Integrated Assessment of Air Pollution and Greenhouse Gases Mitigation Janusz Cofala International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) Laxenburg, Austria

Air pollution problems Ground-level ozone –Concentrations times above pre-industrial levels –Impaired lung function and other respiratory problems for children and asthmatics –Damage to sensitive plants (agricultural crops, trees) Acidification –Leaching of nutrients, release of toxic metals –Damage to plant and animal life in lakes Eutrophication –Excess nitrogen deposition in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems, threat to bio-diversity PM exposure –Health impacts

International solutions UN/ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution –SO 2 protocols 1985, 1994 –NO x protocol 1988 –VOC protocol 1991 –Protocols on heavy metals and POPs 1998 –Gothenburg Protocol (acid., eutroph. and ozone) 1999 EU Legislation –Air Quality Directives ( ) –Technology-related Directives (LCP, IPPC, solvents, Auto-Oil, etc.) –National Emission Ceilings Directive (2001)

A multi-pollutant/multi-effect problem

The model: RAINS Energy/agriculture projections Emissions Emission control options Atmospheric dispersion Environmental impacts Costs Environmental targets OPTIMIZATION

Policy applications of RAINS 1994: Second Sulfur Protocol of UN/ECE Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) 1997: EU Acidification Strategy 1999: Proposal for EU Directive on National Emission Ceilings (NEC Directive) 1999: CLRTAP Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-level Ozone, assessment of effects of revised LCP Directive 2003 – 2005: CAFE Programme (preparation of thematic strategy on air for EU 6 th EAP)

Uniform or effect-based scenarios?

Results: The Gothenburg Protocol scenario

Environmental impacts % Ecosystems not protected against acidification 1990 PROT

Loss in life expectancy attributable to anthropogenic PM2.5 [months] _CLE2020_CLE

A multi-pollutant/multi-effect problem extended towards radiative forcing

GAINS: GHG-Air pollution INteractions and Synergies Focus on cost-effective mitigation measures and co- benefits Focus on policy-relevant scales of analysis: –Up to 2030 –Country-by-country. Currently implemented for 43 countries in Europe, plans for China and India Extension of RAINS integrated assessment model for air pollution to GHGs: –Model the chain of (air) pollution from sources to effects –Assessment of emission reduction potentials and costs: RAINS: SO 2, NO x, VOC, NH 3, PM (~400 control options) GAINS: CO 2, CH 4, N 2 O, HFC, PFC, SF 6 (260 control options)

Initial illustrative examples Presented at UNFCC COP10 GAINS for all 43 European countries including Turkey Recent real-world energy and cost data of EU Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) programme Starting point (baseline): National activity projections for 2020 Two cases: 1.15% GHG reduction with CO 2 measures only 2.15% GHG reduction through CO 2 +CH 4 +N 2 O

Change in emissions and health impacts accompanying the 15% CO 2 reduction Compared to baseline % -35% -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% CO2CH4N2OSO2NOxPM2.5 Premat. deaths EU-25Turkey

Costs for the 15% CO 2 reduction compared to baseline [billion €/yr] EU-25Turkey Direct costs for GHG mitigation CO Emission control costs for air pollutants SO NO x -2.9 PM-1.1 Total Net mitigation costs Health benefits

Change in emissions and health impacts, EU-25 accompanying the 15% multi-GHG reduction Compared to baseline 2020

Costs for the 15% GHG reduction, EU-25 compared to baseline 2020 [billion €/yr] CO 2 onlyMulti-gas Direct costs for GHG mitigation CO CH N2ON2O+0.4 Total Emission control costs for air pollutants SO NO x PM Total Net mitigation costs Health benefits Net costs

Conclusions RAINS/GAINS allow the design of cost-efficient, effect-based policies to control air pollutants and GHG Implementation of current legislation will substantially improve air quality in Europe compared with 1990’s However, still negative impacts expected, further emissions reduction needed There are important synergies between air pollution control and greenhouse gases mitigation CO 2 mitigation brings co-benefits for air pollution. Inclusion of non-CO 2 gases reduces co-benefits but improves cost- effectiveness of GHG mitigation

More information: