Transcript Convention on Long-range Trans-boundary Air Pollution

Convention on Long-range Transboundary
Air Pollution
Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling
31st and 32nd meeting
8-9 December 2005, Gothenburg, Sweden
17-19 May, Rome, Italy
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
1. Review of the Gothenburg protocol
2. Prepare for the revision of the protocol
1. Review: what has changed?








New Eulerian dispersion model
Ecosystem dependent deposition rates
Sensitivity of ecosystems, ozone flux approach
Health effects of particles and ozone
Emission estimates
New (national) projections, time horizon 2020
Effects of existing control options (cycle bypassing)
Increased potential of cost-effective measures due
to linkages with climate policy, non-technical local
measures and measures for ships
Preliminary conclusion TFIAM32
• Emissions of SO2, NOx, NH3 and VOC declined
• Current policy efforts are no-regret, but…
• The Gothenburg Protocol is not sufficient to meet
the original ambitions regarding the long term
protection of ecosystems and health
Unprotected Ecosystem-area (nitrogen) - %
2000
Europe EU25
Lagrangian Model
1998 critical loads
26
2004 critical loads
25
Unified Model & 2004 CLs
grid average deposition 29
ecosystem specific dep. 35
Updated emissions &
meteo variability
50
2010 GP
Europe EU25
61
56
25
23
54
49
65
78
29
35
59
73
75
48
65 %
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Factors changing ecosystem risk estimates
Goth Protocol
Updated CL
50 * 50 km
Exceedance
of CLnut
in 2010
Eulerian model
Ecosyst. spec. dep.
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Trends in unprotected ecosystem area (%)
%
1990 1995 2000 2004 2010GP
Acidification
EU25
39
27
23
15
16
EMEP
41
19
15
10
11
Eutrophication
EU25
81
74
75
66
64
EMEP
66
54
50
47
48
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
GP knowledge:
days with ozone above 60 ppb  Problem for
Northwestern & central Europe
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
Unit:
8
6
4
2
10
12
14
16
18
20
19901990
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
%
0.0
0.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
25.0
50.0
100.0
36
38
2010
Current knowledge: SOMO35 [ppb.days] 
problem in Southern Europe
2000
2010
2020
Sum Of Mean Ozone values over 35 ppb in rural areas
Effect of hemispheric ozone increases the challenge
No increase
Expected increase
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Increasing importance of ship emissions
SO2
45
40
35
30
25
IIA
SA
20
20
20
10
IIA
SA
20
15
10
5
0
19
50
19
55
19
60
19
65
19
70
19
75
19
80
19
85
19
90
19
95
20
00
% ships emissions to land
based emissions
NO2
Contribution of SOx from
shipping to deposition of S
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Emission factors cars higher than expected
Artemis, diesel, NOx
2.5
Euro I
Euro II
Euro III
2
[g/km]
Euro IV
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
15
30
45
60
75
90
Average Speed [km/h]
105
120
135
With CLE emissions significantly decrease,
with the exception of NH3 and CO2
[EU25, Primes projection]
175%
175%
150%
150%
125%
125%
100%
100%
75%
75%
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
2000
0%
2000
GDP
2005
2010
2015
2020
GDP
Primary
energy use
CO2
2005
2010
2015
2020
SO2
NOx
VOC
GDP
Primary
GDP energy
GDP
Primary
GDP
Primary
use
energy
GDP
Primary
energy
use
Primary
CO2
energy
use
Primary
energy
CO2
use
SO2
energy
CO2
use SO2
CO2
use
NOxCO2
SO2 NOx
SO2
VOC
NOx VOC
PM2.5
NH3
PM2.5
Remaining problem areas in 2020
Eutrophication remains wide scale problem
Health+vegetation - ozone
Semi-natural – acid dep
Vegetation – N dep
Freshwater – acid dep
Forests – acid dep
Health - PM
2004 - Distance to Target NOx
Preliminary data !
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
To do list
 Improve & update national emissions projections
• Non EU-countries
• What control measures are envisaged and when? (TFEIP)
 Write TFIAM background document to the official review
report
Same structure, including figures & 4 additional items:
•
•
•
•
Add para. on policy development in EU to TFIAM-document
Describe the quality of models used based on reviews
Explore new knowledge on damage to materials
Discuss costs and benefits of Gothenburg Protocol ?
2. Preparations for revision of the Protocol
 Modelling particulate matter
 Local air pollution modelling (TFMM)
 Update MFR, including emerging technologies & nontechnical measures
 Inclusion of GHG abatement measures  GAINS
 Options for target setting & robustness of strategies
Austria
National inventory
RAINS estimate
Estonia
Malta
Slovakia
Total NMS
Slovenia
125%
Poland
Total NMS
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
Malta
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Total EU-15
UK
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
125%
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
0%
Cyprus
0%
Czech Rep.
25%
UK
25%
Total EU-15
50%
Sweden
50%
Spain
75%
Portugal
75%
Netherlands
100%
Luxembourg
100%
Italy
VOC
Ireland
0%
Greece
0%
France
25%
Germany
25%
Germany
50%
Finland
50%
France
75%
Denmark
75%
Finland
100%
Belgium
100%
Denmark
150%
Austria
Total NMS
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
Malta
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Total EU-15
UK
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
SO2
Belgium
Austria
150%
Austria
Total NMS
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
Malta
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Total EU-15
UK
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
125%
Belgium
125%
Belgium
Towards robust strategies: uncertainty analysis
RAINS emission estimates vs. national inventories, 2000
150%
NOx
150%
NH3
Austria
0%
Total NMS
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
Malta
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Total EU-15
UK
Sweden
Spain
Portugal
Netherlands
Luxembourg
Italy
Ireland
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Denmark
Belgium
National inventory
0%
RAINS estimate
UK
Cyprus
Lithuania
Latvia
Hungary
Estonia
Czech Rep.
PM10
Total EU-15
Malta
PM2.5
Total NMS
Slovenia
Slovakia
Poland
25%
Spain
25%
Sweden
50%
Portugal
50%
Netherlands
75%
Italy
75%
Luxembourg
100%
Ireland
100%
Greece
125%
France
125%
Germany
150%
Finland
150%
Denmark
175%
Austria
175%
Belgium
Uncertainties for PM are much larger!
RAINS emission estimates vs.national inventories, 2000
Workshop on Non-Technical Measures
NTMs have advantages, they:
 can have a significant and rapid effect on emissions
 do not assume speculative technological development
 often do not have negative environmental side effects
 can have low or net negative direct costs
NTMs have disadvantages, they:
 require visible changes in behaviour that will generally be resisted
by consumers, whereas most technical emission control measures
(catalytic converters, loft insulation) are virtually invisible to the
consumer
 TMs, if based on standards, have a fairly predictable easily
calculated effect on future emissions. NTMs are more uncertain.
 have indirect costs that are difficult to quantify
Non-Technical measures in the
transport sector
MFR including non-technical measures:
emissions of nitrogen oxides (Mark Barrett- Senco)
GBR: TechBeh: Air : NOx
Fue:Ext
1800
Fue:Pro
Ele:Gen
1600
Ele:Pum
1400
Ele:Tra
Hea:Pub
Hea:Aut
Tra(int):Sea:Int
Tra(int):Air: In
1000
Tra(nat):Other i
800
Tra(nat):Air: Do
Tra(nat):Rail
kt
1200
Tra(nat):Road: F
600
Tra(nat):Road: P
400
Res:Res
Ser:Ser
Oth:oth
2050
2045
2040
2035
2030
2025
2020
2015
2010
2005
Ind:Met
2000
0
1995
Ind:Agr
Ind:Lig
1990
200
Ind:Che
Ind:Iro
CO2 mitigation options in GAINS
 Power plants
• Fuels shift to natural gas and renewables
• Co-generation
• Carbon capture and storage
 Transport
• Hybrid cars
• Alternative fuels (biofuels, hydrogen)
 Industry
• End-use savings (including CHP)
• Fuel shifts
 Domestic
• Insulation
• Solar, biomass
• Fuel shift to natural gas
• Savings for appliances and lighting
15% CO2 reduction by 2020
will also reduce air pollution
CO2
CH4
N2O
SO2
0%
NOx
PM2.5
Premat.
deaths
0
-5%
-10%
-2000
-15%
-20%
-4000
-25%
-30%
-6000
-35%
-40%
-8000
EU-25
Principles for target setting (TFIAM 31)
 Long term objective is achieving critical loads & no-effect levels
 An effect-based approach has to achieve actual environmental
improvements in a cost-effective way taking into account the
distribution of costs and benefits among parties
 The appropriate scaling of the ‘gap’ is a policy choice
 For CAFE, scaling the gap between 2000 and no-effect levels
was found problematic:
• No evidence for no-effect thresholds for health impacts
• Limited scope for improvements in (clean) countries at the margin of the
EU prevent measures at highly polluted places.
 As a pragmatic interim approach, CAFE scaled the gap between the
impact indicators calculated for Baseline 2020 and MTFR,
 while working on extension of MFR with GAINS-measures and
introducing dynamic effects modelling for priority setting.
Target setting:
uniform % reduction shows limited scope
for overall reduction of PM-effects
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
Residu
MTFR
CLE
Max. gap closure
UK
Sweden
Spain
Slovenia
Slovakia
Portugal
Poland
Netherlands
Malta
Lithuania
Latvia
Luxembourg
PM-exposure in 2020 (2000 = 100%)
Italy
Ireland
Hungary
Greece
Germany
France
Finland
Estonia
Denmark
Czech Rep.
Cyprus
Belgium
0%
Austria
10%
Meetings
 30-31 October 2006 (Thessaloniki):
TFEIP/TFIAM Workshop on Emission Projections
 16-17 November (Laxenburg):
TFIAM/TFMM Workshop on Urban Air Pollution
Modelling
•
14-15 November (Laxenburg):
Drafting group TFIAM review report (Informal)
 2-4 May 2007 (Prague)
TFIAM 33 (finalize review report)
•
??
Tutorial session on GAINS-model (Informal)