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] Current legislation Max. feas. reductions Loss in average statistical life expectancy due to identified anthropogenic PM2.5 Calculations 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 targets for 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/m 3. Below 17 μg/m 3 : infeasible for Thessaloniki –17, 16.5, 16.0 μg/m 3 without Thessaloniki. Below 16 μg/m 3 : infeasible for Genova –16, 15.5, 15.0, 14.5 μg/m 3 without Genova

Costs of the limit value scenarios [billion €/yr]

Distribution of costs of the limit value scenarios [€/person/year]

Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Limit value scenarios [€/person/year]

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]

Distribution of costs of the “gap closure” scenarios [€/person/year]

Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Gap closure scenarios [€/person/year]

Modified gap closure: cut-off for low concentrations To release pressure on countries for lower effects, a cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 has been introduced. Approach: –Determine target level of PM2.5 for a given gap closure percentage –If target level below 7 μg/m 3, target set at 7 μg/m 3 –Optimization for modified targets

Costs of the modified gap closure scenarios with cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 [billion €/yr]

Costs of the source-based “gap closure” scenarios with a cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 [€/person/year]

Costs of a gained month of life expectancy Gap closure with a cut-off at 7 μg/m 3 [€/person/year]

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]

Distribution of costs of the Europe-wide scenarios [€/person/year]

Emission control costs for a life year gained Optimization with Europe-wide targets [€/year]

Equity and efficiency

Comparison of cost-effectiveness Costs [billion €/yr] vs. YOLL

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.

Coefficients of variation of per-capita emission control costs across countries

Coefficients of variation of relative health improvements (YOLL) across countries

Coefficients of variation of costs per YOLL across countries

Conclusions on 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]

Emission reductions of EU-25 of the multi-effect optimization [2000=100%]

Composite gap closure indicators Sum of gap closure percentages of all environmental end points

Initial uncertainty/sensitivity assessments Medium-ambition measures for ships (for NO x ) –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 ships Total costs Cost difference Low ambition Medium ambition High ambition

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)

CO 2 emissions in 2020 of national and PRIMES energy projections, relative to 2000

Costs of the joint scenarios [billion €/year]

SO 2 reductions CAFE baseline vs. National projections 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)

Difference in PM2.5 reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory Emissions in 2000 = 100%

Remaining problem areas in 2020 Light blue = no risk Forests – acid dep. Semi-natural – acid dep.Freshwater – acid dep. Health - PMHealth+vegetation - ozoneVegetation – N dep.

Difference in SO 2 emission reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory Emissions in 2000 = 100%

Difference in NO x emission reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory Emissions in 2000 = 100%

Difference in NH 3 emission reductions between a “Primary PM only” and a “Total PM mass” theory Emissions in 2000 = 100%

Conclusions on 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