Key findings. Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

Transcription

1 Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Modelling co-benefits with IIASA s GAINS model Key findings International Workshop on a Co-benefit Approach IGES, February 13-14, 2012

2 Contents Air pollutants and greenhouse gases are simultaneously emitted from the same sources, and emission i controls often affect both emissions i ( co-control ). What do such co-controls mean for 1. a climate change perspective, 2. a local air quality control perspective, 3. a new combined approach that maximizes synergies and avoids trade-offs? The analysis presented in this paper was conducted with IIASA s GAINS model for Europe, Asia and Annex I countries.

3 1. Interactions seen from a climate change perspective GHG mitigation measures reduce air pollution IPCC AR4: Focus on the mitigation of long-lived GHGs: There are significant co-benefits of CO 2 mitigation on human health, crops and ecosystems through h lower emissions of air pollutants. Results for Annex I parties of UNFCCC, 2020 CO 2 emissions vs. health h impacts (YOLLs) Change in CO 2 emissions compared to baseline 0% -10% 20% -30% e in life years lost compar red to baseline -20% -10% 0% Chang -30% EU-27 China India Source: IIASA GAINS

4 Low carbon development yields health benefits from less air pollution (PM2.5) Loss of statistical life expectancy attributable to PM2.5 Baseline vs. 2-degree scenario (Source: POLES/GAINS) Europe China India Months

5 Low carbon development reduces crop losses through less ground-level ozone (ozone) Crop losses from ground-level ozone calculated for the 2030 baseline Change in crop loss compared to 2005 Rice Wheat loss compared to 2005 Change in crop 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Maize Rice Soybean Wheat Business-as-usual 2030 Climate scenario 2030 Source: GAINS-Asia

6 GHG mitigation reduces air pollution control costs Costs to meet the EU air quality and climate targets (EU-27, 2020) Billion /yr bn/yr 25 0 Business as usual PRIMES energy scenario National energy National projections energy projections (+3% CO2 in 2020) Illustrative projections with climate meeting measures the EU climate (+3% CO target (-20% CO2 in 2020) 2 in 2020) (-20% CO 2 in 2020) Indicative costs for changes in the energy system to meet climate and energy targets Costs for further measures to achieve the targets of the EU Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution Costs for implementing current air pollution legislation Source: IIASA GAINS

7 But control of long-lived GHGs is unlikely to reduce temperature increase in the near-term Global temperature Reference scenario: IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 CO 2 measures: IEA 450 ppm scenario 2009 Temperature increase in the near-term is determined by: CO 2 in the atmosphere as a result of historic emissions of CO 2 Change in emissions of short-lived substances, Source: UNEP Black Carbon Assessment, 2011 Shindell et al., Science (2012) esp. co-control of SO 2 (leads to warming)

8 2. Co-benefits from an air quality perspective: 16 win-win air quality measures with co-benefits on climate change CH 4 measures Technical BC measures Non-technical measures 1. Recovery of coal mine gas 2. Production of crude oil and natural gas 3. Gas leakages at pipelines and distribution nets 4. Waste recycling 5. Wastewater treatment 6. Farm-scale anaerobic digestion 7. Aeration of rice paddies 1. Modern coke ovens 2. Modern brick kilns 3. Diesel particle filters 4. Briquettes instead of coal for heating 5. Improved biomass cook stoves 6. Pellets stoves and boilers (in industrialized countries) 1. Ban of high-emitting vehicles 2. Ban of open burning of agricultural waste 3. Elimination of biomass cook stoves

9 The 16 measures could significantly reduce the rate of temperature increase in the next decades Global temperature Reference scenario: IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 CO 2 measures: IEA 450 ppm scenario 2009 Near-term measures: IIASA set of 16 measures for CH 4 and black carbon Source: UNEP Black Carbon Assessment, 2011 Shindell et al., Science (2012)

10 An additional co-benefit: Economic and development aspects of these measures These 16 measures can be grouped into four categories: Half of the potential could be achieved by measures that bring cost-savings to societies in the long-run; however, markets lack incentives to do the up-front investments. 20% would be competitive on a global carbon market. 20% are side-effects effects of other development objectives (waste management, ground-water protection, etc.). 10% require improved governance (ban of agricultural waste burning, high-emitting vehicles). These economic features make them win-win-win solutions for development!!! Source: IIASA contributions to UNEP (2012)

11 But: Control of short-lived gases will not resolve all air quality problems! 40 Loss in statistical life expectancy from PM2.5 in 2020 (Source: GAINS-Asia) 35 ning (monhts) Life shorte Baseline 2030 SLCF measures All air pollution controls China India

12 Well-designed air pollution control strategies can also reduce GHG emissions Emission control costs for reducing PM health impacts in China by 50% Emission co ntrol costs (% of GDP (PP PP) in 2030) 0.20% 015% 0.15% 010% 0.10% 0.05% 0.00% Least-cost Using portfolio only air pollution control of conventional air pollution measures control measures -8% CO 2 Using air pollution control measures and GHG measures simultaneously PM controls,households PM end-of-pipe measures NOx end-of-pipe measures SO2 end-of-pipe measures Co-generation Energy egyefficiency, ce cy, industry Energy efficiency, households Electricity savings Source: GAINS-Asia

13 Together with aggressive CO 2 strategies, they increase chances to stay below the 2º target Global temperature Reference scenario IEA World Energy Outlook 2009 CO 2 measures IEA 450 ppm scenario 2009 Near-term measures IIASA set of 16 measures for CH 4 and black carbon CO 2 + Near-term measures Source: UNEP Black Carbon Assessment, 2011 Shindell et al., Science (2012)

14 Conclusions Control of long-lived GHGs results in significant co-benefits on air pollution, including savings in air pollution control costs. However, conventional air pollution control strategies will accelerate temperature increase in the coming decades. An alternative approach could focus on AQ measures that also reduce radiative forcing from short-lived substances, and complement them with measures that reduce CO 2 and SO 2 at the same time. Such an approach would minimize the use of end-of-pipe AQ controls and employ air measures that also reduce CO 2 emissions, with cost savings in the long run. This would reinforce CO 2 mitigation strategies, which are indispensible for long-term climate objectives. A new approach to air quality management as one key for climate mitigation?