The three CAFE policy scenarios Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Chris Heyes, Zbigniew Klimont, Wolfgang Schöpp, Fabian Wagner

Assumptions CAFE baseline “with climate measures” for 2020 Agricultural projections without CAP reform Further measures for road emissions taken Meteorology of 1997

Costs for gap closures between CLE and MTFR *) excluding costs for road sources

Composite gap closure indicators Sum of gap closure percentages of all environmental end points

Targets selected for the optimization CLECase “A” Case “B” Case “C” MTFR Years of life lost due to PM2.5 (EU-wide, million YOLLs) Acidification (country- wise gap closure on cumulative excess deposition) 0%55%75%85%100% Eutrophication (country-wise gap closure on cumulative excess deposition) 0%55%75%85%100% Ozone (country-wise gap closure on SOMO35) 0%60%80%90%100%

Emission control costs for three ambition levels for the four targets*) *) excluding costs for road sources

Effects in 2000 and for CAFE medium ambition 2020 PMEutrophicationOzone Acid, forestsAcid, lakesAcid, semi-nat.

Optimized emission reductions for EU-25 of the D23 scenarios [2000=100%]

Costs per pollutant for EU-25 on top of CLE

Measures taken in the D23 medium ambition scenario SO 2 –Low sulphur coal –Low sulphur heavy fuel oil –Flue gas desulphurization NO x –Combustion modifications –Selective non-catalytic and catalytic reduction –NO x reduction from light- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles PM –High efficiency dedusters –New boiler types in the residential sector –Good housekeeping measures on oil boilers –Low sulphur fuels for (national) sea traffic

Measures taken in the D23 medium ambition scenario Ammonia –Application of pig and cattle manures with low ammonia application measures –Substituting ammonium nitrate by urea –Covers on manure storage for pigs and cattle –Changes in feeding strategies VOC –Control of fugitive losses in organic chemical industry –Switch emulsion bitumen in road paving –Paint application (coatings) –Stage II VOC controls –Liquid fuel production (improved flare and reduction of fugitive losses)

Distribution of costs [€/person/year] *) excluding costs for road sources

Distribution of physical benefits CAFE Case “B” % point improvements in total European effect indicators*), sum over four effects *) between CLE and MTFR

Conclusions Three cases calculated for three ambition levels: costs of 6, 11 and 15 billion €/year For targets on PM, eutrophication, acidification and ozone Resulting emission reductions are cost-effective and have equitable distributions of costs and physical benefits