Current knowledge and possible systematic biases Linkages with greenhouse gas policy Fabian Wagner M. Amann, C. Berglund, J. Cofala, L. Höglund, Z. Klimont, W. Winiwarter

Overview How GHG emissions and controls are modelled in the GAINS model Illustrative scenarios Conclusion and Outlook

The GHG-Air pollution INteractions and Synergies (GAINS) model RAINS GHG module Optimization module GAINS Calculates an optimal scenario for any given carbon price or regional/national GHG emssion cap Optimization module allows full integration of climate policy and air pollution policy SO 2 NO x NH 3 PM VOC CO 2 CH 4 N 2 O FGAS

Methodology For all anthropogenic sources of GHG emissions in a country: Identification of available mitigation options –Including structural changes (fuel switch) and add-on measures Country-specific application potentials –Baseline activity rates: national projections –Substitution potential derived from PRIMES Quantification of societal resource costs –Excluding transfers (profits, taxes, etc.) Data sources –GHG emission inventories consistent with UNFCCC –GHG technology cost data from reviewed literature –Activity projections: provided by national governments and EU Commission

Baseline development of European GHGs 42 regions [Mt CO 2 -eq] Based on national and PRIMES projections of activity data : Changes relative to 1990 CO 2 6,4826,390-1% CH 4 1,4761,206-18% N2ON2O % F-Gases86* % Sum8,7958,402-4% * Only Y1995 available

Mitigation options (230) CO 2 (162 options – PP, TRA, IND, DOM) Fuel switches Energy/electricity saving CH 4 (28 options – AGR, WASTE, GAS/COAL) N 2 O (18 options – SOILS, WASTE, PP, IND) F-Gases (22 options – AC, REFR, IND) Not included yet ( annual potentials not fully assessed ): Carbon capture and storage Carbon sinks

GHG cost curve in CLE - 20% - 26%

Approach GAINS cost curves for GHGs combined with RAINS cost curves for air pollutants Illustrative GAINS analysis for GHG scenarios Starting point: National/PRIMES activity projections for 2020 Case 1: CO 2 -only case –15% GHG reduction with CO 2 only –Implied carbon price: 90 €/t CO 2

Mitigation portfolio: Changes in fuel consumption, CO 2 -only case [% of baseline]

Change in emissions and AQ impacts accompanying the CO 2 reduction, compared to the baseline 2020

Change in emissions and health impacts accompanying the CO 2 reduction, compared to the baseline 2020

Costs for the 15% CO 2 reduction compared to REF [billion €/yr] EU-25Turkey GHG mitigation costsCO EU-25Turkey GHG mitigation costsCO Avoided costs for air pollution control SO NO x -2.9 PM-1.1 Total-6.00 Net mitigation costs EU-25Turkey GHG mitigation costsCO Avoided costs for air pollution control SO NO x -2.9 PM-1.1 Total-6.00 Net mitigation costs Health benefits

The multi-gas case 15% reduction in GHGs Achieved by CO 2, CH 4 and N 2 O Carbon price: ~40 €/t CO 2

Change in emissions and health impacts accompanying the GHG reduction, compared to the baseline 2020

Costs for the 15% multi-gas reduction compared to REF [billion €/yr, % GDP 2020] EU-25Turkey GHG mitigation costs CO CH N2ON2O+0.4 Total+6.8 Avoided costs for air pollution control SO NO x -1.4 PM-0.7 Total-3.7 Net mitigation costs +3.1 EU-25Turkey GHG mitigation costs CO CH N2ON2O+0.40 Total Avoided costs for air pollution control SO NO x -1.4 PM-0.7 Total-3.7 Net mitigation costs EU-25Turkey GHG mitigation costs CO CH N2ON2O+0.40 Total % % Avoided costs for air pollution control SO NO x -1.4 PM-0.7 Total-3.7 Net mitigation costs % % EU-25Turkey GHG mitigation costs CO CH N2ON2O+0.40 Total % % Avoided costs for air pollution control SO NO x -1.4 PM-0.7 Total-3.7 Net mitigation costs % % Health benefits % %

Health benefits vs additional cost savings For given baseline, impose CP – less coal use – less need for, e.g. FGD – lower costs and lower emissions PLUS ( qualitative consideration ): Either: Lower emissions, hence health benefits (see above) Or: Same emissions as in BL, but less application of the expensive options – additional cost savings

Conclusions Co-benefits of GHG reductions on air pollution are substantial –Fuel shifts for CO 2 reductions can save 1000s of lives –But GHG mitigation relying on bio-fuels can deteriorate air pollution, especially in developing countries In situations with stringent air pollution controls, CO 2 reductions can avoid significant costs for air pollution controls. Cost savings occur immediately to the same sectors. Multi-gas GHG strategies have less CO 2 co-benefits, but better cost-effectiveness ratio. Co-benefits on ozone! The GAINS model offers a tool for quantitative analysis

Outlook Publish (or perish) GAINS data on the web (all but CO 2 alre already there) Explore systematically linkage between AP and GHG Further study of impacts of climate policy on AP Simultaneous optimization with AP and GHG endpoints GAINS ASIA