exploratory cafe scenarios for further improvements of european air quality in europe m. amann, i....
TRANSCRIPT
Exploratory CAFE scenarios
for further improvements of European air
quality in Europe
M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes,
Z. Klimont, F. Wagner, W. Schöpp
General assumptions
• All calculations (except C11) for 2020
• CAFE baseline scenario “with climate measures” (except C9)
• Maximum technically feasible emission reductions (MTFR) for stationary sources as presented to WGTS in November; new assumptions on road measures and ships
• Impact assessment for 1997 meteorology
Part 1: Target setting for PM
Loss in life expectancy attributable to anthropogenic PM2.5 [months]
2000 2020 2020
Current legislation Max. feas. reductions
Loss in average statistical life expectancy due to identified anthropogenic PM2.5Calculations for 1997 meteorology Provisional estimates with generic assumption on urban increment of PM
1. Uniform limit value on air quality:Bring down PM2.5 everywhere below an AQ limit value
2. Gap closure:Reduce PM2.5 levels everywhere by same percentage
3. Reduce total European PM2.5 exposure/health impacts at least cost – irrespective of location
Three concepts for interim targetsfor PM2.5
Option 1: Uniform limit value on air quality
• Being aware of the important shortcomings in the modelling of hot spot PM concentrations:
• Series of limit values for PM2.5 in urban background air for the “model world”
– 19, 18, 17 μg/m3. Below 17 μg/m3 : infeasible for Thessaloniki
– 17, 16.5, 16.0 μg/m3 without Thessaloniki.Below 16 μg/m3 : infeasible for Genova
– 16, 15.5, 15.0, 14.5 μg/m3 without Genova
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
Limit value (microgram/m3)
Strict EU-wide limit value
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
Limit value (microgram/m3)
Strict EU-wide limit value Exception for Thessaloniki
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
Limit value (microgram/m3)
Strict EU-wide limit value Exception for Thessaloniki Exceptions for Thessaloniki and Genova
Costs of the limit value scenarios[billion €/yr]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18 18.5 19 19.5 20
Limit value (microgram/m3)
Strict EU-wide limit value Exception for ThessalonikiExceptions for Thessaloniki and Genova Without further road measures
Distribution of costs of the limit value scenarios [€/person/year]
0
20
40
60
80
100
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 16.5 μg 16 μg 15.5 μg
Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Limit value scenarios [€/person/year]
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
16.0 μg 15.5 μg 15 μg
Option 2: Gap closure
• Objective: Reduce population exposure/health impacts in each grid cell or country by the same percentage
• Definition of “gap”:
– For NEC, gap was defined between base year and environmental long-term target (no-effect level)
– Because a uniform gap closure target is limited by the country having least scope for improvement (Cyprus), alternative source-based definition of gap used for CAFE:Gap defined as available scope for further reductions: Scope for practical improvements between CLE and MTFR
• Series of gap closures analyzed from 40 to 90%
Costs of the gap closure scenarios[billion €/yr]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MTFR 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% CLE
Gap closure without threshold Without further road measures
Distribution of costs of the “gap closure” scenarios [€/person/year]
0
20
40
60
80
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 60% 70% 80%
Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Gap closure scenarios [€/person/year]
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
60% 70% 80%
Modified gap closure: cut-off for low concentrations
• To release pressure on countries for lower effects, a cut-off at 7 μg/m3 has been introduced.
• Approach:– Determine target level of PM2.5 for a given gap closure percentage
– If target level below 7 μg/m3, target set at 7 μg/m3
– Optimization for modified targets
Costs of the modified gap closure scenarioswith cut-off at 7 μg/m3 [billion €/yr]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MTFR 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% CLE
Gap closure without threshold Gap closure with cut-off at 7 μg/m3
Costs of the source-based “gap closure” scenarios with a cut-off at 7 μg/m3 [€/person/year]
0
20
40
60
80
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 60% 70% 80%
Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Gap closure with a cut-off at 7 μg/m3 [€/person/year]
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
60% 70% 80%
Option 3: Reduce total European PM2.5 exposure/ health impacts at least cost
• Target on total reduction of Years of Life Lost (YOLL) in the EU-25
• Irrespective of place
• Optimization searches for cost-minimal set of emission controls
Costs of the Europe-wide scenarios [billion €/yr]
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Years of life lost (million years)
Distribution of costs of the Europe-wide scenarios[€/person/year]
0
20
40
60
80
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Ital
y
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total Costs (Euro/person/yr) 110 104 101
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
110 mio YOLL
Emission control costs for a life year gainedOptimization with Europe-wide targets [€/year]
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
110 mio YOLL 104 mio YOLL
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
110 mio YOLL 104 mio YOLL 101 mio YOLL
Equity and efficiency
Comparison of cost-effectiveness Costs [billion €/yr] vs. YOLL
0
10
20
30
40
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Years of life lost (million years)
Limit value Gap closure Europe-wide target
0
10
20
30
40
90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140
Years of life lost (million years)
Limit value Gap closure Europe-wide target
Some measures of equity
• Coefficient of variation (CV):
The smaller the CV, the closer (i.e., more equal) are the Member States to the EU mean
• Possible criteria:– Relative emission reductions compared to base year
– Per-capita emissions
– Emission control costs (per-capita, per GDP (MER/PPS)
– Health impacts (absolute)
– Environmental improvements/benefits (absolute/relative)
– Costs per YOLL
– Etc.
%100*tan
mean
deviationdardsCV
Coefficients of variationof per-capita emission control costs across countries
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR
Strict limit values Limit values with exceptions Strict gap closureGap closure with cut-off Europe-wide target
Coefficients of variationof relative health improvements (YOLL) across countries
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR
Strict limit values Limit values with derogations Strict gap closureGap closure with cut-off Europe-wide target
Coefficients of variationof costs per YOLL across countries
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
500%
600%
Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR
Strict limit values Limit values with derogations Strict gap closureGap closure with cut-off Europe-wide target
Conclusionson target setting approaches
• Limit value approach:– Highly sensitive towards understanding of and weight given to worst
polluted site
– Economically inefficient
– Distribution of costs and benefits across MS very uneven
• Gap closure approach:– More robust towards model uncertainties (biases cancel out)
– (Arbitrary) cut-off for less polluted sites can increase equity and efficiency
• Europe-wide target approach:– Sensitive towards model quality for typical and medium-cost
situations, less influenced by extreme cases
– Per definition most efficient
– Also superior for many equity criteria
Part 2: Multi-effect scenarios
and sensitivity analysis
Joint optimization for multiple effects
Selected targets:• PM2.5:
Europe-wide improvement in YOLLs (100/104/101 mio YOLL)
• Ozone:Cap closure on premature deaths/SOMO35 in each country: 70% - 80% - 90%
• Acidification:Gap closure on accumulated excess deposition over all ecosystems in each country: 70% - 80% - 90%
• Eutrophication: Gap closure on accumulated excess deposition over all ecosystems in each country: 70% - 80% - 90%
Costs of the joint scenarios[billion €/year]
0
10
20
30
40
MTFR High Medium Low CLE
PM optimized O3 optimized Acidification optimizedEutrophication optimized Joint optimization
Emission reductions of EU-25of the multi-effect optimization [2000=100%]
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
SO2 NOx VOC NH3 PM2.5
Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition
Composite gap closure indicatorsSum of gap closure percentages of all environmental end points
0%
100%
200%
300%
400%
PM optimized Ozone optimized Acid optimized Eutro optimized Joint optimization
PM Acidification Eutrophication Ozone
Initial uncertainty/sensitivity assessments
• Medium-ambition measures for ships (for NOx)
– Retrofit of slide valves for slow-speed pre-2000 passenger ships
– Internal engine modifications for all new engines after 2010
• National energy and agricultural projections
• Alternative health impact theory
Sensitivity case with medium ambition ship measures [million €]
Without ship
measures
with “medium ambition” measures for ships
Costs for land-based
sources
Costs for land-based
sources
Costs for ships
Total costs
Cost difference
Low ambition
5579 5251 28 5279 -300
Medium ambition
9310 8896 28 8924 -386
High ambition
14020 13180 28 13208 -812
Sensitivity assessment for national projections
• National energy and agricultural projections available for 10 countries
• Do not comply with Kyoto obligations
• Two questions:– How would optimization results change based on the national
projections?
– What about the feasibility/costs of emission ceilings, if the underlying projection does not materialize?
• Approach:– Joint optimization with national projections for same target setting rules
(gap closures and relative YOLL improvement recalculated for new CLE/MTFR)
CO2 emissions in 2020 of national and PRIMES energy projections, relative to 2000
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
140%
Belgium Denmark Finland France Italy Portugal Sweden UK CzechRepublic
Slovenia
With climate measures No further climate measures National projection
Costs of the joint scenarios [billion €/year]
0
10
20
30
40
MTFR high medium low CLE
CAFE "with climate measures" National projections
SO2 reductionsCAFE baseline vs. National projections
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
CAFE baseline CLE-MTFR low med high National projections CLE-MTFR low med high
Emissions in 2000 = 100%
Sensitivity assessment for alternative health impact theory
• Uncertainty about mechanism/causative factor of PM2.5 health impacts:
– Total PM2.5 mass?
– Only primary particles? No impacts from secondary PM?
– Ultra-fine particles?
– Heavy metal content?
• Sensitivity analysis:
– “Total PM2.5 mass” vs. “Primary PM only” theories
– Target: same relative reduction in estimated health impacts
– Together with targets for acidification, eutrophication and ozone (multi-effect context)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Italy
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total PM2.5 mass (CLE-MTFR) low med high Primary PM2.5 only low med high
Difference in PM2.5 reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory
Emissions in 2000 = 100%
Remaining problem areas in 2020Light blue = no risk
Forests – acid dep. Semi-natural – acid dep. Freshwater – acid dep.
Health - PM Health+vegetation - ozone Vegetation – N dep.
Difference in SO2 emission reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Au
stri
a
Be
lgiu
m
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep
.
De
nm
ark
Est
on
ia
Fin
lan
d
Fra
nce
Ge
rma
ny
Gre
ece
Hu
ng
ary
Ire
lan
d
Ita
ly
La
tvia
Lith
ua
nia
Lu
xem
bo
urg
Ma
lta
Ne
the
rla
nd
s
Po
lan
d
Po
rtu
ga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
ven
ia
Sp
ain
Sw
ed
en
UK
EU
-25
Total PM2.5 mass (CLE-MTFR) low med high Primary PM2.5 only low med high
Emissions in 2000 = 100%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Italy
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total PM2.5 mass (CLE-MTFR) low med high Primary PM2.5 only low med high
Difference in NOx emission reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory
Emissions in 2000 = 100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
120%
Aus
tria
Bel
gium
Cyp
rus
Cze
ch R
ep.
Den
mar
k
Est
onia
Fin
land
Fra
nce
Ger
man
y
Gre
ece
Hun
gary
Irel
and
Italy
Latv
ia
Lith
uani
a
Luxe
mbo
urg
Mal
ta
Net
herla
nds
Pol
and
Por
tuga
l
Slo
vaki
a
Slo
veni
a
Spa
in
Sw
eden UK
EU
-25
Total PM2.5 mass (CLE-MTFR) low med high Primary PM2.5 only low med high
Difference in NH3 emission reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory
Emissions in 2000 = 100%
Conclusionson multi-effect scenarios
• Important economic synergies between control measures for different air quality problems. PM and ozone are complementary.
• Appropriate combination of ambition levels for different end points needs further exploration.
• Multi-effect strategies increase robustness vs. important uncertainties in the understanding of health impacts
• Sensitivity towards alternative energy/agricultural projections needs to be further explored, but more realistic (Kyoto-compliant) projections are required
• Medium-ambition package for ships is highly cost-effective