Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

1. ”From RAINS to GAINS”Synergies and trade-offs between the control of local and regional air pollution and the mitigation of global greenhouse gas emissionsEFCA Workshop on Air Pollution and Climate Change, Strasbourg, November, 17-19, 2008 Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) The development of GAINS is supported by the EU-LIFE (www.ec4macs.eu) and the EU FP6 programmes

2. IIASA’s RAINS and GAINS models:Tools for cost-effective emission control strategies • Quantification of sectoral emission control potentials and costs • considering technical and economic interactions between the control of air pollutants and GHGs, • assessing impacts on air quality and climate indicators. • Search for least-cost portfolio of mitigation measures to meet air quality and/or GHG targets. • GAINS implementations available for • Europe, • China, India, Pakistan, • other Annex1 Parties of Kyoto Protocol (under development).

3. GAINS: A model to harvest synergies by integrating multiple pollutants and their multiple effects

4. Five lessons from recent policy analyses IIASA’s GAINS (Greenhouse gas – Air pollution Interactions and Synergies) model has been employed for • EU Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, and the • Commission’s proposal on the Climate and Energy package. IIASA’s GAINS (Greenhouse gas – Air pollution Interactions and Synergies) model has been employed for • EU Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution, and • Commission’s proposal on the Climate and Energy package. Two cases: • National governmental energy projections collected in 2006 (business as usual, +3% CO2 in 2020 compared to 1990) • A scenario with -20% CO2in 2020 and enhanced use of renewable energy, developed with the Commission’s PRIMES energy model The final Commission proposal on the Climate and Energy Package is in between these two cases.

5. Through co-control, GHG mitigation strategies also lead to lower air pollution emissions • In many cases, sources of greenhouse gases also emit air pollutants. • Low CO2 strategies, through • improved combustion efficiencies, • electricity savings, • improved insulation, • combined heat and power generation, • fuel switching, • alternative transport modes, • etc., reduce the use of fossil fuels.

6. PRIMES energy scenario with climate measures(-20% CO2 in 2020) Business-as-usualnational energy projections(+3% CO2 in 2020) Energy consumption in the EU-27

7. -12% PM -15% NOx PRIMES energy scenario with climate measures(-20% CO2 in 2020) Business-as-usualnational energy projections(+3% CO2 in 2020) -40% SO2 Air pollution emissions in the EU-27

8. Months PRIMES energy scenario with climate measures(-20% CO2 in 2020) GHG mitigation strategies have substantial co-benefits on human health via lower air pollution Estimated loss in statistical life expectancydue to the exposure to fine particles in 2020 Months Business-as-usualnational energy projections(+3% CO2 in 2020)

9. PRIMES energy scenario with climate measures(-20% CO2 in 2020) Business-as-usualnational energy projections(+3% CO2 in 2020) • GHG mitigation strategies have substantial co-benefits on human health via lower air pollution Months Months

10. GHG mitigation strategies have substantial co-benefits on ecosystems via lower air pollution Ecosystem damage indicators in 2020

11. €10 bn/yr • GHG mitigation strategies reduce costsfor implementing air pollution controls Costs for implementing current EU air quality legislation in 2020 + health & vegetation benefits!

12. €20 bn/yr • GHG mitigation strategies reduce costsfor implementing air pollution controls Additional air pollution control costs for achieving TSAP health targets in 2020 Business as usualNational energy projections (+3% CO2 in 2020) PRIMES energy scenario with climate measures (-20% CO2 in 2020)

13. Also in developing countries, some GHG measures are cost-effective for air pollution control Costs for reducing health impacts of PM in China 2030 by 50% -8% CO2

14. Important GHG mitigation measures with co-benefits • Reduced consumption of coal and oil, through • energy efficiency improvements, e.g., • increased combustion efficiencies, • improved insulation, • co-generation of electricity and heat, etc.; • fuel substitution. • Behavioural changes leading to lower demand for fossil fuels. • Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) plants

15. Important GHG mitigation measures without co-benefits No co-benefits: • Use of bio-fuels in transport sector Trade-offs: • More diesel (without efficient particle filters) • Enhanced use of biomass in households

16. Conclusions • Many mitigation measures for GHG emissions have significant co-benefits on • human health, • ecosystems, and • air pollution control costs. However, some popular GHG mitigation measures exhibit clear trade-offs. • These (dis-)benefits need to be included in a full assessmentof GHG mitigation strategies. • They occur in the near-term and at the local scale. • They justify some GHG reducing measures from an air-pollution cost-effectiveness perspective. • Integrated (science and policy) approaches are essential to harness all synergies.

17. Thank you! More information: www.iiasa.ac.at/rains