Air pollution some historical remarks and future challenges Peringe Grennfelt IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute San Francisco, 7 May 2013
Successful air pollution policies Swedish emissions reduced by 97% since 1970 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Causes of Swedish Emission reductions : - 1970-85: S in oil, reinvestments in the industry, nuclear power - 1985 and onwards energy savings, replacing fossil fuels with renewables
Emissions in Europe 1880-2030 Source: IIASA 3
CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE Barents Sea Kara Sea Signed 1979, in force 1983 Artic Ocean 51 Parties Canada 8 Protocols Iceland Pacific Ocean Covers SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3, PM, HMs, POPs North Sea Norway Sweden Finland Estonia Russian Federation of America Atlantic Ocean Effect based agreements Latvia Denmark Lithuania Ireland Belarus United Kingdom Netherlands Poland Belgium Germany Czech Rep. Ukraine Luxembourg Slovakia Austria France Switzerland Liechtenstein Hungary Moldova Atlantic Ocean Slovenia Romania Croatia Monaco Bosnia and Herzegovina Yugoslavia Bulgaria Black Sea Italy F.Y.R.of Albania Macedonia Spain Portugal Greece Turkey Caspian Georgia Sea Armenia Azerbaijan Aral Sea Kazak hstan Kyrgy zstan Close interaction between science and policy Malta Mediterranean Sea Cyprus Naturvårdsverket Swedish Environmental Protection Agency
International Coordinated Programme on Water (ICP Water 2011) Emission reductions have resulted in ecosystem improvements Emission control has resulted in substantial improvements in ecosystems, e.g. in the return of salmon in Norwegian rivers.
Germany 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 1960 1980 2000 2020 In West Germany the acid rain alarms came around 1980 and most of the control measures were flue gas desulphurization. Annual emissions were reduced by more than 2 million tonnes between 1980 and 1990. 6000 4000 2000 Poland 0 1960 1980 2000 2020 In Poland emission reductions did not start until l990 and they were largely associated with shut downs of the Polish heavy industry and later with FGD.
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1960 1980 2000 2020 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 1960 1980 2000 2020 Germany Sweden Poland Germany Sweden Poland Emission trends 1970-2010 for SO 2 in some European countries
Conclusions Early awareness and actions from Sweden were of benefit Sweden together with other countries could through research and policy actions set the agenda for the AP strategies and measures in Europe. Research proved the continental dimension of the problem and made it possible for Sweden and other Nordic countries to take initiatives in the international CLRTAP negotiations: Critical Loads, Gap Closure and the Multipollutant/multieffect approach
Linkages with emerging issues Innovative strategies Consensus Discovery Europe North America 1 Science Policy Science Policy The first alarm, Odén 1967 OECD projekt: Acid rain a transboundary problem Start of EMEP Soil acidification verified Multipollutant integrated assessment model Dynamic modelling Recovery Climate, human health,intercontinental transport, nitrogen 1970 1980 2000 2010 Sweden s case study UN Conference 1972 CLRTAP Convention First S Protocol 1985 Gothenburg Protocol 1999 EU NEC Directive EU Thematic Strategy Gothenburg Protocol revision Acid rain in North America (Likens) CANSAP and NADP NAPAP program starts 1970 1980 Regional Acid Start ICP effects monit. Close interactions between Deposition Critical loads and Model (RADM) NOx Protocol 1988 levels 1990 1990 Second Sulphur MAGIC soil and water Protocol 1994 science and policy over time Driscoll, Cowling, Grennfelt, Galloway and Dennis Whole Lake Acidif.Experiments in Canada CMAQ dynamic atmospheric deposition model New directions: Climate, Air Toxics 2000 2010 USEPA establishment EPA identifies 6 criteria Pollutants Public-health and equivalent publicwelfare based NAAQS NAPAP Interim Assessment Congress passes CAAA with Cap and Trade provisions EPA embraces Critical Loads and Multiple Pollutant concepts
Today the European Union has taken over much of the AP and CC policy development After 2000 the European Union has become a much stronger actor in European environmental legislation The new Constitution and Lisbon Treaty The expansion of the Union Results: Options for being first are reduced Regulations may include all countries
Coordinated air pollution and climate strategies in Europe? EU attempt in 2007 for a combined CC and AP strategy failed Instead EU went away with a climate strategy without considering possible co-benefits with air pollution. Calculations showed that the climate strategy by 2020 will result in decreased emissions to a value of 20 bn per year. Present air pollution strategies are taking into account the EU Climate change strategies but not the opposite.
The European union is not meeting EU 2020 targets on protection of health and ecosystems Acidification (forests) gap-closure from 2000-2020. Source: IIASA Eutrophication Health (PM2.5) Health (ozone) Current policy Thematic strategy MTFR 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Future air pollution improvements need new technologies and behavioral changes Future air pollution improvements need new technologies and behavioral changes 12
SLCP an option for slowing down global warming? The idea behind SLCP policies 0.5 0 C Reduction by 2050 BC+Methane+Ozone A fast reduction in emissions of black carbon and methane may give substantial climate benefits over the next 20-40 years SLCP policies can t replace CO2 measures!!! UNEP-BC/O3 Report &Science Paper Shindell et al, 2012
Influence on climate from soot Bond mfl JGR 2013 Cooling Heating Snow Total Disturbance of the radiation balance (W/m 2 )
Upcoming workshop on air pollution strategies There is a need for further development of coordinated policies on air pollution and climate change. One step in order to further outline options and possibilities are now taken by the Swedish EPA and IVL in organizing an international workshop 24-26 June. Coordinated AP and CC policies incl. SLCP Global governance in air pollution control Effects-based control strategies Nitrogen http://www.saltsjobaden5.ivl.se/
Thank you
Million tons PM2.5 Million tons NH3 Million tons VOC Million tons SO2 Million tons NOx Outlook to 2050 Amann et al. 2013 5 4 3 2 1 0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 SO 2 Baseline - CLE Baseline - MTFR Decarb - CLE Decarb - MCE 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Baseline - CLE Baseline - MTFR Decarb - CLE Decarb - MCE 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 5 4 3 NO x Baseline - CLE Baseline - MTFR Decarb - CLE MCE 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Baseline - CLE Baseline - MTFR Decarb - CLE Decarb - MCE Further emission reductions only from: decarbonisation (only SO 2 and NO x ), further air pollution controls (could cut emissions by ~half). 9 8 7 6 5 Baseline - CLE Baseline - MTFR Decarb - CLE Decarb - MCE 0.8 0.6 2 4 3 0.4 0.2 0.0 PM2.5 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 1 0 NH 3 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2 1 0 VOC Blue: BAU baseline, Red: climate policy + healthy diet scenario 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050