Transcript Baseline emission projections for the revision of the

Markus Amann
Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM)
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Baseline emission projections
for the revision of the
Gothenburg protocol
All calculations refer to Parties in the EMEP modelling domain
Baseline assumptions:
Activity projections
EU-27:
• PRIMES energy projection that meets the targets of the
EU Climate and Energy Package (as in NEC Report#6)
–
–
–
–
EU-wide target for ETS sector
Non-ETS targets will be met in each Member State
Full trading of renewable energy
CDM/JI for ETS and non-ETS <€ 30/t CO2
• National agricultural projections submitted to CIAM
Other Parties:
• Latest available projections available at CIAM
• As documented in CIAM report 1/2008, no further
information received since then
Baseline energy projections
80
70
Terajoule/year
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2000
Other Parties
EU-27
Coal
Biomass, waste
2020
2000
2020
Oil
Gas
Nuclear
Other
Baseline CO2 emissions
120%
CO2 emissions relative to 1990
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
1990
2005
2020
1990
EU-27
Other parties
2005
2020
Baseline assumptions:
Emission control measures
EU-27:
• “Current policy” case, as in NEC Report #6:
–
–
–
–
Current national legislation
Commission proposals on Euro-VI and IPPC revision
Additional measures to meet 2010 NECs in 2020
But NO measures for meeting legislation that cannot be
reliably quantified (e.g., AQ directive, Nitrate Directive, etc.)
Norway and Switzerland:
• Current national legislation
Other Parties:
• Baseline case of CIAM Report 1/2008
– Controls only for PM from stationary sources
Baseline emissions
relative to 2000
120%
Emissions relative to 2000
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000
2020
2000
SO2
2020
NOx
Baseline EU
MRR EU
2000
2020
PM2.5
Baseline Other Parties
MRR Other Parties
2000
2020
NH3
Baseline ECE
MRR ECE
2000
2020
VOC
Environmental impacts
Impact indicators:
• Loss in statistical life expectancy attributable to PM2.5
• Ecosystems with nitrogen deposition in excess of critical
loads (using ecosystem-specific deposition calculation)
• Forest and catchment areas with acid deposition in excess
of critical loads
• Cases of premature deaths attributable to ozone
Assumed boundary conditions:
• Emission from ships: without recent MARPOL proposal
• Hemispheric ozone: +2.4 ppb in 2020
• Five-years meteorological conditions
Baseline impact indicators
relative to 2000
Impact indicators relative to 2000
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000
2020
2000
Life expectancy loss
2020
Eutrophication
Baseline EU
MRR EU
2000
2020
Acidification Forests
Baseline Other Parties
MRR Other Parties
2000
2020
2000
2020
Acidification Water Ozone health
Baseline ECE
MRR ECE
Baseline impacts
calculated for 2020
PM2.5: Loss in stat. life expectancy
Acidification: Forest area > CL
Eutrophication: Ecosystems area > CL
Acidification: Freshwater catchment > CL
MRR case
“Maximum reductions included in RAINS”
MRR assumes:
• Full implementation of all technical end-of-pipe emission
controls that are considered in RAINS
• Respecting natural turnover of capital stock, i.e.,
no pre-mature scrapping of existing installations
MRR does not consider potentials from:
• Energy efficiency improvements*)
• Fuel substitution*)
• Behavioural changes
• Lower demand for energy services
• Alternative paths of economic development
*)
these are considered in GAINS
Baseline and MRR emissions
relative to 2000
120%
Emissions relative to 2000
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000
2020
2000
SO2
2020
NOx
Baseline EU
MRR EU
2000
2020
PM2.5
Baseline Other Parties
MRR Other Parties
2000
2020
NH3
Baseline ECE
MRR ECE
2000
2020
VOC
Baseline and MRR impact indicators
relative to 2000
Impact indicators relative to 2000
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000
2020
2000
Life expectancy loss
2020
Eutrophication
Baseline EU
MRR EU
2000
2020
Acidification Forests
Baseline Other Parties
MRR Other Parties
2000
2020
2000
2020
Acidification Water Ozone health
Baseline ECE
MRR ECE
Uncertainties and sensitivities
• Baseline projections are sensitive towards
– Underlying activity pathways:
Assumptions about employed activity pathways have received
only limited review by Parties
– Assumed implementation of national legislation:
Conservative assumptions have been used for EECCA
countries.
• Assumptions on boundary conditions
– Implementation of additional measures for ships could result in
significant lower environmental impacts
• If baseline projections should serve as starting point for
analyses of further measures, above assumptions must be
shared by negotiating Parties.
Conclusions
• Baseline emissions and air quality impacts are expected to
– decline in the EU countries,
– show no clear trends in the other countries.
• Further improvements are technically feasible.
• Further cost-effectiveness analysis requires guidance from
negotiating Parties about shared key assumptions on
– Baseline activity pathways
– Baseline emission control legislation
– Impacts of policies in other areas (climate, agriculture, energy
security, etc.)
– Development of ship emissions.