monetary value of emission reductions associated with the Nordic countries reducing emissions from a BSL scenario emission level down to an MTFR scenario emission level. Figure 9 presents the difference in emissions between the BSL and MTFR scenario and the corresponding changes in damage costs, split per climate damage and damage to health and the environment. As can be seen in the country-specific charts in Figure 9, the majority of the monetary benefits of emission reductions are due to health and environmental benefits. Again, the deviation is Iceland. Another interesting observation is that the Swedish SLCF emission reductions when going from BSL to MTFR is relatively climate neutral, which is basically what was proposed by Hansson et al. (2023). The results per sector are varying between countries. Agricultural emission reductions provide highest benefits for Denmark and Sweden, whilst emission reductions from stationary sources provides highest benefits for Finland and Norway. Results per sector are presented in Appendix III.

Figure 9 Monetary benefit per Nordic country from the emission reductions in the MTFR scenario compared to the BSL scenario. Split per effects on climate change and on human health and the environment. All values in million €₂₀₂₀ per year for the mid values of damage costs and climate impact and with a 2% start year discount rate. Health values are based on the economic value of a life year lost (VOLY).