Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

1
Markus Amann International Institute for Applied
Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Going further About the costs and benefits of
going beyond the current limit values
2
Anthropogenic contribution to PM10Draft CAFE
baseline projection
2000 2010
2020
Rural concentrations, annual mean µg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for the no further climate
measures scenario Average meteorology for 1999
and 2003
3
AOT60 Draft CAFE baseline projection
2000 2010
2020
Excess of WHO guideline value (60 ppb), in
ppm.hours, accumulated from April-September averag
e for 1999 and 2003 meteorologies
4
Present AQ limit values

• For PM and ozone
• AQ limit values have been established based on
  technical and economic feasibility
• Higher than no-effect levels
• Strengthened evidence on health effects at low
  levels

5
Going further

• There will be a benefit from going below PM and
  O3 LV
• But
• Will there be a net benefit?
• Are tightened limit values a useful instrument
  for triggering the most (cost-)effective
  emission reductions?

6
1. Is there a net benefit?

• Costs of further reductions yet unknown
• Cost-benefit ratio of further measures needs to
  be established. CAFE benefit assessment is
  underway.

7
2. Are LV useful instruments for driving further
reduction of transboundary pollution?

• Available instruments
• Uniform AQ limit values
• Emission ceilings, differentiated following a
  gap closure concept and/or uniform AQ targets
• Emission limit values
• Economic instruments related to emissions
• Etc.
• Criteria
• Equity (distribution of costs and benefits across
  stakeholders)
• Efficiency
• Robustness

8
Equity

• Traditionally, uniform AQ limit values apply to
  all Member States
• Limit values must be high enough to be achievable
  in the most polluted places
• Large differences in regional air quality within
  Europe, for PM and O3

9
Anthropogenic contribution to PM2.5 2000
Rural concentrations annual meanµg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2000 Average
meteorologyfor 1999 and 2003 EMEP Eulerian
model Preliminary results
10
A limit value for PM2.5?

• Highest calculated rural PM2.5 concentration from
  anthropogenic sources 60 µg/m3 (Russia), 23
  µg/m3 (EU-25)
• Assume limit value of 20 µg/m3
• Not achievable in Eastern Europe, tough in some
  EU countries

11
Population exposure to anthropogenic
PM2.5(µgpersons, emissions of 2000, average of
19992003 met)
12
Distributional aspects

• Limit values determine focus of further action
• Further measures directed to hot spots, while
  larger benefits could be accrued also at less
  polluted places where more people are affected
• While still possible and possibly cost-effective,
  further improvements at less polluted places,
  are postponed until hot spots reach lower
  levels.
• Costs (and benefits) are focused to hot spots

13
Efficiency

• For transboundary ozone, chemistry scheme of hot
  spot determines international emission reduction
  scheme. Not necessarily efficient for non-hot
  spot areas.
• Example Ozone control scenarios for NEC analysis

14
Ozone hot spots in Europe
NOx emission densities
Estimated days with ozone above 60 ppb in 2010
15
NOx and VOC reductions for bringing AOT60 below 3
ppm.hours everywhere (NEC Scenario D1/2)
16
Ozone as a function of NOx and VOC
emissions(EKMA isopleths)
17
Robustness

• Interannual meteorological variability
  variability important for O3 and PM
• How to treat extreme situations with unknown
  representativeness?

18
Inter-annual meteorological variabilityAnthropoge
nic contribution to PM2.5
2003 average
1999
Rural concentrations, annual mean µg/m3 from
known anthropogenic sources excluding sec. org.
aerosols Emissions for 2000, EMEP Eulerian model
19
Conclusions

• There will be benefits from reducing air
  pollution in Europe below present limit values.
• Limit values are problematic policy instruments
  for driving reductions of transboundary
  pollution
• Equity?
• Efficiency?
• Robustness?