Co-benefits of greenhouse gas mitigation on air pollution

1
Co-benefits ofgreenhouse gas mitigationon air
pollution

• Markus Amann J. Cofala, Z. Klimont, L. Höglund,
  F. Wagner, W. Winiwarter

2
Background

• Greenhouse gases and air pollutants originate
  from the same sources
• New scientific findings on role of aerosols and
  ground-level ozone for radiative forcing and air
  pollution
• Initial GAINS focus on economic synergies
  Simultaneous emission reductions offer
  co-benefits
• Explore differences between developing and
  industrialized countries

3
Approach

• GAINS cost curves for GHGs combined with RAINS
  cost curves for air pollutants
• Illustrative GAINS analysis
• Starting point National activity projections for
  2020
• Case 1 CO2-only case
• 15 GHG reduction with CO2 only
• Implied carbon price 90 /t CO2

4
Changes in fuel consumptionfor the CO2-only case
of baseline consumption
5
Change in emissions and AQ impacts accompanying
the CO2 reduction, compared to the baseline 2020
6
Avoided premature deaths attributable to PM2.5
accompanying the CO2 reduction of EU-25
cases/yr
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
Provisional GAINS calculations
7
Change in emissions and health impacts
accompanying the CO2 reduction, compared to the
baseline 2020
8
Costs for the 15 CO2 reductioncompared to REF
billion /yr
EU-25 EU-25 Turkey
GHG mitigation costs CO2 23.6 2.2









EU-25 EU-25 Turkey
GHG mitigation costs CO2 23.6 2.2

Avoided costs for air pollution control SO2 -2.0
Avoided costs for air pollution control NOx -2.9
Avoided costs for air pollution control PM -1.1
Total -6.0 0

Net mitigation costs 17.6 2.2


EU-25 EU-25 Turkey
GHG mitigation costs CO2 23.6 2.2

Avoided costs for air pollution control SO2 -2.0
Avoided costs for air pollution control NOx -2.9
Avoided costs for air pollution control PM -1.1
Total -6.0 0

Net mitigation costs 17.6 2.2

Health benefits -3.0 -8.0
9
The multi-gas case

• 15 reduction in GHGs
• Achieved by CO2, CH4 and N2O
• Carbon price 40 /t CO2

10
Change in emissions and health impacts
accompanying the GHG reduction, compared to the
baseline 2020
11
Costs for the 15 multi-gas reductioncompared to
REF billion /yr, GDP 2020
EU-25 EU-25 EU-25 Turkey Turkey Turkey
GHG mitigation costs CO2 5.7 0.6
GHG mitigation costs CH4 0.7 -0.1
GHG mitigation costs N2O 0.4 0
Total 6.8 0.04 0.5 0.12

Avoided costs for air pollution control SO2 -1.6
Avoided costs for air pollution control NOx -1.4
Avoided costs for air pollution control PM -0.7
Total -3.7

Net mitigation costs 3.1 0.02 0.5 0.12
Health benefits -2.3 -0.016 -4.0 -0.90

EU-25 EU-25 EU-25 Turkey Turkey Turkey
GHG mitigation costs CO2 5.7 0.6
GHG mitigation costs CH4 0.7 -0.1
GHG mitigation costs N2O 0.4 0
Total 6.8 0.04 0.5 0.12

Avoided costs for air pollution control SO2 -1.6
Avoided costs for air pollution control NOx -1.4
Avoided costs for air pollution control PM -0.7
Total -3.7

Net mitigation costs 3.1 0.02 0.5 0.12

EU-25 EU-25 EU-25 Turkey Turkey Turkey
GHG mitigation costs CO2 5.7
GHG mitigation costs CH4 0.7
GHG mitigation costs N2O 0.4
Total 6.8

Avoided costs for air pollution control SO2 -1.6
Avoided costs for air pollution control NOx -1.4
Avoided costs for air pollution control PM -0.7
Total -3.7

Net mitigation costs 3.1

EU-25 EU-25 EU-25 Turkey Turkey Turkey
GHG mitigation costs CO2 5.7 0.6
GHG mitigation costs CH4 0.7 -0.1
GHG mitigation costs N2O 0.4 0
Total 6.8 0.5

Avoided costs for air pollution control SO2 -1.6
Avoided costs for air pollution control NOx -1.4
Avoided costs for air pollution control PM -0.7
Total -3.7

Net mitigation costs 3.1 0.5

12
A bio-fuel case

• Increased biomass use in households10 of light
  fuel oil is replaced by biomass (wood), burned
  in most advanced boilers

CO2 -17 Mt 0.5 of EU 2000 emission

SO2 - 2 kt
NOx 1 kt
PM2.5 25 kt Finlands 2000 emissions
13
Differences in premature deaths attributable to
PM2.5, compared to REF (cases/year)
Fuel-shift case
Bio-fuel case
1000
0
-1000
-2000
-3000
-4000
14
Conclusions

• Co-benefits of GHG reductions on air pollution
  are substantial
• Fuel shifts for CO2 reductions can save 1000s of
  lives
• But GHG mitigation relying on bio-fuels can
  deteriorate air pollution, especially in
  developing countries
• In situations with stringent air pollution
  controls, CO2 reductions can avoid significant
  costs forair pollution controls. Cost savings
  occur immediately to the same sectors.
• Multi-gas GHG strategies have less CO2
  co-benefits, but better cost-effectiveness
  ratio. Co-benefits on ozone!
• The GAINS model offers a tool for quantitative
  analysis