Global emission scenarios Z. Klimont, L. Hoglund, C. Heyes, W. Schöpp, P. Rafaj, J. Cofala, K. Kupiainen, J. Borken, M. Amann, B. Zhao, S. Wang, W. Winiwarter, I. Bertok, R. Sander. (klimont@iiasa.ac.at) Joint Workshop between HTAP and AMAP Potsdam, Germany, 17-19 February 216
Typically considered scenario types CLE current legislation - efficient implementation of existing environmental legislation [applied to various baselines as well as climate energy futures/scenarios] NFC 'no further control' - a hypothetical calculation showing how emissions would develop if implementation of control measures was frozen at the level of 25 MTFR maximum technical feasible reduction implementation of BAT measures considering economic lifetime of technologies and selected other constraints but assuming no institutional and political barriers More realistic version of MTFR where more constraints (also regionally specific) has been also developed
Key features of the ECLIPSE/HTAP emission scenarios Developed with IIASA s GAINS model; energy projections IEA, agriculture - FAO Sources ~ 2 sector-fuel-technology combinations; anthropogenic A number of new sources included: shale gas, gas flaring, wick lamps, diesel generators, superemitters Pollutants SO 2, NO x, PM (PM1, PM2.5, PM1, BC, OC, OM, number), NMVOC, CO, NH 3, CH 4, Hg Spatial resolution 17 regions (global outputs available for 25 regions), gridded.5x.5 o Temporal resolution Annual and monthly for the period 199 to 25 in 5 year intervals; last year statistical data for 21 The development linked to several regional and global modelling and policy activities
Energy consumption by fuel (EJ/yr) Coal Gas Oil 4 RCP range 4 RCP range 4 RCP range 3 ETP 6 ETP 2 3 ETP 6 ETP 2 3 ETP 6 ETP 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 21 22 23 24 25 ETP Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA, 212)
Global CO 2 emissions 8 6 GtCO2/yr 4 2 RCP range ETP 6 ETP 2 21 22 23 24 25 ETP Energy Technology Perspectives (IEA, 212)
Future air pollutant emissions (1) 16 14 SO 2 18 16 NO x 8 7 BC 12 14 6 Million tons 12 1 8 6 RCP 4 GAINS CLE GAINS NFC 2 GAINS MTFR GAINS 2 CLE 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 Million tons 1 8 6 RCP 4 GAINS CLE GAINS NFC 2 GAINS MTFR GAINS 2 CLE 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 Million tons 5 4 3 RCP 2 GAINS CLE GAINS NFC 1 GAINS MTFR GAINS 2 CLE 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 Source: GAINS model ECLIPSE V5
Future air pollutant emissions (2) 8 7 CH4 18 16 VOC 9 8 NH 3 6 14 7 5 12 6 Million tons 4 3 RCP 2 GAINS CLE GAINS NFC 1 GAINS MTFR GAINS 2 CLE 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 Million tons 1 8 6 RCP 4 GAINS CLE GAINS NFC 2 GAINS MTFR GAINS 2 CLE 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 Million tons 5 4 3 2 1 RCP 199 2 21 22 23 24 25 Source: GAINS model ECLIPSE V5
What is different in GAINS scenarios vs several other existing long-term global scenarios? Spatial resolution we attempt to maintain high regional resolution keeping national features throughout the whole modelling horizon Uniform source sector structure, including multi-pollutant characteristics of air pollution mitigation technologies (temporal monthly distribution included) PM emissions by size and for BC, OC in a consistent framework The data and current policy representation validated for several regions with national experts Wide range of scenarios directly linked to air quality policy translating into explicit mitigation technology (or the other way) Costs of air pollution measures considering all key species
CLE vs mitigation scenarios (1) Relative changes to 21, GAINS ECLIPSE V5 CO 2 SO 2 NO x PM 2.5 World China+ North Am. & Europe, incl. Russia
CLE vs mitigation scenarios (2) Relative changes to 21, GAINS ECLIPSE V5 CO 2 CH 4 NMVOC BC World China+ North Am. & Europe, incl. Russia
Global anthropogenic emissions in ECLIPSE scenarios, GAINS model excluding international shipping and aviation 14 12 SO2 14 12 NOX 14 12 VOC 1 1 1 8 8 8 6 6 6 4 4 4 2 2 2 199 21 23 25 199 21 23 25 199 21 23 25 6 5 4 CH4 8. 7. 6. 5. BC 16 14 12 1 OC 3 4. 8 2 1 3. 2. 1. 6 4 2 199 21 23 25. 199 21 23 25 Source: Klimont et al. (in preparation) 199 21 23 25
Contribution of Arctic nations and its oil & gas industry to global anthropogenic emissions of methane and black carbon in 25 Source: GAINS model; ECLIPSE V5 scenario
Role of gas flaring in BC mitigation potential Source: GAINS model ECLIPSE V5a, Klimont et al. (in preparation) SLCP Short Lived Climate Pollutants; includes, among others, black carbon (BC) and methane (CH 4 )
Summary Emissions of all species are estimated using the same primary activity data set within one common framework (gridded sets available online) Current air pollution legislation will decouple air pollutant emissions from economic growth at the global scale. However, after full implementation of current legislation and without further measures, emissions would grow again. Still large uncertainties with respect to enforcement of policies and so exploring failure/delayed implementation scenarios remain relevant Stringent climate policies would result in co-controls of SO 2, NO x, CH 4 and to some extent also BC emissions but achieving sustained low emissions in the long term requires additional air pollution policy. Continued air policy interventions remain the decisive factor for future air pollution.
Where to find the data, update on development, references Gridded datasets, brief description, update on reference and publication available from: http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchprograms/global_emissions.html Klimont, Z., Kupiainen, K., Heyes, C., Purohit, P., Cofala, J., Rafaj, P., Borken-Kleefeld, J., Schoepp, W. Global anthropogenic emissions of particulate matter including black carbon. In preparation for special issue ACP Klimont, Z., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Heyes, C., Rafaj, P., Schöpp, W., Cofala, J., Borken-Kleefeld, J., Purohit, P., Kupiainen, K., Winiwarter, W., Amann, M, Zhao, B., Wang, S.X., Bertok, I., Sander, R. Global scenarios of air pollutants and methane: 199-25. In preparation for special issue ACP. Stohl, A., Aamaas, B., Amann, M., Baker, L. H., Bellouin, N., Berntsen, T. K., Boucher, O., Cherian, R., Collins, W., Daskalakis, N., Dusinska, M., Eckhardt, S., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Harju, M., Heyes, C., Hodnebrog, Ø., Hao, J., Im, U., Kanakidou, M., Klimont, Z., Kupiainen, K., Law, K. S., Lund, M. T., Maas, R., MacIntosh, C. R., Myhre, G., Myriokefalitakis, S., Olivié, D., Quaas, J., Quennehen, B., Raut, J.-C., Rumbold, S. T., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Seland, Ø., Shine, K. P., Skeie, R. B., Wang, S., Yttri, K. E., and Zhu, T. (215) Evaluating the climate and air quality impacts of short-lived pollutants, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Stohl, A., Z. Klimont, S. Eckhardt, K. Kupiainen, V.P. Shevchenko, V.M. Kopeikin, and A.N. Novigatsky (213) Black carbon in the Arctic: the underestimated role of gas flaring and residential combustion emissions. Atmos. Chem. & Phys.
What next? The ACP special issue: Documentation of key scenarios Regional evaluation of historical data and policy assumptions with partners in several regions aiming at a series of papers, specifically for China and India Work on understanding/harmonization of EDGAR and GAINS for historical estimates Improving spatial distribution proxies work with EDGAR and national groups, e.g., China (MEIC), India (TERI), US (EPA), Thailand (SKGU) Continue discussion about in between mitigation scenarios Harmonize mercury emission data set with existing scenarios for HTAP, including gridding Any specific analysis for Arctic/AMAP? Inclusion of the SLCP scenarios?