mitigating bc kristin rypdal and terje berntsen based on paper in prep. by rypdal, rive, berntsen...
TRANSCRIPT
Mitigating BC
Kristin Rypdal and Terje Berntsen
Based on paper in prep. by Rypdal, Rive, Berntsen and KlimontAll results preliminary
2
Current mitigation efforts
• Targeting PM10, PM2.5 or TSP with the objective of reducing health impacts– Will indirectly reduce emissions of BC
• Europe– LRTAP Convention– EU NEC Directive
• National policies and regional cooperation in most parts of the world
3
Questions
• Is mitigation of PM from the perspective of health concerns sufficient to also address the concerns we may have for RF caused by BC?
• What would be an efficient strategy to reduce radiative forcing caused by BC in terms of minimizing global costs?
4
Regional share of emissions (2030, CLE)
Europe, Russia and N-America
13 %
Africa and L America
22 %
CPA (China)33 %
South Asia19 %
East Asia & Pacific13 %
Cofala et al. (2007)
5
CLE-MFR 2030
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Europ
e
Russia
N Am
erica
L Am
erica
Africa
CPA
East A
sia
South
Asia
Gg
Cofala et al. (2007)
CLE = Current Legislation; MFR = Maximum Feasible Reduction,
6
Share of sources (CLE 2030)
EU-17
Industrial Processes
2 %
Transport35 %
Domestic33 %
Residential and Agri Waste
7 %
Open Burning22 %
7
Share of sources (CLE 2030)
CPA (China)
Industrial Processes
11 %
Domestic66 %
Residential and Agri Waste
10 %
Open Burning3 %
Transport8 %
8
Strategy
• Seek to maximize reductions in global RF from BC– 1. Undertake reductions first in regions where the
benefits per tonne BC reduced are the largest– 2. As 1, but also minimizing global costs– 3. As 2, but also considering regional ability to pay
for abatement– 4. Emphasize sources where PM exposure is large
• 5, 10 and 20 % in global RF by BC in 2030
• MFR constitutes a ceiling to the amount abated
9
CLE
MFR
10 % reduction in RF
Incre
asin
g co
sts
Hig
her R
F red
uctio
nRegional costs
Regional forcing
10
Open burning and OC
• When BC is abated OC is abated as well– Counterweight the benefit in terms of reduced RF
• Mitigating BC from biomass burning has no or little benefit in reducing net RF
• Open burning very important in Latin America and Africa (more important than contained)
• Cost estimates hard to define for open burning
• For simplicity we ignore biomass burning in the analysis shown here
11
Regional radiative properties
• Use GWP as an approximation– Arbitrary time-horizon
• Direct effect of BC in air
• Indirect effect of BC deposited on snow in the Arctic
12
Regional radiative forcing
Regions GWP direct GWP albedo Total GWP
Europe 384 1210 1594
Russia (RUS) 430 96 526
North America (NAM) 413 244 656
Latin America (LAM) 666 64 730
Asia (China and India) 430 96 526
South Asia (SAS) 612 64 676
Africa (AFR) 691 64 755
Source: Reddy and Boucher (2007)
13
Climate efficacies
• Temperature response of one unit RF of BC deposited on snow is larger than for the direct component
• Here we have multiplied the indirect GWP value by 3 (Flanner et al. JGR, 2007)
Direct GWP; Total GWP; Efficacies
14
Abatement costs
• Consider cost of end-of pipe abatement
• Fuel switch is an important option for reducing BC emissions
• Marginal abatement costs for Europe available from the IIASA RAINS model– Per source, fuel and technology– Consistent with the emission scenarios used
15
Black Carbon MAC, EU17 in 2030
0
100000
200000
300000
400000
500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000
tBC reduced from CLE
Eur
os p
er tB
C
16
Abatement costs
• Lack comparable data for other world regions
• Use intervals of the Europe curve for other regions– Taking on board differences in source and fuel
structure
• Technology assumptions– North-America as EU-17– Other regions as Former Soviet Union
17
Costs (direct GWP only)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
S1 S2 S3 S4
Bill
ion
Eur
o
10 % RF
5 % RF
GWP only Min costs Ability to pay Health focus
18
Regional abatement efforts
050
100150200250300350
CPA(China)
SouthAsia
Europe NorthAmerica
Other
Mg
5 % Direct
5 % Total
5 % Efficacy
10 % Direct
10 % Total
10 % Efficacy
19
Sectoral abatement (S2)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Domestic Road/off-road
Industry Industrialprocesses
Othertransport
Mg
5 %
10 %
MFR
20
Correction for income
S2 = cost-effective; S3 = corrected for GDP
050
100150200250300350
CPA(China)
SouthAsia
Europe NorthAmerica
Other
Tg
5 % S2
5 % S3
10 % S2
10 % S3
21
Health focus
• Ignoring biomass burning increases costs of reducing PM10 emissions!
• Giving higher weight to sources and regions where exposure is high
• For fossil sources and processes emphasis on high-exposure sources does not substantially increase total abatement costs
22
Abating BC instead of CO2
• Complicated question!
• 100 years time horizon– 5 % reduction in RF is inexpensive– 10 % reduction in RF is
• Expensive considering the direct effect only• Within the higher range of expected ETS prices
considering the total GWP (30-40 Euro per tonnes)
• Efficacies: In the range of expected CO2 (20-30 Euro per tonnes)
23
Conclusions
• Need better data on – regional abatement costs– Regional GWPs or other metric– OC metric?
• May want:– Higher regional resolution!
• Improved treatment of biomass burning (open and contained)
24
Conclusions
• Seeking global cost-effectiveness important to get political acceptance for additional mitigation efforts
• Primary focus on health concerns may not target sources where RF benefits are the largest
• Focus on abatement in Asia– Most cost-effective in terms of reducing global RF
– Highest co-benefits in terms of reduced PM10 emissions
– Benefits for the Arctic?
25
Conclusions
• Poorer countries may not be able to pay for the globally most cost-effective reductions– Need a mechanism (“CDM”, fund)?
• Considering the indirect component of GWP from BC on snow and the climate efficacy should lead to higher abatement efforts in Europe– Does not increase overall cost as less tonnes BC
need to be abated– Adds overall justification to abating BC rather than
other forcing agents