Aspirational targets for 2050 Workshop organized by TFIAM and ACCENT in co-operation with the Working Group on Effects, CCE, CIAM, TFEIP, TFRN, EGTEI, TFH, ICP Vegetation, ICP Materials Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 Rob Maas, 12 March participants, a.o: JRC, EEA, IPCC CONCAWE, EEB

Questions 1.How do we want the environment in 2050 to look like? What are long term objectives for air pollution policy? 2.How much emission reduction is required? 3.What would an ambitious climate policy contribute to that goal? 4.What steps have to be taken? 5.How to incorporate aspirational targets in a protocol?

Open doors The long term objectives of the Gothenburg Protocol require structural measures and behavioural changes. The long term future starts today - even a long journey starts with a first step! Choose your destination, plan the best route, but remain flexible. Invest in a good preparation: a shared vision, social support, R&D, institutions & policy instruments. Avoid a lock-in in unsustainable ‘side roads’. Avoid negative side effects: no swapping between air pollution, climate change or water pollution.

From impacts to measures 1.Formulate an inspiring long term vision 2.Add a date to long term “no-effect” objectives 3.Translate environmental objectives for 2050 into reduction targets for deposition and exposure 4.Translate exposure targets into emission reductions 5.Define intermediate steps & short term actions based on risk management & cost- effectiveness considerations

Long term objectives 1.Formulate an inspiring long term vision “ No (significant) damage to health and ecosystems … a world without negative side effects from combustion and cattle.” 2.Add a date to (existing) long term impact objectives Limit the loss of life expectancy in 2050 to [.. months] No death due to ozone exposure in 2050 No [significant] damage to vegetation from ozone in 2050 No [significant] damage of cultural heritage from sulfur in 2050 Meet critical loads for acidification and nitrogen in [all] of the [priority] ecosystems in 2050 or: have [all] of the [priority] ecosystems in a phase of biological recovery by 2050 or: have [all] of the [priority] ecosystems fully recovered by 2050

7 % area exceeded (AAE > 0) 8 % area violated (AAE >0) Exceedance acidity crit.loadsViolation acidity target loads Cultural heritage requires stricter limits to SO 2, HNO 3 & PM exposure

Exc. of CL eutrophicationViolation TL eutrophication 48 % area exceeded (AAE > 0)49 % area violated (AAE >0)

Exceedance of CLnut(N) with zero NH3 emissions everywhere Caveat: Linearised EMEP model used

It would be a surprise if our understanding of the role of PM would not change in the next 40 years

Comparison of SOMO35 with ozone flux to vegetation SOMO35 (ppm d) Ozone flux to crops (AF st 3 gen, mmol m -2 ) 1 EMEP & ICP Vegetation Human health-based parameters will not protect vegetation from ozone in large areas of Europe

Max. season ΔO3 (2050–2000 ΔClim)Max. season ΔO3 (2050–2000 ΔEmiss) Figure 5.8 Royal Society Report, 2008 Change in surface mean ozone concentration (2050 – 2000) With emission control With climate change

Indicative aspirational targets Deposition or exposure Reduction from 2010 level Where? SO 2 40 – 60%Northern & Central Europe and around cultural objects NO x and NH %All Europe, especially in areas with high densities of cattle Ozone70 – 80 %South, West and central Europe Particulate matter40 – 60 % ?In urban areas

Linkage with climate policy Even without climate policy air pollution would decrease. Climate policy could lead to even less air pollution. CO 2 reductions give comparable reductions in SO 2 emissions. Reductions of NO X & PM are lower: biofuels and 1 st generation CCS do not reduce NO X or could even lead to more emission. Emissions of NH 3 and VOC are unrelated.

Co-benefits of aspirational climate targets Reduction from 2010 level CO 2 80 – 95% (2050) 40 – 55% (2030) EU-contribution to 2 degree target up to 50% foreign emission credits MFR SO 2 MFR BC ~ 80 % MFR NO x 50 – 60 %Due to biofuels & 1 st generation CCS Without behavioural change MFR VOC MFR NH3 25 – 35 %Without behavioural change

With behavioural change lower emissions possible

Synergies and antagonisms Climate policy has a long term focus; air pollution policy could offer short term benefits. Reduction of black carbon & ozone leads to less radiative forcing and health risks at the short term. It is unavoidable that SO 2 & secondary PM reductions will lead to less ‘masking’ of climate change. Additional air pollution policy remains necessary for urban air pollution and reduced nitrogen  behavioural changes! Design environmental policies in an environmental friendly way: avoid swapping by integrated approach

Quantitative targets 3.Translate environmental objectives for 2050 into [ranges of] reduction targets for deposition, and exposure  specified for regions or countries 4.Translate exposure targets into [ranges of] emission reductions for regions or countries. 5.Define intermediate steps  were should we be between 2020 and 2050? + Define short term actions: create a shared vision, build innovation networks, invest in R&D, develop policy instruments & social support, ….

+ MFR end-of-pipe + Climate Policy + behavioural change * speed limits * public transport * renovation of dwellings …Social support ????

Spain: fast reductions possible after 2020 !

How to build social support ?

Risk management Uncertainty: The future is uncertain (but with 2% GDP growth, incomes would double in next 40 years) Incertitude: Cost curves for 2050 cannot be known, they depend on (investments in) technological developments. Instruments: Can we steer developments in right directions by setting the right environmental constraints & incentives. How to create long term social support? Ambition: Focus on prevention of the most serious risks, on no-effect levels for the most sensitive people & ecosystems, or …? Flexibility: Prepare for new scientific findings. It would be a surprise if our understanding of the role of PM would not change Robustness: Effects are estimated with 50% probability, does this give enough certainty?

Economic crises are periods of creative destruction. In times of crisis leadership & vision are required.

Follow up recommendations Invite various bodies under the Convention to consider aspirational & interim targets WGSR to consider ways to include long term vision, objectives and non-binding targets in a protocol.