Aspirational targets for 2050 Workshop organized by TFIAM and ACCENT in co-operation with the...
-
Upload
aubrey-ball -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Aspirational targets for 2050 Workshop organized by TFIAM and ACCENT in co-operation with the...
Aspirational targets for 2050
Workshop organized by TFIAM and ACCENT
in co-operation with the Working Group on Effects, CCE, CIAM, TFEIP, TFRN, EGTEI, TFH, ICP Vegetation, ICP Materials
Utrecht 5-6 March 2009
Rob Maas, 12 March 200952 participants, a.o:JRC, EEA, IPCCCONCAWE, EEB
Questions
1. How do we want the environment in 2050 to look like? What are long term objectives for air pollution policy?
2. How much emission reduction is required?
3. What would an ambitious climate policy contribute to that goal?
4. What steps have to be taken?
5. How to incorporate aspirational targets in a protocol?
Open doors
• The long term objectives of the Gothenburg Protocol require structural measures and behavioural changes.
• The long term future starts today - even a long journey starts with a first step!
• Choose your destination, plan the best route, but remain flexible.
• Invest in a good preparation: a shared vision, social support, R&D, institutions & policy instruments.
• Avoid a lock-in in unsustainable ‘side roads’.• Avoid negative side effects: no swapping between air
pollution, climate change or water pollution.
From impacts to measures
1. Formulate an inspiring long term vision2. Add a date to long term “no-effect” objectives3. Translate environmental objectives for 2050
into reduction targets for deposition and exposure
4. Translate exposure targets into emission reductions
5. Define intermediate steps & short term actions based on risk management & cost-effectiveness considerations
Long term objectives1. Formulate an inspiring long term vision
“ No (significant) damage to health and ecosystems … a world without negative side effects from combustion and cattle.”
2. Add a date to (existing) long term impact objectives• Limit the loss of life expectancy in 2050 to [.. months]• No death due to ozone exposure in 2050• No [significant] damage to vegetation from ozone in 2050• No [significant] damage of cultural heritage from sulfur in 2050• Meet critical loads for acidification and nitrogen in [all] of the
[priority] ecosystems in 2050• or: have [all] of the [priority] ecosystems in a phase of biological
recovery by 2050• or: have [all] of the [priority] ecosystems fully recovered by 2050
7 % area exceeded (AAE > 0) 8 % area violated (AAE >0)
Exceedance acidity crit.loads Violation acidity target loads
Cultural heritage requires stricter limits to SO2, HNO3 & PM exposure
Exc. of CL eutrophication Violation TL eutrophication
48 % area exceeded (AAE > 0) 49 % area violated (AAE >0)
Exceedance of CLnut(N) with zero NH3 emissions everywhere
Caveat: Linearised EMEP model used
Loss in life expectancy attributable to fine particles [months]
Loss in average statistical life expectancy due to identified anthropogenic PM2.5
2000 2020 2020Maximum technical
Current legislation emission reductions
WHO AQG: Global update: WHO AQG: Global update: Summary of updated AQG valuesSummary of updated AQG values
20 µg/m3
500 µg/m324 hour10 minute
Sulfur dioxide, SO2
40 µg/m3
200 µg/m31 year1 hour
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
100 µg/m38 hour, daily maximumOzone, O3
10 µg/m3
25 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
1 year24 hour (99th percentile)
1 year24 hour (99th percentile)
Particulate matterPM2.5
PM10
AQG valueAveraging timePollutant
AQG levels recommended to be achieved everywhere in order to significantly reduce the adverse health effects of pollution
WHO AQG: Global update: WHO AQG: Global update: Summary of updated AQG valuesSummary of updated AQG values
20 µg/m3
500 µg/m324 hour10 minute
Sulfur dioxide, SO2
40 µg/m3
200 µg/m31 year1 hour
Nitrogen dioxide, NO2
100 µg/m38 hour, daily maximumOzone, O3
10 µg/m3
25 µg/m3
20 µg/m3
50 µg/m3
1 year24 hour (99th percentile)
1 year24 hour (99th percentile)
Particulate matterPM2.5
PM10
AQG valueAveraging timePollutant
AQG levels recommended to be achieved everywhere in order to significantly reduce the adverse health effects of pollutionIt would be a surprise if our understanding
of the role of PM would not change in the next 40 years
Comparison of SOMO35 with ozone flux to vegetationComparison of SOMO35 with ozone flux to vegetation
SOMO35 (ppm d)
Ozone flux to crops (AFst3gen, mmol m-2)
1EMEP & ICP Vegetation
Human health-based parameters will not protect vegetation from ozone in large areas of Europe
25108643210–1–2–3–4–6–8–10–25
25108643210–1–2–3–4–6–8–10–25
Max. season ΔO3 (2050–2000 ΔClim)Max. season ΔO3 (2050–2000 ΔEmiss)
Figure 5.8 Royal Society Report, 2008
Change in surface mean ozone concentration (2050 – 2000)Change in surface mean ozone concentration (2050 – 2000)
With emission control With climate change
Indicative aspirational targets
Deposition or exposure
Reduction
from 2010 level
Where?
SO2 40 – 60% Northern & Central Europe
and around cultural objects
NOx and NH3 70 - 90 % All Europe, especially in areas with high densities of cattle
Ozone 70 – 80 % South, West and central Europe
Particulate matter 40 – 60 % ? In urban areas
Linkage with climate policy• Even without climate policy air pollution would
decrease.• Climate policy could lead to even less air
pollution.• CO2 reductions give comparable reductions in
SO2 emissions.• Reductions of NOX & PM are lower: biofuels
and 1st generation CCS do not reduce NOX or could even lead to more emission.
• Emissions of NH3 and VOC are unrelated.
European Commission: DG Environment
Global emissions paths to meetthe 2°C objective
l 450 ppm CO2 equivalent emission path with limited overshooting gives 50%
chance meeting the 2°C objective.
l Peak before 2025
l Reduce up to 50% by
2050 compared to
1990
l Annual reduction
rates increase by 5%
for each 5 year delay
Source graph: Meinshausen
European Commission: DG Environment
Technologies that can reduce global CO2 emissions from energy combustion
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Mt
CO
2
Energy savings
Fossil fuel switch
Renewable energies
Nuclear energy
Carbon sequestration
Emission of reduction case
avo
ided
em
issi
on
s
It is technically feasible:the energy sector
How low can we go?
Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009
Power sector: Influence on air pollution
2050: Little GHG emissions from power sector
Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsNuclear/wind: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsCCS: Depends on technology choise. NOx ,SO2 ?Bio-energy: SO2 , PM10
450 ppm
Nat.gas CCS
WindWind
How low can we go?
Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009
Transport sector
2050: Still difficult to beat oil
Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsElectricity: Zero from car; but stationary emissions
H2: Some H2 emissions ; but stationary emissions
Bio-energy: SO2 , PM10
450 ppm 400 ppm
OilOilBiofuel H2Biofuel
21/18
Global Liquids SupplyB1 Scenario
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100
EJ -300700
2EJ
Hydrogen (allsources)
Biomass ethanol
Fossil methanol& liquids.
Non conv. oil
Conventional oil
Co-benefits of GHG mitigation on SO2/NOx
A2/670ppm
-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0%
Reduction of SO2 over Baseline
Re
du
ctio
n o
f CO
2 o
ve
r Ba
se
line
A2-670ppm SO2
A2-BAU MFR SO2-60%
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0%
Reduction of NOx over Baseline
Re
du
ctio
n o
f CO
2 o
ve
r Ba
se
line
A2-670ppm NOx
A2-BAU MFR NOx
2020
2040
2030
2050
2020 --->2050
2020
2030
2040
2050
2020 --->2050
Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 6
Emission trends
GLOBAL NOx emissions (Tg/yr)
0
50
100
150
200
250
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC AP CC+AP
EU 27 NOx emissions (Tg/yr)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC AP CC+AP
GLOBAL CO2 emissions (Tg/yr)
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
50000
60000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC
EU27 CO2 emissions (Tg/yr)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC
CO2: only marginaleffect of AQ abatement
Air Pollutants: considerable benefit fromCC policies
Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 7
Black Carbon and SO2
GLOBAL SO2 emissions (Tg/yr)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC AP CC+AP
EU 27 SO2 emissions (Tg/yr)
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC AP CC+AP
GLOBAL BC emissions (Tg/yr)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC AP CC+AP
EU 27 BC emissions (Tg/yr)
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
BAU CC AP CC+AP
How low can we go?
Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009
Lowest scenario
Co-benefits of aspirational climate targets
Reduction
from 2010 level
CO2 80 – 95% (2050)
40 – 55% (2030)
EU-contribution to 2 degree target
up to 50% foreign emission credits
MFR SO2
MFR BC
~ 80 %
MFR NOx 50 – 60 % Due to biofuels & 1st generation CCS
Without behavioural change
MFR VOC
MFR NH3
25 – 35 % Without behavioural change
UCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTE
SEE Society Energy Environment22
Sustainable European Energy Scenarios: EU25 CO2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Mt
SWESVNSVKPRTPOLNLDMLTLVALUXLTUITAIRLHUNGRCGBRFRAFINESTESPDNKDEUCZECYPBELAUTTargets
COUNTRIES: EU40pc20N : Environment: National: (N) Total : CO2
40% reduction
New nuclear
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Mt
SWESVNSVKPRTPOLNLDMLTLVALUXLTUITAIRLHUNGRCGBRFRAFINESTESPDNKDEUCZECYPBELAUTTargets
COUNTRIES: TecBehNN : Environment: National: (N) Total : CO2
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Mt
SWESVNSVKPRTPOLNLDMLTLVALUXLTUITAIRLHUNGRCGBRFRAFINESTESPDNKDEUCZECYPBELAUTTargets
COUNTRIES: TecNN : Environment: National: (N) Total : CO2
Maximum technologyNo new nuclear
Maximum technologyBehavioural changeNo new nuclear
With behavioural change lower emissions possible
Synergies and antagonisms• Climate policy has a long term focus; air pollution
policy could offer short term benefits. Reduction of black carbon & ozone leads to less radiative forcing and health risks at the short term.
• It is unavoidable that SO2 & secondary PM reductions will lead to less ‘masking’ of climate change.
• Additional air pollution policy remains necessary for urban air pollution and reduced nitrogen behavioural changes!
• Design environmental policies in an environmental friendly way: avoid swapping by integrated approach
Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 8
Climate policies only
AQ policies only CC+AQ policies
Change in anthropogenic PM (2050 vs 2000)
Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 9
Climate policies only
AQ policies only CC+AQ policies
Change in O3 (SOMO35) (2050 vs 2000)
Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 13
Loss of Life Expectancy: 4 scenarios
Loss of Life expectancy: 2050-2000
-10 -5 0 5 10 15
CANADA
USA
CENTRAL AMERICA
SOUTH AMERICA
NORTHERN AFRICA
WESTERN AFRICA
EASTERN AFRICA
SOUTHERN AFRICA
OECD EUROPE
EASTERN EUROPE
FORMER USSR
MIDDLE EAST
SOUTH ASIA
EAST ASIA
SOUTH EAST ASIA
OCEANIA
JAPAN
NH
SH
World
months
CC+AP
AP-only
CC-only
BAU
• BAU: always worsening compared to 2000
• CC policies: improves everywhere compared to 2000, except South Asia (but still better than BAU)
• CC policies alone already realize important part of AP abatement (CC vs AP)
• South/South-East Asia: only combined CC+AP policies lead to improvement compared to 2000
Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 16
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
CARB-2030 BAP-2030 CAP-2030
RF
Wm
-2
2030
-1.2
-1
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
CARB-2050 BAP-2050 CAP-2050
RF
Wm
-2
Aerosol D RF Aerosol IR F O3 RF
CH4 RF N2 O RF CO2 RF
Total RF
2050
climate policies only
air qualitypolicies only
air quality+ CC policies
climate policies only
air qualitypolicies only
air quality+ CC policies
Change in radiative forcing compared to BAU
Quantitative targets3. Translate environmental objectives for 2050 into
[ranges of] reduction targets for deposition, and exposure specified for regions or countries
4. Translate exposure targets into [ranges of] emission reductions for regions or countries.
5. Define intermediate steps were should we be between 2020 and 2050?
+ Define short term actions: create a shared vision, build innovation networks, invest in R&D, develop policy instruments & social support, ….
UCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTE
SEE Society Energy Environment
National emissions : NOx and SO2 in Great Britain
20
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
kt
Fue:ExtFue:ProEle:GenHea:PubHea:AutTra(int):SeaTra(int):AirTra(nat):OtherTra(nat):AirTra(nat):RailTra(nat):Road: FTra(nat):Road: PRes:ResSer:SerOth:othInd:AgrInd:LigInd:HeaInd:Che
GBR: TecBehNN: Environment : NOx
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000 19
90
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
kt
Fue:ExtFue:ProEle:GenHea:PubHea:AutTra(int):SeaTra(int):AirTra(nat):OtherTra(nat):AirTra(nat):RailTra(nat):Road: FTra(nat):Road: PRes:ResSer:SerOth:othInd:AgrInd:LigInd:HeaInd:CheInd:Iro
GBR: TecBehNN: Environment : SO2
+ MFR end-of-pipe+ Climate Policy+ behavioural change
* speed limits* public transport* renovation of dwellings
…Social support ????
TFIAM-2050. Utrech. 5-6 March 2009
National CO2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
2050
Mt
Fue:ExtFue:ProEle:GenHea:PubHea:AutTra(nat):OtherTra(nat):Air
Tra(nat):RailTra(nat):Road: FTra(nat):Road: P
Res:ResSer:SerOth:oth
Ind:AgrInd:LigInd:Hea
Ind:CheInd:Iro
ESP: EU30pc20N: Environment: National: (N) : CO2
Spain: fast reductions possible after 2020 !
Simone Schucht /Mark Barrett 16 / 18
Transport CO2 emissions (in Mt CO2)
SEEScen scenarios France
127
137 143 142155
170186
196
130
10689 85
89
137
91
5647 49 50 51 53
138
54
26
16 11 10 10
0
50
100
150
200
250
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060
TecNN
BehNN
TecBehNN
Simone Schucht /Mark Barrett 10 / 18
Policy measures in a maximum reduction scenarioFactors reducing fuel consumption Better capacity utilisation in road freight transport
Eco-driving (cars and trucks)
Car sharing
Telework
Drivers Regulation
Spatial planning
Service centres (schools, commerce, health care ...)
Limitations to car use in central urban areas, cycling lanes
High occupancy vehicle lanes
Increased public transport offer
Increased prices for car use (+ 50%)
High fuel prices ...
Scenario analysis France
How to build social support ?
9
Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09
System change: electric driving
Productionelectric car
Batteryproduction
Electricity production
Loading facilities (at home, on the road, at car parks)
Demand-supplycontrol
Driving anelectric car(range)
10
Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09
Towards system change: activities in the predevelopment phase
Take-off
Acceleration
Stabilization
Predevelopment
resistance motivation
Relatedactivities
11
Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09
Activities in the predevelopment phase
Micro
Problem related research and
communication
R&D for system
innovation Experiments in practice and
niche markets
Development of a vision
Related to allparts of the system
12
Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09
Activities for take-off
Take-off
Acceleration
Stabilization
Predevelopment
resistance motivation
Building a newsystem
13
Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09
Building a new system
Productionfacilities
Infrastructure
InstitutionsConsumption
pattern
Risk management• Uncertainty: The future is uncertain (but with 2% GDP growth, incomes
would double in next 40 years) • Incertitude: Cost curves for 2050 cannot be known, they depend on
(investments in) technological developments.• Instruments: Can we steer developments in right directions by setting the
right environmental constraints & incentives. How to create long term social support?
• Ambition: Focus on prevention of the most serious risks, on no-effect levels for the most sensitive people & ecosystems, or …?
• Flexibility: Prepare for new scientific findings. It would be a surprise if our understanding of the role of PM would not change
• Robustness: Effects are estimated with 50% probability, does this give enough certainty?
30© 2008 KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AG, deutsches Mitgliedsunternehmen von KPMG International, einer Genossenschaft schweizerischen Rechts. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. KPMG und das KPMG-Logo sind eingetragene Markenzeichen von KPMG International.
Europe: Selected Industries – BETA vs. D/E Ratio
Auto-Cars/Light Trucks
Aerospace & DefenceRetail
Banking
Property and Infrastructure
Electronics Energy
Leisure
Div. Industrials
Airlines
Automotive Building Wood
Chemicals
Electronic Parts Distrib
Lottery Services
Rental Auto/Equipment
Retail-Pubs
Steel-SpecialtyToys
Water
Building Cement
Building & Construct-Misc
Distr./Wholesl.
Transport-Air Freight
Travel Srvc
Commer Banks
1%
10%
100%
1000%
0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7
BETA
D/E
Ratio
Sectors that are market sensitive might be disproportionate affected by the financial crisis (see red marked area).
It is likely that companies in sectors such as the Airline industry, Automotive, Building & Construction or Aerospace & Defence may need to restructure..
Financial Crisis Debt-equity ratios and market sensitivity (beta)
Economic crises are periods of creative destruction.In times of crisis leadership & vision are required.
Follow up recommendations
Invite various bodies under the Convention to consider aspirational & interim targets
WGSR to consider ways to include long term vision, objectives and non-binding targets in a protocol.