Aspirational targets for 2050

Workshop organized by TFIAM and ACCENT

in co-operation with the Working Group on Effects, CCE, CIAM, TFEIP, TFRN, EGTEI, TFH, ICP Vegetation, ICP Materials

Utrecht 5-6 March 2009

Rob Maas, 12 March 200952 participants, a.o:JRC, EEA, IPCCCONCAWE, EEB

Questions

1. How do we want the environment in 2050 to look like? What are long term objectives for air pollution policy?

2. How much emission reduction is required?

3. What would an ambitious climate policy contribute to that goal?

4. What steps have to be taken?

5. How to incorporate aspirational targets in a protocol?

Open doors

• The long term objectives of the Gothenburg Protocol require structural measures and behavioural changes.

• The long term future starts today - even a long journey starts with a first step!

• Choose your destination, plan the best route, but remain flexible.

• Invest in a good preparation: a shared vision, social support, R&D, institutions & policy instruments.

• Avoid a lock-in in unsustainable ‘side roads’.• Avoid negative side effects: no swapping between air

pollution, climate change or water pollution.

From impacts to measures

1. Formulate an inspiring long term vision2. Add a date to long term “no-effect” objectives3. Translate environmental objectives for 2050

into reduction targets for deposition and exposure

4. Translate exposure targets into emission reductions

5. Define intermediate steps & short term actions based on risk management & cost-effectiveness considerations

Long term objectives1. Formulate an inspiring long term vision

“ No (significant) damage to health and ecosystems … a world without negative side effects from combustion and cattle.”

2. Add a date to (existing) long term impact objectives• Limit the loss of life expectancy in 2050 to [.. months]• No death due to ozone exposure in 2050• No [significant] damage to vegetation from ozone in 2050• No [significant] damage of cultural heritage from sulfur in 2050• Meet critical loads for acidification and nitrogen in [all] of the

[priority] ecosystems in 2050• or: have [all] of the [priority] ecosystems in a phase of biological

recovery by 2050• or: have [all] of the [priority] ecosystems fully recovered by 2050

7 % area exceeded (AAE > 0) 8 % area violated (AAE >0)

Exceedance acidity crit.loads Violation acidity target loads

Cultural heritage requires stricter limits to SO2, HNO3 & PM exposure

Exc. of CL eutrophication Violation TL eutrophication

48 % area exceeded (AAE > 0) 49 % area violated (AAE >0)

Exceedance of CLnut(N) with zero NH3 emissions everywhere

Caveat: Linearised EMEP model used

Loss in life expectancy attributable to fine particles [months]

Loss in average statistical life expectancy due to identified anthropogenic PM2.5

2000 2020 2020Maximum technical

Current legislation emission reductions

WHO AQG: Global update: WHO AQG: Global update: Summary of updated AQG valuesSummary of updated AQG values

20 µg/m3

500 µg/m324 hour10 minute

Sulfur dioxide, SO2

40 µg/m3

200 µg/m31 year1 hour

Nitrogen dioxide, NO2

100 µg/m38 hour, daily maximumOzone, O3

10 µg/m3

25 µg/m3

20 µg/m3

50 µg/m3

1 year24 hour (99th percentile)

1 year24 hour (99th percentile)

Particulate matterPM2.5

PM10

AQG valueAveraging timePollutant

AQG levels recommended to be achieved everywhere in order to significantly reduce the adverse health effects of pollution

WHO AQG: Global update: WHO AQG: Global update: Summary of updated AQG valuesSummary of updated AQG values

20 µg/m3

500 µg/m324 hour10 minute

Sulfur dioxide, SO2

40 µg/m3

200 µg/m31 year1 hour

Nitrogen dioxide, NO2

100 µg/m38 hour, daily maximumOzone, O3

10 µg/m3

25 µg/m3

20 µg/m3

50 µg/m3

1 year24 hour (99th percentile)

1 year24 hour (99th percentile)

Particulate matterPM2.5

PM10

AQG valueAveraging timePollutant

AQG levels recommended to be achieved everywhere in order to significantly reduce the adverse health effects of pollutionIt would be a surprise if our understanding

of the role of PM would not change in the next 40 years

Comparison of SOMO35 with ozone flux to vegetationComparison of SOMO35 with ozone flux to vegetation

SOMO35 (ppm d)

Ozone flux to crops (AFst3gen, mmol m-2)

1EMEP & ICP Vegetation

Human health-based parameters will not protect vegetation from ozone in large areas of Europe

25108643210–1–2–3–4–6–8–10–25

25108643210–1–2–3–4–6–8–10–25

Max. season ΔO3 (2050–2000 ΔClim)Max. season ΔO3 (2050–2000 ΔEmiss)

Figure 5.8 Royal Society Report, 2008

Change in surface mean ozone concentration (2050 – 2000)Change in surface mean ozone concentration (2050 – 2000)

With emission control With climate change

Indicative aspirational targets

Deposition or exposure

Reduction

from 2010 level

Where?

SO2 40 – 60% Northern & Central Europe

and around cultural objects

NOx and NH3 70 - 90 % All Europe, especially in areas with high densities of cattle

Ozone 70 – 80 % South, West and central Europe

Particulate matter 40 – 60 % ? In urban areas

Linkage with climate policy• Even without climate policy air pollution would

decrease.• Climate policy could lead to even less air

pollution.• CO2 reductions give comparable reductions in

SO2 emissions.• Reductions of NOX & PM are lower: biofuels

and 1st generation CCS do not reduce NOX or could even lead to more emission.

• Emissions of NH3 and VOC are unrelated.

European Commission: DG Environment

Global emissions paths to meetthe 2°C objective

l 450 ppm CO2 equivalent emission path with limited overshooting gives 50%

chance meeting the 2°C objective.

l Peak before 2025

l Reduce up to 50% by

2050 compared to

1990

l Annual reduction

rates increase by 5%

for each 5 year delay

Source graph: Meinshausen

European Commission: DG Environment

Technologies that can reduce global CO2 emissions from energy combustion

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Mt

CO

2

Energy savings

Fossil fuel switch

Renewable energies

Nuclear energy

Carbon sequestration

Emission of reduction case

avo

ided

em

issi

on

s

It is technically feasible:the energy sector

How low can we go?

Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009

Power sector: Influence on air pollution

2050: Little GHG emissions from power sector

Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsNuclear/wind: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsCCS: Depends on technology choise. NOx ,SO2 ?Bio-energy: SO2 , PM10

450 ppm

Nat.gas CCS

WindWind

How low can we go?

Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009

Transport sector

2050: Still difficult to beat oil

Efficiency: Zero SO2/NOx/PM10 emissionsElectricity: Zero from car; but stationary emissions

H2: Some H2 emissions ; but stationary emissions

Bio-energy: SO2 , PM10

450 ppm 400 ppm

OilOilBiofuel H2Biofuel

21/18

Global Liquids SupplyB1 Scenario

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070 2080 2090 2100

EJ -300700

2EJ

Hydrogen (allsources)

Biomass ethanol

Fossil methanol& liquids.

Non conv. oil

Conventional oil

Co-benefits of GHG mitigation on SO2/NOx

A2/670ppm

-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0%

Reduction of SO2 over Baseline

Re

du

ctio

n o

f CO

2 o

ve

r Ba

se

line

A2-670ppm SO2

A2-BAU MFR SO2-60%

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

-60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0%

Reduction of NOx over Baseline

Re

du

ctio

n o

f CO

2 o

ve

r Ba

se

line

A2-670ppm NOx

A2-BAU MFR NOx

2020

2040

2030

2050

2020 --->2050

2020

2030

2040

2050

2020 --->2050

Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 6

Emission trends

GLOBAL NOx emissions (Tg/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC AP CC+AP

EU 27 NOx emissions (Tg/yr)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC AP CC+AP

GLOBAL CO2 emissions (Tg/yr)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC

EU27 CO2 emissions (Tg/yr)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC

CO2: only marginaleffect of AQ abatement

Air Pollutants: considerable benefit fromCC policies

Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 7

Black Carbon and SO2

GLOBAL SO2 emissions (Tg/yr)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC AP CC+AP

EU 27 SO2 emissions (Tg/yr)

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC AP CC+AP

GLOBAL BC emissions (Tg/yr)

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC AP CC+AP

EU 27 BC emissions (Tg/yr)

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

BAU CC AP CC+AP

How low can we go?

Detlef van Vuuren – 2 February 2009

Lowest scenario

Co-benefits of aspirational climate targets

Reduction

from 2010 level

CO2 80 – 95% (2050)

40 – 55% (2030)

EU-contribution to 2 degree target

up to 50% foreign emission credits

MFR SO2

MFR BC

~ 80 %

MFR NOx 50 – 60 % Due to biofuels & 1st generation CCS

Without behavioural change

MFR VOC

MFR NH3

25 – 35 % Without behavioural change

UCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTE

SEE Society Energy Environment22

Sustainable European Energy Scenarios: EU25 CO2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Mt

SWESVNSVKPRTPOLNLDMLTLVALUXLTUITAIRLHUNGRCGBRFRAFINESTESPDNKDEUCZECYPBELAUTTargets

COUNTRIES: EU40pc20N : Environment: National: (N) Total : CO2

40% reduction

New nuclear

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Mt

SWESVNSVKPRTPOLNLDMLTLVALUXLTUITAIRLHUNGRCGBRFRAFINESTESPDNKDEUCZECYPBELAUTTargets

COUNTRIES: TecBehNN : Environment: National: (N) Total : CO2

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Mt

SWESVNSVKPRTPOLNLDMLTLVALUXLTUITAIRLHUNGRCGBRFRAFINESTESPDNKDEUCZECYPBELAUTTargets

COUNTRIES: TecNN : Environment: National: (N) Total : CO2

Maximum technologyNo new nuclear

Maximum technologyBehavioural changeNo new nuclear

With behavioural change lower emissions possible

Synergies and antagonisms• Climate policy has a long term focus; air pollution

policy could offer short term benefits. Reduction of black carbon & ozone leads to less radiative forcing and health risks at the short term.

• It is unavoidable that SO2 & secondary PM reductions will lead to less ‘masking’ of climate change.

• Additional air pollution policy remains necessary for urban air pollution and reduced nitrogen behavioural changes!

• Design environmental policies in an environmental friendly way: avoid swapping by integrated approach

Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 8

Climate policies only

AQ policies only CC+AQ policies

Change in anthropogenic PM (2050 vs 2000)

Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 9

Climate policies only

AQ policies only CC+AQ policies

Change in O3 (SOMO35) (2050 vs 2000)

Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 13

Loss of Life Expectancy: 4 scenarios

Loss of Life expectancy: 2050-2000

-10 -5 0 5 10 15

CANADA

USA

CENTRAL AMERICA

SOUTH AMERICA

NORTHERN AFRICA

WESTERN AFRICA

EASTERN AFRICA

SOUTHERN AFRICA

OECD EUROPE

EASTERN EUROPE

FORMER USSR

MIDDLE EAST

SOUTH ASIA

EAST ASIA

SOUTH EAST ASIA

OCEANIA

JAPAN

NH

SH

World

months

CC+AP

AP-only

CC-only

BAU

• BAU: always worsening compared to 2000

• CC policies: improves everywhere compared to 2000, except South Asia (but still better than BAU)

• CC policies alone already realize important part of AP abatement (CC vs AP)

• South/South-East Asia: only combined CC+AP policies lead to improvement compared to 2000

Utrecht 5-6 March 2009 – Workshop on non-binding aspirational targets for air pollution for the year 2050 16

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CARB-2030 BAP-2030 CAP-2030

RF

Wm

-2

2030

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

CARB-2050 BAP-2050 CAP-2050

RF

Wm

-2

Aerosol D RF Aerosol IR F O3 RF

CH4 RF N2 O RF CO2 RF

Total RF

2050

climate policies only

air qualitypolicies only

air quality+ CC policies

climate policies only

air qualitypolicies only

air quality+ CC policies

Change in radiative forcing compared to BAU

Quantitative targets3. Translate environmental objectives for 2050 into

[ranges of] reduction targets for deposition, and exposure specified for regions or countries

4. Translate exposure targets into [ranges of] emission reductions for regions or countries.

5. Define intermediate steps were should we be between 2020 and 2050?

+ Define short term actions: create a shared vision, build innovation networks, invest in R&D, develop policy instruments & social support, ….

UCL ENERGY INSTITUTEUCL ENERGY INSTITUTE

SEE Society Energy Environment

National emissions : NOx and SO2 in Great Britain

20

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

kt

Fue:ExtFue:ProEle:GenHea:PubHea:AutTra(int):SeaTra(int):AirTra(nat):OtherTra(nat):AirTra(nat):RailTra(nat):Road: FTra(nat):Road: PRes:ResSer:SerOth:othInd:AgrInd:LigInd:HeaInd:Che

GBR: TecBehNN: Environment : NOx

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000 19

90

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

kt

Fue:ExtFue:ProEle:GenHea:PubHea:AutTra(int):SeaTra(int):AirTra(nat):OtherTra(nat):AirTra(nat):RailTra(nat):Road: FTra(nat):Road: PRes:ResSer:SerOth:othInd:AgrInd:LigInd:HeaInd:CheInd:Iro

GBR: TecBehNN: Environment : SO2

+ MFR end-of-pipe+ Climate Policy+ behavioural change

* speed limits* public transport* renovation of dwellings

…Social support ????

TFIAM-2050. Utrech. 5-6 March 2009

National CO2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

2015

2020

2025

2030

2035

2040

2045

2050

Mt

Fue:ExtFue:ProEle:GenHea:PubHea:AutTra(nat):OtherTra(nat):Air

Tra(nat):RailTra(nat):Road: FTra(nat):Road: P

Res:ResSer:SerOth:oth

Ind:AgrInd:LigInd:Hea

Ind:CheInd:Iro

ESP: EU30pc20N: Environment: National: (N) : CO2

Spain: fast reductions possible after 2020 !

Simone Schucht /Mark Barrett 16 / 18

Transport CO2 emissions (in Mt CO2)

SEEScen scenarios France

127

137 143 142155

170186

196

130

10689 85

89

137

91

5647 49 50 51 53

138

54

26

16 11 10 10

0

50

100

150

200

250

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

TecNN

BehNN

TecBehNN

Simone Schucht /Mark Barrett 10 / 18

Policy measures in a maximum reduction scenarioFactors reducing fuel consumption Better capacity utilisation in road freight transport

Eco-driving (cars and trucks)

Car sharing

Telework

Drivers Regulation

Spatial planning

Service centres (schools, commerce, health care ...)

Limitations to car use in central urban areas, cycling lanes

High occupancy vehicle lanes

Increased public transport offer

Increased prices for car use (+ 50%)

High fuel prices ...

Scenario analysis France

How to build social support ?

9

Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09

System change: electric driving

Productionelectric car

Batteryproduction

Electricity production

Loading facilities (at home, on the road, at car parks)

Demand-supplycontrol

Driving anelectric car(range)

10

Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09

Towards system change: activities in the predevelopment phase

Take-off

Acceleration

Stabilization

Predevelopment

resistance motivation

Relatedactivities

11

Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09

Activities in the predevelopment phase

Micro

Problem related research and

communication

R&D for system

innovation Experiments in practice and

niche markets

Development of a vision

Related to allparts of the system

12

Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09

Activities for take-off

Take-off

Acceleration

Stabilization

Predevelopment

resistance motivation

Building a newsystem

13

Backcasting – Jan Ros PBL, 6-3-09

Building a new system

Productionfacilities

Infrastructure

InstitutionsConsumption

pattern

Risk management• Uncertainty: The future is uncertain (but with 2% GDP growth, incomes

would double in next 40 years) • Incertitude: Cost curves for 2050 cannot be known, they depend on

(investments in) technological developments.• Instruments: Can we steer developments in right directions by setting the

right environmental constraints & incentives. How to create long term social support?

• Ambition: Focus on prevention of the most serious risks, on no-effect levels for the most sensitive people & ecosystems, or …?

• Flexibility: Prepare for new scientific findings. It would be a surprise if our understanding of the role of PM would not change

• Robustness: Effects are estimated with 50% probability, does this give enough certainty?

30© 2008 KPMG Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft AG, deutsches Mitgliedsunternehmen von KPMG International, einer Genossenschaft schweizerischen Rechts. Alle Rechte vorbehalten. KPMG und das KPMG-Logo sind eingetragene Markenzeichen von KPMG International.

Europe: Selected Industries – BETA vs. D/E Ratio

Auto-Cars/Light Trucks

Aerospace & DefenceRetail

Banking

Property and Infrastructure

Electronics Energy

Leisure

Div. Industrials

Airlines

Automotive Building Wood

Chemicals

Electronic Parts Distrib

Lottery Services

Rental Auto/Equipment

Retail-Pubs

Steel-SpecialtyToys

Water

Building Cement

Building & Construct-Misc

Distr./Wholesl.

Transport-Air Freight

Travel Srvc

Commer Banks

1%

10%

100%

1000%

0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7

BETA

D/E

Ratio

Sectors that are market sensitive might be disproportionate affected by the financial crisis (see red marked area).

It is likely that companies in sectors such as the Airline industry, Automotive, Building & Construction or Aerospace & Defence may need to restructure..

Financial Crisis Debt-equity ratios and market sensitivity (beta)

Economic crises are periods of creative destruction.In times of crisis leadership & vision are required.

Follow up recommendations

Invite various bodies under the Convention to consider aspirational & interim targets

WGSR to consider ways to include long term vision, objectives and non-binding targets in a protocol.