1 / 52

Case climate change and a climate policy project URGENCHE

Explore the basics of climate change, greenhouse gases, impacts, and global warming. Learn about GHG emissions, climate policy projects, and international agreements shaping our future amidst this urgent global challenge.

ldonna
Download Presentation

Case climate change and a climate policy project URGENCHE

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Decision analysis and risk management 2015 Case climate changeand a climate policy project URGENCHE Marjo Niittynen, THL

  2. Why is climate change a topic of this course? • Climate change – global warming is an ongoing process which cannot be totally prevented any more • Climate change is affecting people´s life already now and increasingly more in the future. Therefore, it is an important issue for the mankind. • Climate change is part of political decision making in all levels from cities and municipalities to international agreements

  3. Outline • Basics of climatechange • Sourcese.g.: • FinnishMeteorological Institute, Climateguide.fi • Finnish Report on Adaptation to ClimateChange(in Finnishonly; PublishedbyMinistry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2012) • Intergovernmentalpanel on climatechange (IPCC) • Introduction to a climatepolicyproject URGENCHE = Urban reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in China and Europe

  4. Basics of climate change • The greenhouse effect Like the roof of a greenhouse, atmosphere functions as a selective filter: solar radiation gets in but part of thermal radiation from planetary surface is retained by atmospheric greenhouse gases

  5. Source: wikimedia commons

  6. Greenhouse gases (GHGs) - According definition, greenhousegasescanabsorb and emit infraredradiation. The mostabundantGHGs on the earthare • watervapor (H2O) • carbondioxide (CO2) • methane (CH4) • nitrousoxide (N2O) • ozone (O3) - GHGs trap 90% of the thermal radiation emitted by land and seas

  7. CO2 content of the atmosphere • Before industrialization atmospheric CO2 content was 280 ppm • Now 390 ppm, i.e. 40 % increase • Mankind produces CO2 by • Using fossil fuels (oil, coal, gas); 7.2 Gton/a • Utilizing and destroying tropical forests 0.5-2.7 Gton/a

  8. CO2 levels from 1958 to 2009 measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii A graph depicting CO2 levels from 1958 to 2009 as measured at Mauna Loa, Hawaii. Year is on the x-axis, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration (in parts per million) is on the y-axis. The cause for the yearly rise and fall is the annual cycle of plant respiration. The cause of the increasing trend is the anthropogenic release of CO2, mainly due to the use of fossil energy sources. Source: Scripps CO2 program; wikimedia commons

  9. Global warming • The earth is getting warmer • on average 0.16 °C per 10 years (during 1970-2012) • Finland: 0.3 °C per 10 years (during 1959-2008) • Cannot be totally prevented any more • Observed temperatures are in agreement with climate models (see next slide)

  10. Observed and modeled surface temperatures (IPCC) Figure SPM.4. Comparison of observed continental- and global-scale changes in surface temperature with results simulated by climate models using natural and anthropogenic forcings. Decadal averages of observations are shown for the period 1906 to 2005 (black line) plotted against the centre of the decade and relative to the corresponding average for 1901–1950. Lines are dashed where spatial coverage is less than 50%. Blue shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 19 simulations from five climate models using only the natural forcings due to solar activity and volcanoes. Red shaded bands show the 5–95% range for 58 simulations from 14 climate models using both natural and anthropogenic forcings. {FAQ 9.2 Figure 1} Source:IPCC

  11. Global warming • Current warming has anthropogenic origin (in contrast to warm period in 1930-40s). • Future climate is estimated using climate models • Global change is easier to predict than changes in smaller areas • In Finland, up to years 2030 - 2040 climate can be predicted in some certainty, thereafter uncertainty increases

  12. Impacts of climate change • The aim of international climate policies, max 2 ºC warming, may be impossible to reach • Globally, reduction of GHG emissions has been poor; emissions increase. However, in 2011 emissions of Finland were that agreed in Kyoto. • Climate change causes risks to local living conditions, economy, livelihoods, security, health and culture

  13. Trend of Finlands´ GHG emissions Source: Statistics Finland 2013

  14. Impacts of climate change / global warming • Increased raining at high latitudes, decreased in subtropical areas • Glaciers melt, sea levels get higher, ocean currents change • Loss of farmland • Heat waves • Effects in Finland: high latitudes incl. Finland warm up more than the earth in average. However, the effects on humans may not be as severe as in some other areas • Worst affected: already poor parts of the world

  15. Major health effects due to climate change (size of impact and confidence on the estimate) Source: IPCC 2007

  16. Climate policies Climatepoliciesaim to reduce GHG emissions. Theyexist at differentlevels: • International • National • Local

  17. GHG emissions by sector World 2005 Finland 2003 Sources: Climate guide.fi; Statistics Finland

  18. GHG emissions by sector Finland 2011 Source: Statistics Finland

  19. International climate policies • Kyoto protocol, ratified by EU-countries 2002 • According to the Kyoto agreement, EU countries (EU-15) are supposed to reduce their GHG emissions 8 % from the 1990 emission level during 2008-2012.(www.ymparisto.fi) • A new international agreement is aimed to be accepted 2015. It will include also China and US. It will be implemented from 2020 onwards. (Durban, 2011; Doha 2012)

  20. International climate policies • EU • EU aims to reduce GHG emissions at least 20 % in regard to 1990 level until 2020. In addition, EU aims to increase the fraction of renewable energy sources to 20% of end use. • March 2011: A roadmap towards low-carbon economy 2050 was published. A cost-effective pathway to low-emission, climate-friendly and competitive Europe. Source: www.ymparisto.fi

  21. National climate policies • Finnish climate policy • According EU´s internal sharing of emissions, Finland has promised to retain its GHG emissions during 2008-2012 on 1990 level • Government has accepted a long-term climate and energy strategy 6.11.2008. Prerequisities for reaching the aims includes significant actions on energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy. Strategy applies until 2020 and includes visions up to 2050. Source: www.ymparisto.fi

  22. Climate policy of Kuopio • Aims • 40 % reduction in emissions by 2020 in regard to 1990 • Energy production (Haapaniemi) • Energy efficiency of buildings • Land use and public transport • Technological improvement of vehicles • etc. • 9% reduction in city´s own use of energy during 2005-2016 • Local vs. national actions • The fuel choices of Haapaniemi energy plant have the greatest impact on GHG emissions of Kuopio Source: Pärjälä E. WP10 Kuopio City. Presentations of the 1st Urgenche workshop. Stuttgart, 2012.

  23. Global vs. local aspects regarding climate change • E.g. Finland: FinnishclimatepoliciesdonotspecificallyaffectFinnishclimate, buttogether with the globalpoliciestheyaffectslowly. • However, Finnishclimatepoliciesaffect on manysectors and humanactivities in Finland, for example: • traffic and trafficemissions • costs and emissions of heat and powerproduction • air quality of the cities • buildingstock, etc. • Therefore, choiceswhichareequal in terms of GHG emissionsmayhaveverydifferentand evenoppositeeffect on health and wellbeing. Source: Lectures of professor emeritus Matti Jantunen

  24. URGENCHE • “Urban reduction of GHG emissions in China and Europe” • Research question: What are the most beneficial ways from public health point of view to reduce GHG emissions? • A climate policy project!

  25. URGENCHE • EU-project 2011-2014, coordinator University of Exeter • 17 partners in Europe and China, cities and research institutes • Cities • Basel, Switzerland (200 000 inhabitants) • Kuopio, Finland (93 000) • Rotterdam, Netherlands (550 000) • Stuttgart, Germany (600 000) • Suzhou, China (2.38 - 6.29 milj.) • Thessaloniki, Greece (1 milj.) • Xi’an, China (8.07 milj.)

  26. Xi’an Suzhou

  27. Multiscientific approach including • Health impact assessment • Energy balances of the cities • City planning • Geography • Environmental science • Epidemiology

  28. Why cities? • Significant impact on GHG emissions • Residential (heating, electricity) • Traffic • Industry • other sectors such as agriculture and waste management have smaller impacts • Most people (slightly over 50% globally) live in the cities,  therefore, actions in cities have significant impact on public health

  29. Climate policies and health • Climate policies can affect health in many ways depending on which choices are made e.g. in following sectors • City planning • Energy production • Building regulations • URGENCHE took into consideration impacts on both health and well-being • Physical and mental health • Measures of well-being: DALYs(disability adjusted life years), sleep disturbance, annoyance • Sosioeconomic factors

  30. Possible health consequences of climate policies • Energy efficient buildings  increase of dampness problems  asthma, other respiratory problems, decreased well-being etc. • Fuel selections of energy production  impact on fine particle emissions  impact on cardiovascular mortality • City planning  impacts on people´s exposure to noise and fine particles, effects on well-being

  31. URGENCHE: Aims… • Optimized GHG reduction policy for each participating city • BAU (business as usual) and two scenarios of reduced GHG emissons • Reduced energy consumption • Changes in ways of energy production • Impacts of different climate policies on health and well-being • Distribution of effects between different socioeconomic groups

  32. URGENCHE: Aims… • Methodological aims - Opasnet-workspace for cities in order to facilitate the development, application and sharing of city-level climate policies; also for other cities than those of the project - Quantitative models and databases functioning in Opasnet - GIS (geographical information system) based presentation of data: building stock, population, traffic, land use, emissions etc. - Everything what is possible is done openly

  33. Conceptual model of URGENCHE

  34. URGENCHE – General results • Four key findings • Electric cars  some benefits both for climate and health, depends on how electricity is produced • Discouraging private car use  possibly some benefits both for climate and health • Increasing housing efficiency  minor benefits for climate, health benefits depend on good air exchange • Small scale biomass burning  may reduce CO2 emissions, but health consequences are negative due to PM emissions Source: Hiscock et al. Manuscript in preparation.

  35. URGENCHE – General results • Technologicalinnovationsareprobablymorepowerful in reducing GHG emissionsthanpoliciesthat city authoritiescontrol • Health and wellbeingimpactsweregenerallysmallbutvarieddepending on the city. • Somecitieshavealreadyhighquality of life and environmentalawareness. E.g. • In Basel 100% of electricity is renewable • Kuopio alreadyhaseffectiveclimatepolicy • In somecities the impactsmaybelarger • Thessaloniki – new metro mayreduce air pollution-relateddeathsabout 20% • Xi’an – cleanertechnology, electriccarslessnoise and air pollution

  36. URGENCHE – specific issues • 1. Energy production of Kuopio – case Haapaniemi • 2. Building model (Kuopio and Basel)

  37. 1. Energy production of Kuopio • Haapaniemi power plants produce all the district heat used in Kuopio city area and about 50 % of all the electricity used in Kuopio • Fuels used in Haapaniemi (2010) • Peat 84 % • Oil 12 % • Biomass 4 % • Along with new power plant units the use of biomass can be increased up to even 70 % by 2020  GHG emissions would diminish dramatically, what about health effects? Source: Pärjälä E. WP10 Kuopio City. Presentations of the 1st Urgenche workshop. Stuttgart, 2012.

  38. Energy balance model

  39. User interface

  40. Results of Kuopio city pilot: Increasing the use of biomass in Haapaniemi CHP plant 1. BAU: Peat 84 %, oil 12 %, renewable 4 % 2. Increased use of biomass: Peat 18 %, oil 12 %, renewable 70 % Amount of energy per fuel (GWh)

  41. Health impacts of the increased use of biomass in Haapaniemi CHP plant  Calculate total PM2.5 emissions from Haapaniemi (1. BAU and 2. increased use of biomass) • amount of energy per fuel (from previous slide) * emission factor for that fuel; sum up  Calculate population exposure to PM2.5 due to emissions from Haapaniemi  Calculate mortality impacts: attributable deaths due to PM2.5 emissions from Haapaniemi

  42. Results • BAU:0.12(0.02-0.22) attributable deaths / year • Increased use of biomass: 0.11(0.02-0.21) attributable deaths / year • Conclusion: Increased use of biomass in Haapaniemi CHP plant does not alter the health effects due the PM2.5 emissions of that plant as compared to BAU Source: Niittynen et al. Poster presentation in ISEE/ISES/ISIAQ-conference, Basel 2013.

  43. 3. Building model (http://en.opasnet.org/w/Building_model) • Includes • Characterization of building stock of a city • Age, type, size, location, IEQ-factors etc. • City-level (and national) policies concerning building stock • Modeling of energy consumption of buildings • More thorough investigation of the effect of renovation and fuel policies in Kuopio and Basel • Kuopio: 3 to 4.5% of houses renovated per year; fuel change in Haapaniemi (as shown in previous slides) • Basel: 1%, 2% or all buildings built before 1980 renovated

  44. Kuopio - results

  45. Kuopio - results Source: Tuomisto et al. Submitted manuscript.

  46. Kuopio - results

  47. Building stock in Basel

  48. Basel - results Source: Tuomisto et al. Submitted manuscript.

More Related