IMAGE 2 emission scenarios for air pollutants

1
IMAGE 2 emission scenarios for air pollutants

• Jos Olivier
• for the IMAGE team
• Netherlands Environmental Assessment National
  Institute of Public Health and the Environment
• (RIVM-MNP), Bilthoven, The Netherlands

ACCENT Workshop on Global Air Pollution Trends to
2030, IIASA, Laxenburg, 27-28 January 2005
2
Outline presentation

• Introduction to RIVMs IMAGE 2 model
• Integrated Model to Assess Global change Effects
• development in cooperation with KNMI, Univ.
  Kassel, MPIC Mainz, JRC, ..
• Structure modules, feedbacks, calibration
• Policy support, applications
• Examples of LT/MT scenarios for CH4, precursors
• and for SO2 of impacts multigas scenarios,
  cobenefits
• Acknowledgements/contacts

3
IMAGE 2 Model structure
4
RIVMs IMAGE 2 model

• Modular structure P-S-I-R, feedbacks
• General drivers Pop. GDP models
• Energy/industry regional simulations with TIMER
  model
• Landuse change detailed model simulations on
  0.5x0.5 degree agriculture and, notably, biomass
  burning
• Others regional simulations non-gridded LUC
  model (waste)
• Impacts sea level rise, agriculture, land
  degradation, ecosystems, large-scale biofuels,
  water supply

5
RIVMs IMAGE 2 model

• Aim is LT scenarios for GHG and precursors of
  ozone and SO2
• Scenario simulation starts in 1970
• Calibration
• fine calibration for 1970-1995
• general LT calibration 1890-1990
• Model description and results on web
• www.rivm.nl/ieweb and CD-ROM
• User Support System for analysing scenario
  details
• Derived, simplified models scanners like FAIR
  for exploring specific policy questions
• Available on the internet www.rivm.nl/fair

6
Applications

• Policy support of
• Netherlands Government
• UNFCCC/COP
• IPCC SRES scenarios, AR4
• European Commission
• EEA through ETC/ACC
• Examples
• Safe Landing Analysis (SLA)
• What if Russia will not ? would not have
  ratified
• Convergence options Annex I and non-Annex I
• Multigas strategies 2o strategies biofuel
  options/impacts
• Brazilian proposal
• Co-benefits, LU-NH3 for intercomparisons

7
18 Regions in IMAGE 2
IMAGE regions LA CA SA AFR 4 regions
8
Baseline scenario Population and income

• Population developing countries strongly
  increases in first half century
• Global population stabilises at 9.5 Billion by
  2100 (UN medium)
• Global PC income increases by 2/yr (2000-2025)
  1.9 (2025-2050)
• Slow convergence of PC income

9
Baseline scenario greenhouse gas emissions
By greenhouse gas
By sector

• GHG emissions double from 36 GtCO2-eq in 1990 to
  74 GtCO2-eq in2050
• Energy related GHG emissions and CO2 become
  dominant on LT
• Non-Annex I share in GHG emissions increases from
  48 in 1995 to 65 in 2025 and 71 in 2050

10
Greenhouse gas conc (equivalents).
Temperature increase

• Baseline scenario leads to more than 3 degrees
  Celsius warming in 2100, and still increasing.
• Thus, in order to reach NL or EU climate targets
  serious climate policy needed.
• Here will explore to scenarios to stabilise the
  greenhouse gas concentration 550 CO2-eq and 650
  CO2-eq

11
Emission profiles temperature increase and
climate sensitivity
IMAGE S650e
IMAGE S550e
CS4.5
CS4.5
CS2.5
EU target
EU target
CS2.5
CS1.5
CS1.5

• The EU target of 2 ºC is met in 2100 under a 550
  CO2 eq. profile in the case of both a low to
  medium climate sensitivity
• The 650 ppmv CO2 eq. profile only meets this
  target under a low climate sensitivity

12
Co-benefits - Change in Global S and N emissions
Sulphur
NOx

• Findings
• Both climate policies for meeting S550e and
  S650e result in substantial reductions of sulphur
  and Nitrous oxide emissions resp. 70 and 50
  for S550e and 50 and 35 for S650e by 2050
• The major part of these co-benefits occur on the
  long-term (gt2025)

13
Co-benefits assessing change in global health
risks
2050
2025

• Findings
• Under baseline conditions exceedance of air
  quality standards in ME and East Asia are likely,
  although less on the long term
• The S550 and S650 scenarios significantly
  reduce health risk from air pollution

Note theshold is based on exceedance of urban
air quality standards with calc. conc.based on
av. pop. density
14
Example of impacts in Asia
Risks of exceedance of critical loads for
acidification (SO2)
12
10
8
1995
Ecosystems ()
6
Baseline
4
Climate policy
2
0
South East Asia
China
Other East
Japan
India
Other
Asia
South Asia
15
Reductions of CH4 emissions
Multi-gas
Baseline
Land use-related sources
Land use-related sources
landfills
landfills
sewage
sewage
rice
rice
animals
animals
16
IMAGE SRES scenarios for precursors
See other presentation Sensitivity of emission
projections to historical emissions trends and
to the base year
17
IMAGE scenarios for EU CH4
18
IMAGE scenarios for EU NOx
19
IMAGE scenarios for EU CO
20
IMAGE scenarios for EU NMVOC
21
Co-benefits from Kyoto implementation in Europe
Reductions from baseline
No trade
Trade (25 hot air)
16
14
12
10
CO2
8
SO2
6
4
2
0
WE
CE
Russia
WE
CE
Russia
Climate policy also reduces SO2 emissions!
Source TIMER/RAINS, van Vuuren et al., 2004
22
Co-benefits from Kyoto implementation
Emission reductions from baseline
PM10
SO2
NOx
1 Domestic 2 Trade, no hot air 3 Trade, 25
hot air
In terms of emissions, largest European
co-benefits for trade scenarios (but shifted to
Eastern Europe)
Source TIMER/RAINS, van Vuuren et al., 2004
23
Co-benefits from Kyoto implementation
1 Domestic 2 Trade, no hot air 3 Trade, 25
hot air
Savings on air pollution control costs are
around 50 of climate policy costs in all cases.
24
Emission profiles (3.7-5.3 W/m2)
CO2-equivalent emissions (2100)
Radiative forcing (2100)
8
20
F-gasses
Ozone
N2O
F-gasses
6
16
CH4
N2O
CH4
12
4
CO2
2
8
CO2
4
0
All other
Sulphur
0
-2
750-CO2eq/ 5.3 W/m2
650-CO2eq/ 4.5 W/m2
550-CO2eq/ 3.7 W/m2
BL
750-CO2eq/ 5.3 W/m2
650-CO2eq/ 4.5 W/m2
550-CO2eq/ 3.7 W/m2
BL
CO2
CH4
N2O
F-gasses
Ozone
Sulphur
All other

• For stringent targets - most reductions need to
  come from reducing CO2 emissions
• Both ozone and sulphur forcing couple with
  reductions of CO2 emissions (righthand graph)
  partly offset each other.

25
Conclusions

• Complete chain calculation from drivers to
  impacts and effectiveness of response options
• Integrated model that consistently combines GG
  and AP emission projections
• Framework to assess cobenefits between GG and AP
  policies
• Links with macro-economic and pop. models
• Trends in large-scale biomass burning and
  agriculture emissions explicitly modeled in LUC
  model, taking into account feedbacks from
  climatic changes
• Provides insight in which source/region
  contributes most to local or global trends AND
  the driving forces and options for mitigation
• Acknowledgements contacts
• Tom Kram (PI), Bas Eickhout (general model),
• Michel den Elzen, Paul Lucas, (TIMER/FAIR),
• Detlef van Vuuren, Jos Olivier (TIMER), Lex
  Bouwman (TES), Kees Klein Goldewijk (LUC).
• www.rivm.nl/image

26
Still possible in the far future?