Three policy scenarios for CAFE
Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Chris Heyes, Zbigniew Klimont, Wolfgang Schöpp, Fabian Wagner
Assumptions
• CAFE baseline “with climate measures” for 2020
• Agricultural projections without CAP reform
• Further measures for road emissions taken
• Meteorology of 1997
Costs for reducing the four effectsbetween CLE and MTFR
MTFR
CLE0
10
20
30
40
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Gap closure between CLE and MTFR
Billion Euro/year
PM Ozone Acidification Eutrophication
*) excluding costs for road sources
Targets selected for the optimization
Ambition level
CLE Low Medium High MTFR
Years of life lost due to PM2.5 (EU-wide, million YOLLs)
137 110 104 101 96
Acidification (country-wise gap closure on cumulative excess deposition)
0% 55% 75% 85% 100%
Eutrophication (country-wise gap closure on cumulative excess deposition)
0% 55% 75% 85% 100%
Ozone (country-wise gap closure on SOMO35)
0% 60% 80% 90% 100%
0
10
20
30
40
MTFR High Medium Low CLE
Billions Euro/year
PM optimized O3 optimized Acidification optimized Eutrophication optimized
Emission control costsfor three ambition levels for the four targets*)
0
10
20
30
40
MTFR High Medium Low CLE
Billions Euro/year
PM optimized O3 optimized Acidification optimizedEutrophication optimized Joint optimization
*) excluding costs for road sources
Effects in 2000 and for CAFE medium ambition 2020
PM Eutrophication Ozone
Acid, forests Acid, lakes Acid, semi-nat.
Optimized emission reductions for EU-25of the D23 scenarios [2000=100%]
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
SO2 NOx VOC NH3 PM2.5
% of 2000 emissions
Gray range: CLE to MTFR Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition
Costs per pollutant for EU-25on top of CLE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR
Billion Euros/year
Road sources SO2 NOx NH3 VOC PM
Measures taken in the D23 medium ambition scenario
• SO2
– Low sulphur coal
– Low sulphur heavy fuel oil
– Flue gas desulphurization
• NOx
– Combustion modifications
– Selective non-catalytic and catalytic reduction
– NOx reduction from light- and heavy-duty diesel vehicles
• PM– High efficiency dedusters
– New boiler types in the residential sector
– Good housekeeping measures on oil boilers
– Low sulphur fuels for (national) sea traffic
Measures taken in the D23 medium ambition scenario
• Ammonia– Application of pig and cattle
manures with low ammonia application measures
– Substituting ammonium nitrate by urea
– Covers on manure storage for pigs and cattle
– Changes in feeding strategies
• VOC – Control of fugitive losses in
organic chemical industry
– Switch emulsion bitumen in road paving
– Paint application (coatings)
–
– Stage II
– Liquid fuel production (improved flare and reduction of fugitive losses)
Distribution of costs[€/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
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 Costs (Euro/person/yr) Low ambition Medium ambition
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) Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition
*) excluding costs for road sources
Distribution of physical benefitsMedium ambition scenario
% point improvements in total European effect indicators*), sum over four effects
*) between CLE and MTFR
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
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
YOLL gains Eutrophication Acidification Ozone
Sensitivity analyses
1. How would measures for ships change the outcomes?
2. Are emission reductions in the joint optimization driven by health or ecosystems targets?
3. How would alternative health impact theories change the results?
4. How would national energy and agricultural projections change the optimization outcome?
Sensitivity analysis 1:With medium ambition measures for ships [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
5953 5813 28 5841 -140
Medium ambition
10709 10522 28 10550 -159
High ambition
14882 14582 28 14556 -326
Sensitivity analysis 2:Are PM or ecosystems targets driving?
0
10
20
30
40
MTFR High Medium Low CLE
Billion Euros/year
O3 optimized Acidification optimized Eutrophication optimized Joint optimization without PM
0
10
20
30
40
MTFR High Medium Low CLE
PM optimized Joint optimization without PM Joint optimization
*) excluding costs for road sources
Sensitivity analysis 2: Are PM or ecosystems targets driving?
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
PM
driv
en
Eco
syst
ems
driv
en
Join
t op
timiz
atio
n
PM
driv
en
Eco
syst
ems
driv
en
Join
t op
timiz
atio
n
PM
driv
en
Eco
syst
ems
driv
en
Join
t op
timiz
atio
n
PM
driv
en
Eco
syst
ems
driv
en
Join
t op
timiz
atio
n
PM
driv
en
Eco
syst
ems
driv
en
Join
t op
timiz
atio
n
SO2 NOx VOC NH3 PM2.5
% of 2000 emissions
Gray range: CLE - MTFR Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition
Sensitivity analysis 3:Uncertainties in PM health impact theories
• Alternative hypothesis: “Secondary inorganic aerosols do not contribute to health impacts, all PM effects are related to primary PM2.5 emissions”
• Sensitivity study: – Achieve same relative improvement in mortality estimated for CLE
based on “primary PM only” theory – or, expressed alternatively: – Reduce primary PM2.5 concentrations by the same percentage as total
PM2.5 would be reduced in reference case
• Two optimization runs:1. Health only
2. Multi-effect optimization
PM fractions associated with health impacts
Natural
Sec organics
Nitrates
Sulfates
Carbon
Primarynon-carbon
StandardRAINS
approachSensitivity
case
WHO advice
Primaryanthrop.particles
Secondaryanthrop.particles
Sensitivity analysis 3:Control costs for alternative impact theories
0
10
20
30
40
Standard approach Primary PM only Standard approach Primary PM only
Health only optimized Multi-effect optimization
Billion Euros/year
Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition MTFR
Sensitivity analysis 3:Reductions of
“Primary PM only” case vs. Standard approach, joint optimization
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
"Prim
ary
PM
only
"
Sta
ndar
dap
proa
ch
"Prim
ary
PM
only
"
Sta
ndar
dap
proa
ch
"Prim
ary
PM
only
"
Sta
ndar
dap
proa
ch
"Prim
ary
PM
only
"
Sta
ndar
dap
proa
ch
"Prim
ary
PM
only
"
Sta
ndar
dap
proa
ch
SO2 NOx VOC NH3 PM2.5
% of 2000 emissions
CLE - MTFR Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition
Sensitivity analysis 4:Implications of national energy and agricultural projections
• National energy and agricultural projections available for 10 countries
• However, these do not comply with Kyoto obligations
• Two questions:
– How would optimization results (“emission ceilings”) 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
Sensitivity analysis 4:Costs of optimized scenarios, CAFE baseline vs. national projections
0
10
20
30
40
MTFR high medium low CLE
CAFE "with climate measures" National projections
Billion €/year
*) excluding costs for road sources
Sensitivity analysis 4:SO2 emissions, CAFE 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%
Conclusions
• Three cases calculated for three ambition levels: costs of 6, 11 and 15 billion €/year
• For targets on PM, eutrophication, acidification and ozone
• Resulting emission reductions are cost-effective and have equitable distributions of costs and physical benefits
• Findings from sensitivity analyses:
– Control of ship emissions decrease overall costs
– Optimization driven by health and ecosystems targets
– Multi-effect optimization increases robustness against uncertainties in health impact mechanisms
– Robustness against national energy projections needs further attention (and more robust national projections!)