Challenges of air quality management in Europe and the approach taken for the current policy proposal

Transcription

1 Challenges of air quality management in Europe and the approach taken for the current policy proposal SEFIRA Final Conference Brussels, April 2, 216 Markus Amann Program Director Air and Climate

2 Paris/France, March 14-17, 214 PM2.5 up to 185 µg/m 3

3 Origin of PM Netherlands average of the urban AIRBASE stadons Lyon, Centre Ville μg/m 3 PM WHO guideline μg/m 3 PM Origin Source: IIASA GAINS Origin

4 Netherlands average of the urban AIRBASE stadons Origin of PM Lyon, Centre Ville μg/m 3 PM Households μg/m 3 PM2.5 Primary PM: Traffic in the most Source: cost- effec=ve IIASA GAINS way? Origin Origin 2 15 Sec. PM: Traffic + agri. 1 Sec. PM: Industry + agri Primary PM: Industry Natural How to balance emission controls 5

5 Greenhouse gas Air pollu=on Interac=ons and Synergies: The GAINS tool Social development and economic acdvides Emission control opdons: ~2 measures, co- control of 1 air pollutants and 6 GHGs) Na=onal NaDonal emission Emission ceilings Ceilings Emissions Costs Atmospheric dispersion OpDmizaDon Health, ecosystems and climate impact indicators Policy targets

6 How the European Commission derived the ambition level for its 213 Clean Air proposal Loss in stadsdcal life expectancy Current legisladon 23: 5 months life shortening billion Euro/yr Benefits range Emission control costs Emission control costs Emission control costs Total health benefits vs. total emission control costs % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% Gap closure (% between CLE and MTFR) Commission proposal: 67% gap closure in 23: - 5% health impacts compared to 25 Marginal cost/benefits (billion Euro/% gap closure) Optimal range for gap closure Marginal benefits (range)/% Marginal costs/% Marginal health benefits vs. marg. emission control costs Maximum addidonal controls: 3.6 months life shortening Gap closure (% between CLE and MTFR)

7 Op=mized emission reduc=ons: PM2.5 % SLOV PORT CROA ROMA SPAI BULG LITH ESTO GREE HUNG UNKI SKRE LATV ITAL AUST CZRE POLA DENM BELG MALT FINL IREL FRAN GERM CYPR SWED NETH LUXE EU28 PM reductions relative to baseline - 1% - 2% - 3% - 4% - 5% - 6% Coal fired Power Plants Industry: Cement Industry: Aluminum Industry: Fertilizer Production Industry: Iron and Steel Residential and Commercial: Coal Residential waste burning Industry: Other Processes Other PM sources Agricultural Waste burning Residential and Commercial: Biomass Key measures: Modern biomass stoves with lower emissions and higher energy efficiency (Enforcement of) ban of agricultural waste burning Stricter PM controls on some industrial processes

8 Cost savings from the GAINS cost- effec=veness approach presented by European industry associadons Courtesy of Les White Annual Cost Millions Equal technology approach GAINS cost- effec=veness 4 2 % 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 1% Health improvement (Change between baseline and maximum measures)

9 Emission control costs for achieving the EU air quality targets 5 4 Billion /yr Without Euro-VI With Euro-VI National energy projections (+3% CO2) Power sector Industry Domestic Transport Agriculture

10 Facts and figures about agricultural emissions in the EU 1% 9% NH 3 emissions # of farms Share of all farms/total NH 3 emitted 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% Farm sizes: >5 LSU LSU % NH3 emissions in EU- 28 Farms in EU- 28 Source: IIASA- GAINS 8% of NH 3 emissions emerge from 5% of the farms in the EU

11 Conclusions Reducing the health effects from air polludon in Europe requires an internadonally coordinated approach The EU insdtudons are currently discussing a policy proposal that has been derived from a cost- effecdveness radonale The involved inequalides across Member States and sectors are used by governments and interest groups to oppose the cost- effecdve proposal Due to lack of informadon, cidzen s interests were not formally considered. SEFIRA aimed to fill this gap.

12 Thank you! hfp://gains.iiasa.ac.at