1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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

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

6. “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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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.