1 Technical report 93 Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe 2 Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe Prepared by: D.P. van Vuuren*, J. Cofala**, H. Eerens*, R. Oostenrijk, C. Heyes**, Z. Klimont**, M. den Elzen*, M. Amann** (*RIVM, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, The Netherlands, **IIASA, International Institute for Integrated System Analysis, Austria) Project manager: Andreas Barkman, EEA Cover design: Rolf Kuchling, EEA Layout: Brandpunkt A/S Legal notice The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the European Commission or other European Communities institutions. Neither the European Environment Agency nor any person or company acting on behalf of the Agency is responsible for the use that may be made of the information contained in this report. A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu.int). ©EEA, Copenhagen, 2004 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. ISBN: 92-9167-524-5 Printed in Denmark European Environment Agency Kongens Nytorv 6 DK-1050 Copenhagen K Tel. (45) 33 36 71 00 Fax (45) 33 36 71 99 E-mail: [email protected] Internet: http://www.eea.eu.int 3 Contents Executive summary . 4 1. Introduction . 9 2. Objective and scope . 11 3. Methodology . 12 3.1. Model framework used . 12 3.2. Description of the models used . 13 3.2.1. The FAIR model . 13 3.2.2. The TIMER model . 13 3.2.3. The RAINS model . 14 3.3. Linking the different models . 15 3.3.1. TIMER and FAIR . 15 3.3.2. TIMER to RAINS . 16 3.4. Comparing control costs from TIMER and RAINS: compatibility of costs calculated by different models . 16 4.The baseline scenario for carbon dioxide emissions and air pollution in Europe for 2010 . 18 4.1. Main assumptions . 18 4.2. Baseline results . 19 4.2.1. Carbon dioxide and air pollutant emissions . 19 4.2.2. Emission control costs . 22 4.2.3. Regional environmental impacts . 22 5. Kyoto scenarios and ancillary benefits for regional air pollution . 24 5.1. Kyoto scenario results . 25 5.1.1. CO2 emissions . 25 5.1.2. Air emissions . 28 5.1.3. Emission control costs . 29 5.1.4. Ecosystem protection . 30 Discussion . 32 Conclusions . 34 References . 36 Annex 1: Country level results . 38 Annex 2: Comparison of projected CO2 baseline emissions with other recent studies . 49 4 Exploring the ancillary benefits of the Kyoto Protocol for air pollution in Europe Executive summary Many of the traditional air pollutants and on three country groupings/regions: western greenhouse gases have common sources and Europe (WE), central and eastern Europe either separately or jointly they lead to a (CEE) and Russian Federation and western variety of environmental effects on local, countries of eastern Europe, Caucasus and regional and global scales. As a result, central Asia countries (here denoted policies that look at cost-effectiveness and RF & EE). Results for individual countries, as environmental effectiveness of proposed shown in the annexes, are mainly for solutions in an integrated way can be more illustration since analysis of climate policies effective and efficient than policies that only takes place at the regional level. focus on one issue, as integration can prevent inefficient use of resources and Methodology implementation of sub-optimal solutions. Three scenarios for the implementation of Objective/scope Kyoto targets are compared with a baseline scenario for 2010 (without new climate Our objective here is to explore reductions of policies). The three scenarios differ with air pollutant emissions as well as the change regard to the use of the Kyoto mechanism. in control costs and environmental impacts These were developed and explored using a (the potential ’ancillary benefits’) resulting set of linked assessment models developed by from different ways of implementing the RIVM in the Netherlands and IIASA in Kyoto Protocol in Europe, in particular with Austria. The Kyoto Protocol targets have reference to the use of Kyoto mechanisms. been implemented according to the post- The term ’Kyoto mechanisms’ refers here to Marrakech Amendments situation. The three all instruments that, in addition to domestic scenarios have been designed to cover a implementation, parties are allowed to use range of potential ancillary benefits for the under the protocol to achieve their reduction main region investigated. targets. These instruments are: emission trading, joint implementation (JI) and the The baseline scenario describes the clean development mechanism (CDM). The developments in energy use and emissions of results presented have a descriptive ’what-if’ greenhouse gases and regional air pollutants, character and do not intend to be assuming that no new climate policies are prescriptive for any future implementation of implemented. The baseline scenario used in the Kyoto Protocol and air pollution policies. this study is consistent with several other Furthermore, we need to emphasise that all scenarios currently used for European our scenarios concentrate exclusively on the assessments. reduction of CO2 emissions, CO2 being, by far, the most important greenhouse gas. The three climate policy scenarios prepared Possibilities for reducing other gases (CH4, for the report are: N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6) are not considered. 1. domestic action only (DAO): assumes that Kyoto targets are met solely through This technical report underpins the domestic implementation, allowing only information presented in the report for internal emission trading (e.g. within ’Europe’s Environment: the third the EU), assessment’, produced by the European 2. trade — with no use of surplus emission Environment Agency for the ministerial allowances (TNS): assumes full use of the conference held in Kiev, May 2003. Kyoto mechanisms, but without using Compared to the information presented in ‘surplus emission allowances’. These Europe’s Environment: the third assessment this ‘surplus emission allowances’ exist as report provides a more indepth presentation greenhouse gas emissions in many CEE of the used methodology, models and the and RF & EE countries are projected as underlying assumptions. Furthermore this being well below their Kyoto targets, even technical report elaborates on the details of without specific climate policies. Thus, the results. The discussion focuses primarily under this scenario, part of the reduction Executive summary 5 by the parties required to reduce their The DAO (domestic action only) scenario emissions under the Kyoto Protocol results in the most drastic changes in western (i.e. WE) is met by means of emission Europe. Reducing 2010 CO2 emissions from trading, JI and CDM, an increase of 8 % (compared to 1990) to a 3. trade — with surplus emission allowances decrease of 7 % results in decrease of (TWS) also assumes full use of Kyoto primary energy consumption of 7 % with mechanisms, but includes the use of respect to the baseline. However, the use of ‘surplus emission allowances’. This ‘surplus coal in western Europe decreases by 38 % emission allowances’ use is, however, whereas the consumption of oil and gas restricted on the basis of maximising the decreases by 9 % and 2 %, respectively. In revenues of their trade for the CEE and this scenario, no changes occur in the CEE RF & EE regions, leading to the use of only and RF & EE regions compared to baseline, a quarter of the available 'surplus emission since their Kyoto targets are already met allowances' during the first comment under the baseline scenario. period. Under the two ‘emission trading’ scenarios Results (i.e. the scenarios that assume the use of Kyoto mechanisms) part of the necessary Baseline scenario without additional climate emission reductions in WE is implemented policies using more cost-effective measures in other The baseline scenario shows that if no sub-regions. In these cases, obviously less additional climate policies are formulated substantial changes in WE are required, after 2000, CO2 emissions in WE will increase while, at the same time, this leads to changes by 8 % compared to 1990. The projected in the energy system of CEE and RF & EE. increase in CO2 emissions is mainly driven by an increase in energy consumption, which In the TNS scenario (i.e. without the use of for WE in 2010 is about 15 % above the 1990 ‘surplus emission allowances’) total primary level. In contrast, according to the baseline energy consumption in WE decreases by 2 % scenario the 2010 emissions in the CEE and and coal use by 21 % with respect to the RF & EE regions are below the 1990 level. baseline. While consumption of oil decreases (– 10 % and – 32 %, respectively). This 3 %, the use of gas increases simultaneously means that these regions already comply with by the same percentage. Measures that are their respective reduction targets without implemented in CEE and RF & EE cause a additional policies. For all three regions, drop in the primary energy demand in these emissions decrease by 7 % compared to 1990. regions by 4% and 9%, respectively. Again, this is largely due to less use of coal (23 % in For regional air pollutants, the baseline CEE and 32 % in RF & EE). Interestingly, for scenario includes emission and fuel Europe as a whole, the CO2 emission standards in each country according to the reductions are the same as in the DAO current legislation (CLE) (1) and emission scenario (6 % compared to baseline). This is ceilings from the National Emission Ceilings because the limited use of CDM by WE Directive of the EU and the Gothenburg (resulting in measures taken outside Europe) Protocol to the CLRTAP. As a result, is compensated by reductions in CEE and emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen RF & EE as a result of trading with other oxides, volatile organic compounds and Annex-B countries.