1. 1 Consideration of Air Quality/Climate Linkages for Analyses Jason Samenow and Ben DeAngelo October 24, 2004 Climate Analysis Branch Climate Change Division U.S. EPA Office of Atmospheric Programs

2. 2 Climate Program Linkages Integrated Assessment Models Methane reduction Role of Black Carbon/Organic Carbon Emissions Land Use Change and Forestry Integrated Environmental Strategies

3. 3 Integrated Assessment Considerations Integrated Assessment Models –Tools for coupling climate and economic systems to determine optimal policies –We participate in and co-chair Energy Modeling Forum (EMF) –New focus on multi-gas approach –Air Quality has only been integrated into models in rudimentary manner (SO2, some trop ozone)

4. 4 CO2 Futures

5. 5 Methane Futures

6. 6 EPA’s Voluntary Methane Programs OAP runs voluntary programs to reduce methane emissions –AgStar –Coalbed Methane Outreach Program –Landfill Methane Outreach Program –Natural Gas STAR –Methane to Markets Methane emissions have been reduced 5% below 1990 levels Methane (CH4) emission controls are “a powerful lever for reducing both global warming and air pollution via decreases in background tropospheric ozone” (Fiore et al., 2002)

7. 7 Courtesy John Reilly, MIT

8. 8 EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION POLICIES ON GLOBAL CLIMATE EFFECTS PARTIALLY CANCEL EACH OTHER LOWER OZONE  LESS WARMING & SEA LEVEL RISE LOWER SO X AEROSOL  MORE WARMING & SEA LEVEL RISE LOWER OH  LONGER CH 4 LIFETIME  LARGER GWP  POTENTIALLY MORE WARMING & SEA RISE MORE CARBON UPTAKE  LESS WARMING & SEA RISE LOWER BLACK CARBON (BC)  ???  Courtesy John Reilly, MIT

9. 9 Black/Organic Carbon Considerations How important is BC/OC relative to other GHGs for climate?

10. 10 BC/OC Considerations How well can we measure BC/OC? –Inventories exist but uncertainties remain large Mitigation options –Integrated assessment may help ID synergies and tradeoffs with GHG mitigation Climate or Air Quality Goal? –Remains unclear how and to what extent BC/OC should be treated within a climate policy context

11. 11 LUCF Considerations We are conducting and supporting analyses on carbon sequestration and GHG mitigation options in forestry and agriculture – domestically and internationally Key NEW question: How will climate change and air pollution over time affect trees and crops, and hence, potential greenhouse gas mitigation?

12. 12 IAM Challenges Continue refining science of climate change/air quality linkages and incorporate into models Include plausible air quality policies as they affect long-term GHG emissions scenarios Conduct a new comprehensive, multi-gas policy assessment to improve the understanding of the effects of including non-CO 2 GHGs (NCGGs) and sinks (terrestrial sequestration) into short- and long- term mitigation policies. Identify synergies/trade-offs with GHG and air pollutant mitigation strategies How can ICAP results feed into Integrated Assessment Modeling?

13. 13 Integrated Environmental Strategies Established in 1998 as a capacity-enhancing co-benefits program. Partners local teams in developing countries with experts and tools from U.S. EPA, other IES projects, and other organizations (e.g., U.S. AID, NREL). Flexible, to address local air quality and public health needs of stakeholders in cities. Identifies and analyzes integrated (i.e., air- quality improvement and greenhouse-gas mitigation) strategies and co-benefits.

14. 14 IES Goals Identify strategies that improve local air quality while meeting public health, economic development, and GHG mitigation objectives. Provide stakeholders with quantitative estimates of local and global co-benefits of policies and technologies. Build analytical, institutional, and human capacity for co-benefits analysis Transfer tools and methodologies for co- benefits analysis.

15. 15 IES: Key questions What are the health impacts of changes in policies that impact air quality? What is the economic value of these health impacts? What are the GHG emissions reductions associated with these measures? How can an integrated approach benefit decision- making? How can co-benefits be quantified to be meaningful? How can integrated analysis benefit existing decision-making processes?

16. 16 Contacts Black Carbon –Ben DeAngelo, deangelo.ben@epa.gov, 202-343-9107deangelo.ben@epa.gov Integrated Assessment Modeling –Steve Rose, rose.steven@epa.gov, 202-343-9553rose.steven@epa.gov –Francisco Delachesnaye, Acting Branch Chief, delachesnaye.francisco@epa.gov, 202-343-9010 delachesnaye.francisco@epa.gov Methane Voluntary Programs –Paul Gunning, gunning.paul@epa.gov, 202-343-9736gunning.paul@epa.gov Carbon Sequestration –Ken Andrasko, andrasko.ken@epa.gov, 202-343-9281 and Ben DeAngeloandrasko.ken@epa.gov

17. 17 Contacts Integrated Environmental Strategies –Kong Chiu, chiu.kong@epa.gov, 202-343-9309chiu.kong@epa.gov Climate Change Science Issues –Jason Samenow, samenow.jason@epa.gov,samenow.jason@epa.gov 202-343-9327

18. 18 Resources Methane voluntary programs www.epa.gov/methane GHG emissions inventory www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publications/emissions Carbon sequestration website www.epa.gov/sequestration