Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Links between climate, air pollution and energy policies Findings from the GAINS (Greenhouse Gas – Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies) model

Air pollutant emissions as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020)

The GAINS model: The RAINS multi-pollutant/ multi-effect framework extended to GHGs Economic synergies between emission control measures PM SO2 NOx VOC NH3 CO2 CH4 N2O PFCs HFCs SF6 Health impacts: PM  O3 Vegetation damage: O3 Acidification Eutrophication Radiative forcing: - direct - via aerosols - via OH PM SO2 NOx VOC NH3 Health impacts: PM  O3 Vegetation damage: O3 Acidification Eutrophication Physical interactions Multiple benefits

Emission control options considered in GAINS with country/region-specific application potentials and costs Air pollutants : ~1500 options for SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3, PM CO2: 162 options for power plants, transport, industry, domestic CH4 : 28 options for the gas sector, waste management, enteric fermentation, manure management, coal mines, rice paddies N2O : 18 options for arable land and grassland, industry, combustion, health care, waste treatment F-gases : 22 options for refrigeration, mobile and stationary air conditioning, HCFC22 production, primary aluminum production, semiconductor industry and other sectors

Structure of primary energy consumption for different GHG targets (Source: PRIMES) Source: E3mlab – ICCS-NTUA ,

“Current legislation” air pollution control costs (SO2, NOx, PM) as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020) Baseline Costs of CAFE TSAP proposal (7.1 bio €/yr) + 5 mio YOLLs saved (~5 bn €/yr)

Net costs of GHG mitigation considering cost savings from avoided current EU legislation air pollution control measures (EU25, 2020) 50 €/t CO2 20 €/t CO2

Ambition level of Thematic Strategy Net costs for further air pollution control as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020) - Sequential approach Sequential approach: Climate policy first – then air pollution control on the resulting energy pattern Ambition level of Thematic Strategy Baseline

Ambition level of Thematic Strategy Cost savings from an integrated approach Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020 Integrated approach: Joint optimization of GHG and air pollution control Ambition level of Thematic Strategy Baseline

Cost savings from an integrated approach Provisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020 Joint GAINS optimization for GHG and air pollution targets

From a climate perspective: Net costs of GHG mitigation for fixed AQ targets (considering cost savings for avoided air pollution control) Integrated approach: Joint GAINS optimization for GHG and air pollution targets

Conclusions (1) There are physical and economic interactions between the control of air pollution emissions and GHG mitigation If these problems are considered separately: From the an air pollution perspective: Baseline AP emissions, impacts and control costs (for fixed AP legislation) depend on the level of GHG mitigation Costs of strengthened AQ policies depend on the level of GHG mitigation Further AP control strategies have co-benefits on GHG mitigation costs. From a climate perspective: GHG mitigation costs depend on the level of AP control GHG mitigation costs have co-benefits on AQ impacts

Conclusions: (2) An integrated approach could reduce total costs for GHG mitigation and air pollution control. Cost savings are immediate, they are “real money” and they occur to the actors who have to invest into mitigation. GAINS offers a tool for such an integrated analysis to identify concrete measures that are beneficial. All quantitative estimates are provisional.