N 2 O & the Montreal Protocol

1. November 22nd, 2011 MOP 23, Bali, Indonesia N2O & the Montreal Protocol David Kanter PhD candidate Princeton University Technical and Policy Issues

2. Outline • Breakdown of N2O emissions sources • Point vs. non-point sources • Global N2O emission trends • Why should Montreal Protocol (MP) take on N2O? • How can emissions be reduced? • Industry &stationary/mobile combustion • Agriculture • Behavioral changes • Technological opportunities • How cantargets be developed and implemented? • Existing policies • Assessment Panels and the Multilateral Fund (MLF) • Conclusions & Next Steps

3. N2O emissions breakdown • Point sources: • Industry (from nitric acid and adipic acid production) • Stationary combustion (e.g. coal power plants) • Wastewater treatment facilities • Non-point sources: • Agriculture (synthetic fertilizer, manure, legumes…) • Mobile combustion (transport) • Biomass burning Princeton University (2011) “Complements to Carbon”

4. Global N2O Emission Trends (USEPA, 2011)

5. Why should MP take on N2O? • N2O now most abundant ODS in atmosphere, with emissions projected to increase (Ravishankara et al. 2009) • Current international tools for controlling N2O are weak • Little attention to N2O within Kyoto Protocol – CDM has focused solely on industrial N2O emissions • Increasing calls to regulate non-CO2 climate forcers in non-UNFCCC forums (Molina et al. 2009; HFC Amendments 2009-2011) • MP well-suited for N2O • Rising N2O emissions threaten MP’s continued success • Effective, well-respected assessment panels • Successful financial mechanism (MLF) • Binding (common and differentiated) commitments of all Parties

6. Why are N2O reduction opportunities different? • Much more publicly available information on N2O reduction strategies • Industry associations acknowledge both environmental impacts of N2O and effectiveness of reduction strategies (e.g. International Fertilizer Industry Association (IFA) says N2O emissions can be reduced by 25% using existing practices and technologies – IFA, 2009) • Leading companies already developing and marketing abatement technologies (e.g. Yara International), in addition to publicizing best practices. • N2O reductions have more environmental co-benefits (ozone, climate, air, water)

7. How emissions can be reduced: Industry et al. • Nitric and adipic acid manufacturing • Nitric acid: Catalytic reduction techniques, which reduce both N2O and NOx emissions by over 90% (SEI 2010). 20% of US plants have N2O abatement technology installed (USEPA, 2006) • Adipic acid: Catalytic decomposition and thermal destruction techniques, which reduce N2O emissions by approx. 95% (USEPA 2011). 90% of US plants have N2O abatement technology installed (USEPA, 2006) • Transport • Next generation catalytic converters – reduce N2O andNOx emissions (EPA/DoT regulations) • Stationary combustion • Improved combustion technologies (e.g. pressurized fluidized bed combustion) and catalytic reduction techniques (CARB)

8. How emissions can be reduced: Agriculture • Behavioral practices • Fertilizer best management practices (Robertson & Vitousek 2009): • Watershed management • Crop residue recycling • Precision & split fertilizer application • Legume cultivation/cover crop • Manure management • 4Rs: Right product, right rate, right time, right place (IFA)

9. How emissions can be reduced: Agriculture (Cont.) • Technological solutions: • Nitrification inhibitors • Additives to traditional fertilizers that delay production of nitrate (NO3) • Reduce N2O emissions by approx. 40% (Akiyama et al. 2009). • Used on 10% of US maize cropland (Mosier et al., 2004) • Controlled-release fertilizers • Coating or chemical modification of fertilizer, which slows the rate of nutrient release. • Reduce N2O emissions by approx. 35% (Akiyama et al., 2009) • Used on <1% of US cropland due to cost (Mosier et al. 2004) • Other – Breeding and genetic engineering of crops to increase N use efficiency

10. How can reductions be implemented? • Industrial emission reductions: • Easiest to implement andcould be addressed before agriculture. • Technological solutions available for all facilities (of which therearea limited number). • Agricultural N2O emissions: • Begin with most cost effective reductions. N fertilizer is essential to crop production, but ~50% lost to the environment. Improvements would reduce costs and N pollution. • Goal is to use existing N fertilizers more efficiently, as well as encourage adoption of new fertilizer technologies. • Due to tight coupling of N cycle, care should be taken not to exacerbate other forms of N pollution while reducing N2O (Galloway et al., 2003).

11. Existing N Policies • N2O: • EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)– Credit for N2O emissions reductions from nitric acid plants will be issued starting in 2013. • Alberta (Canada) Quantification Protocol for Agricultural N2O Emissions Reductions– Issues credits for on-farm reductions of N2O emissions and fuel use associated with management of fertilizer, manure and crop residues. • Kyoto Protocol - Handful of CDM projects to reduce industrial N2O emissions. • US EPA/Dept. of Transportation– Cap on tailpipe N2O emissions of 0.010g per mile. • UK Climate Change Act– N2O covered under a general GHG reduction target • Australia Carbon Tax – N2O to be covered • Reactive N (indirect impact on N2O): • EU -Nitrates Directive • USA - Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act • International - Convention on Long Range Transport of Air Pollution

12. Assessment Panels and MLF • Assessment panels: • Logical next step given N2O’s threat to ozone layer would be to create new sub-panel within Technology and Economics Assessment Panel(Environmental Effects Panel & Scientific Assessment Panel already cover N2O – see SAP, 2010). • Experts exist on both environmental impacts of N2O and technical solutions across the globe in both the public and private sector. • Multilateral Fund (MLF): • Clear incremental costs and available technologies for industrial emissions abatement • Similar strategy to methyl bromide for agricultural N2O emissions would be suitable - a mix of technology transfer and training, technical assistance and information dissemination projects.

13. Conclusions and next steps • Conclusions: • N2O’s ozone depleting properties, weak international controls, as well as MP’s institutional structure all favor inclusion of N2O in the MP. • Significant N2O emission reductions are possible across most sectors • Emissions reductions are already being implemented by a suite of policies, which should be harnessed by MP, but global controls necessary • Next steps: • TEAP (or TEAP-like) report (and/or a Special Report in conjunction with the IPCC) on N2O reduction opportunities. • Industry workshop (under TEAP auspices) on N2O reduction opportunities.

14. References • Akiyama et al. (2010) “Evaluation of effectiveness of enhanced-efficiency fertilizers as mitigation options for N2O and NO emissions from agricultural soils: meta-analysis”, Global Change Biology, 16:1837-1846 • California Air Resources Board “Options for N2O emission reductions related to stationary combustion” (B.2.2) • Galloway et al. (2003) “The nitrogen cascade”, Bioscience, 53, 341-356 • IFA (2009) “Fertilizers, climate change, and enhanced agricultural productivity sustainably” • Molina et al. (2009) “Reducing abrupt climate change risk using the Montreal Protocol and other regulatory actions to complement cuts in CO2 emissions”, PNAS • Mosier et al. (2004) “Agriculture and the Nitrogen Cycle” (SCOPE) • SEI (2010) “Industrial N2O projects under the CDM: The case of nitric acid production”, SEI Working Paper WP-US-1007 • Robertson G.P., Vitousek P. (2009) “Nitrogen in Agriculture: Balancing the Cost of an Essential Resource”, Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour., 34:97-125 • USEPA (2006) “Global mitigation of non-CO2 greenhouse gases” • USEPA (2011) “DRAFT: Global Anthropogenic Non-CO2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 1990 – 2030”

15. Acknowledgements & Questions • Thanks to Ravishankara and Pete Grabiel for their support and participation. • Thanks to Professors Denise Mauzerall, Bill Moomaw (Tufts), Bob Keohane & Michael Oppenheimer for their on-going intellectual support. • Thanks to Siebel Energy Challenge,Princeton Institute for International & Regional Studies (PIIRS), and Princeton Science Technology, and Environmental Policy (STEP) program for funding this trip. • Questions?