1. Three policy scenarios for CAFE
Markus Amann, Janusz Cofala, Chris Heyes, Zbigniew Klimont, Wolfgang Schöpp, Fabian Wagner
Three policy scenarios for CAFE

2. Assumptions CAFE baseline “with climate measures” for 2020
Agricultural projections without CAP reform
Further measures for road emissions taken
Meteorology of 1997

3. Costs for reducing the four effects between CLE and MTFR
*) excluding costs for road sources

4. 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)
Ozone (country-wise gap closure on SOMO35)
60%
80%
90%

5. Emission control costs for three ambition levels for the four targets
*) excluding costs for road sources

6. Effects in 2000 and for CAFE medium ambition 2020PM
Eutrophication
Ozone
Acid, forests
Acid, lakes
Acid, semi-nat.

7. Optimized emission reductions for EU-25 of the D23 scenarios [2000=100%]

8. Costs per pollutant for EU-25 on top of CLE

9. 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

10. Measures taken in the D23 medium ambition scenario
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)
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

11. Distribution of costs [€/person/year]
*) excluding costs for road sources

12. Distribution of physical benefits Medium ambition scenario
% point improvements in total European effect indicators*), sum over four effects
*) between CLE and MTFR

13. Sensitivity analyses How would measures for ships change the outcomes?
Are emission reductions in the joint optimization driven by health or ecosystems targets?
How would alternative health impact theories change the results?
How would national energy and agricultural projections change the optimization outcome?

14. With “medium ambition” measures for ships
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 ships
Total costs
Cost difference
Low ambition
5953
5813 28
5841
-140
Medium ambition
10709
10522
10550
-159
High ambition
14882
14582
14556
-326

15. Sensitivity analysis 2: Are PM or ecosystems targets driving?
*) excluding costs for road sources

16. Sensitivity analysis 2: Are PM or ecosystems targets driving?

17. 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:
Health only
Multi-effect optimization

18. PM fractions associated with health impacts
Natural
Sec organics
Nitrates
Sulfates
Carbon
Primary non-carbon
Standard RAINS approach
Sensitivity case
WHO advice
Primary anthrop. particles
Secondary anthrop. particles

19. Sensitivity analysis 3: Control costs for alternative impact theories

20. Sensitivity analysis 3: Reductions of “Primary PM only” case vs
Sensitivity analysis 3: Reductions of “Primary PM only” case vs. Standard approach, joint optimization

21. 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)

22. 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
Czech
Republic
Slovenia
With climate measures
No further climate measures
National projection

23. Sensitivity analysis 4: Costs of optimized scenarios, CAFE baseline vs
Sensitivity analysis 4: Costs of optimized scenarios, CAFE baseline vs. national projections
Billion €/year
*) excluding costs for road sources

24. Sensitivity analysis 4: SO2 emissions, CAFE baseline vs
Sensitivity analysis 4: SO2 emissions, CAFE baseline vs. national projections
Emissions in 2000 = 100%

25. 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!)