Coal combustion is not only the single most important source of CO₂, accounting for more than a third of global emissions, but also a major contributor to detrimental effects on public health and biodiversity. Yet, globally phasing out coal remains one of the hardest political nuts to crack. New computer simulations by an international team of researchers are now providing robust economic arguments for why it is worth the effort: For once, their simulations show that the world cannot stay below the 2 degrees limit if we continue to burn coal. Second, the benefits of phasing out coal clearly outweigh the costs. Third, those benefits occur mostly locally and short-term, which make them useful for policy makers.

"We're well into the 21st century now and still heavily rely on burning coal, making it one of the biggest threats to our climate, our health and the environment. That's why we decided to comprehensively test the case for a global coal exit: Does it add up, economically speaking? The short answer is: Yes, by far," says Sebastian Rauner, lead author and researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). For their computer simulations, the researchers looked not only at electricity generation, but at all energy sectors, including transport, buildings, industry and agriculture.

"We find that, based on all countries' current climate pledges under the Paris Agreement, humanity is so far not on track to keep global warming below 2 degrees. Yet, if all countries would introduce coal exit policies, this would reduce the gap to fulfilling the goal by 50 percent worldwide. For coal-heavy economies like China and India, quitting coal would even close the gap by 80-90 percent until 2030."

The researchers developed a simulation framework which considers the full life cycle effects of phasing out coal, accounting not only for all impacts along of coal combustion from shaft to chimney, but also how a coal exit would affect the remaining energy sources and the energy sector as a whole. For the first time, they analysed monetised environmental and human health costs, thus enabling a comparison with mitigation costs: "In particular, we looked at two externalities: Human health costs, especially caused by respiratory diseases, and biodiversity loss, as measured on the basis of how much it would cost to rewild areas currently cultivated. The mitigation costs, in turn, are mostly economic growth reductions and costs for investments in the energy system."