1. Impacts on air pollution from Nordic low CO 2 emission initiatives Scenario analysis performed with the GAINS model

2. Project description The project aimed at illustrating co-benefits and trade-offs on air pollution from ambitious air pollution strategies Project participants –Stefan Åström, Maria Lindblad, Jenny Arnell, IVL –Antti Tohka, Niko Karvosenoja, SYKE –Jesper Bak, DMU –Knut Alfsen, CICERO (with help from SYKE)

3. Project description Official national energy and emission projections were used as baseline scenarios National low CO 2 emission reports were chosen as low emission scenarios A ’what-if’ scenario illustrated the impact of increased electricity export to Poland and Germany The GAINS model was used to calculate differences in emissions and environmental impact The GAINS cost database and the low CO 2 emission reports were used to calculate abatement costs

4. Project results – emissions Emission changes between the BSL and the low emission scenarios Country / emissionFinlandNorwaySwedenDenmarkOther* Total NordicUnit CO 2 -20-5-16-10-32-65MT CO 2 -eq Non-CO 2 GHG -0-0-2MT CO 2 -eq SO 2 -161-41-23-8kton NOx -15-40-423-22-86kton PM2,5 -38-47-211kton *’Other’ emissions is applicable in the 'What-if' scenario. *Germany and Poland are in the emission calculations included in the group Other. For Sweden, the emission reductions require large behavioural and structural changes Norway and Denmark will increase their PM emissions due the increase in bio fuel use In the ’what-if’ scenario, large emission reductions could be reached in Poland and Germany

5. Project results - acidification Area and change in areas with exceedance of Critical Load for acidification CountryFinlandNorwaySwedenDenmarkOther* Total NordicUnit BSL total3.715.4241.3112.244.41000 km 2 Low_em - BSL change-0.4-0.5 -0.1-0.3-1.51000 km 2 WHATIF - BSL change-0.5-0.6 -0.2-1.3-1.91000 km 2 *Other is in the case of environmental and health impact calculated from the 'What-if' scenario, on all regions described in the GAINS model outside the Nordic countries The acidification problem in the Nordic countries improve, but not by much in the low emission scenarios A bit more improvement is given if Poland and Germany also reduce their emissions by importing Nordic electricity The improvement in countries outside of the Nordic countries is substantial

6. Project results - eutrophication Area and change in areas with exceedance of Critical Load for eutrophication CountryFinlandNorwaySwedenDenmarkOther* Total NordicUnit BSL total73.713.955.62.3665.1145.51000 km 2 Low_em - BSL change-5.7-0.7-2.20-0.6-8.61000 km 2 WHATIF - BSL change-6-0.7-2.40-1.2-9.11000 km 2 * Other is in the case of environmental and health impact calculated from the 'What-if' scenario, but on all regions outside the Nordic countries described in the GAINS model The eutrophication problem in the Nordic countries improve, but not by much in the low emission scenarios Denmark’s situation will not improve A bit more improvement is given if Poland and Germany also reduce their emissions by importing Nordic electricity The improvement in countries outside of the Nordic countries is noticable

7. Project results - health Number of life years lost due to long term exposure of PM 2.5 CountryFinlandNorwaySwedenDenmarkOther* Total NordicUnit BSL total6434131 2501 275120 5973 581 thousand life years lost Low_em - BSL change-3220-3835-101-15 thousand life years lost WHATIF - BSL change-3220-4130-572-23 thousand life years lost * Other is in the case of environmental and health impact calculated from the 'What-if' scenario, but on all regions outside the Nordic countries described in the GAINS model The health situation improves in Finland and Sweden Denmark’s and Norways situation will get worse due to increased PM emissions Relatively large health benefits in the countries outside the Nordic countries in the ’what-if’ scenario, due to populaiton density

8. Project results - health Health improvements would also occur far from the Nordic countries in the ’what-if scenario life months loss - BSL life months loss – ’what-if’

9. Project results - costs The Nordic net abatement costs following the low emission scenarios Incremental cost on top of the baseline scenarios CountryDenmarkFinlandNorwaySwedenTotal Domestic-367-334-75-1 231-2 007million €/year PP and IND488427284-911 to 0288 – 1 199million €/year Transport-394-167-705794-472million €/year Total costs on top of the national baselines-273-74-496-1 348 to -437-2 191 to -1 280million €/year Costs are calculated as extra costs compared to the baseline Overall, the costs are negative, but redistribution costs might appear, behavioural and structural changes could not be included In many countries and sectors, cost savings are reached through reduced energy expenses The Swedish costs in the PP sector depends on how the sector replies to the reduced electricity demand in Sweden High transport sector costs in Sweden due to plug-in hybrids

10. Project conclusions Cost effective CO 2 emission reduction strategies are available in 2020 Some strategies are less cost effective (hybrid cars, some fuel shifts) Some strategies will require further air pollution emission reduction efforts to avoid health effects GHG abatement strategies can be designed to avoid trade-offs with air pollution A specified export of ’green electricity’ would provide substantial benefits for the Nordic countries

11. Project recommendations Joint Nordic energy strategies would be desirable (reduce uncertainties) By considering impacts on air pollution, trade- offs can be avoided and co-benefits maximised The potential for further export of ’green electricity’ should be explored? Joint Nordic strategies could increase the potential for introduction of renewables such as wind power?

12. Thanks to the Nordic Council of Ministers!