Issues addressed by the recent policy analyses for the EU NEC Directive

Transcription

1 Issues addressed by the recent policy analyses for the EU NEC Directive Markus Amann Program Director International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis PMEH China Air Quality Management Policy Study Tour IIASA, Laxenburg, June 7, 2017

2 Negotiations were informed by 17 IIASA policy reports 1. Future emissions of air pollutants in Europe - Current legislation baseline and the scope for further reductions 2. Factors determining recent changes of emissions of air pollutants in Europe 3. Emissions from agriculture and their control potentials 4. The potential for further controls of emissions from mobile sources in Europe 5. Emissions from households and other small combustion sources and their reduction potential 6. TSAP-2012 baseline: Health and environmental impacts 7. Scenarios of cost-effective emission controls after Compliance with EU air quality limit values - a first set of sensitivity and optimization analyses 9. Modelling compliance with NO 2 and PM10 air quality limit values in the GAINS model

3 Negotiations were informed by 17 IIASA policy reports Policy scenarios for the revision of the Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution 11. The Final Policy Scenarios of the EU Clean Air Policy Package 12. Urban PM2.5 levels under the EU clean air policy package 13. Summary of the Bilateral Consultations with National Experts on the GAINS Input Data 14. Updates to the GAINS Model Databases after the Bilateral Consultations with National Experts in A Flexibility Mechanism for Complying with National Emission Ceilings for Air Pollutants 16. Adjusted historic emission data, projections, and optimized emission reduction targets for Interactions between EU Air quality and Climate and energy policy

4 Cost-benefits vs cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-effectiveness analysis Emission control measures Emission control costs Which set of measures delivers the policy target at least cost? Physical benefits e.g., air quality, prem. deaths Policy choice: Targets (e.g., achieve AQ limit values, or reduce health impacts by 50%) Monetization of (health) benefits ( /life) Monetized benefits ( /year)

5 How the European Commission derived the ambition level for its 2013 Clean Air proposal Loss in statistical life expectancy Current legislation 2030: 5 months life shortening Maximum additional controls: 3.6 months life shortening 250 Emission control costs 200 Emission control costs billion Euro/yr % 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gap closure (% between CLE and MTFR)

6 Cost-benefits vs cost-effectiveness analysis Cost-benefits analysis Cost-effectiveness analysis For which measures are the (marginal) monetized benefits larger than their costs? Emission control measures Emission control costs Which set of measures delivers the policy target at least cost? Policy choice: Monetary value ( ) of human life, ecosystems, etc. Physical benefits e.g., air quality, prem. deaths Monetization of (health) benefits ( /life) Policy choice: Targets (e.g., achieve AQ limit values, or reduce health impacts by 50%) Monetized benefits ( /year)

7 How the European Commission derived the ambition level for its 2013 Clean Air proposal Loss in statistical life expectancy Current legislation 2030: 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 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Gap closure (% between CLE and MTFR) Commission proposal: 67% gap closure in 2030: -50% health impacts compared to 2005 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 Gap closure (% between CLE and MTFR) Maximum additional controls: 3.6 months life shortening

8 An alternative view on clean air benefits: Productivity gains from cleaner air Minutes per worker per year Working time to pay for measures Reduced absence from work Ambition of emission control scenarios

9 The Commission proposal for National Emission Ceilings (NECs) in 2030 EU-28 (relative to 2005) EU-28 (in addition to Baseline) SO 2-81% -8% NO x -69% -4% PM2.5-51% -24% NH 3-27% -20% VOC -50% -9% CH 4-33% -9%

10 The Commission proposal for National Emission Ceilings (NECs) in 2030 EU-28 (relative to 2005) EU-28 (in addition to Baseline) France (relative to 2005) France (in addition to Baseline) SO 2-81% -8% -78% -4% NO x -69% -4% -70% -3% PM2.5-51% -24% -48% -10% NH 3-27% -20% -29% -24% VOC -50% -9% -50% -3% CH 4-33% -9% -25% -7%

11 Policy action was an important driver for the decline in past emissions 400% SO 2 emissions in Western Europe: A 1970 s perspective SO2 and GDP relative to % 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% SO2 avoided through energy efficiency improvements changes in fuel structure (end-of-pipe) emission controls Actual SO2 Hypothetical GDP (3% growth/yr) Actual GDP (constant 2000 Euro) 50% 0%

12 Policy action was an important driver for the decline in past emissions SO 2 emissions in Western Europe: % 350% SO2 avoided through SO2 and GDP relative to % 250% 200% 150% Actual SO2 Hypothetical GDP (3% growth/yr) 100% 50% 0%

13 Policy action was an important driver for the decline in past emissions Decoupling between GDP and SO 2 emissions in Western Europe SO2 and GDP relative to % 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% 100% SO2 avoided through energy efficiency improvements changes in fuel structure (end-of-pipe) emission controls Actual SO2 50% 0% Hypothetical GDP (3% growth/yr) Sources: Rafaj et al., (2014) Clim.Change 24(3) (2014) Sc.Tot. Env. 414

14 Climate policies do not only save lives, but also money for air pollution controls Air pollution control costs for achieving the EU air quality targets 125 Business as usual National energy projections (+3% CO 2 in 2020) PRIMES energy scenario with climate measures (-20% CO 2 in 2020) 100 Billion /yr bn/yr 25 0 National energy projections (+3% CO2 in 2020) Illustrative projections meeting the EU climate target (-20% CO2 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

15 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

16 Key measures to reduce NH 3 from agriculture Improved storage of manure (e.g., closed tanks) Improved application of manure on soil (e.g., trailing hose, slot injection at large farms) Improved application of urea fertilizer or substitution by ammonium nitrate

17 80% of NH 3 emissions emerge from 5% of the farms in the EU 100% NH 3 emissions # of farms 90% Share of all farms/total NH 3 emitted 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Farm sizes: >500 LSU LSU 0 10% 0% NH3 emissions in EU-28 Farms in EU-28 The NEC proposal suggests measures for 3% of the farms, i.e., for large industrial animal holdings Source: IIASA-GAINS

18 Key messages The negotiations within the European Union employed the GAINS cost-effectiveness tool as a shared knowledge base Negotiations focused on the overall ambition level and the balance of burdens among Member States The analysis revealed important interactions and synergies with other sectoral policies, including energy, climate and agriculture

19 谢谢 Thank you!