Multiple Benefits of SLCP Mitigation in Alpine and Polar Regions

Multiple Benefits of SLCP Mitigation in Alpine and Polar

Regions

Johan C.I. Kuylenstierna Director, Stockholm Environment Institute York Centre

johan.kuylenstiernaUK@sei-international .org

UNEP/WMO Integrated Assessment of Black

Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone Johan Kuylenstierna, Stockholm

Environment Institute, SEI, Scientific Coordinator and lead author

Drew Shindell, NASA-GISS, Chair; Vice-Chairs: Frank Raes, Joint

Research Centre, EC; V. Ramanathan, Scripps Institution of Oceanography;

Kim Oanh, AIT; Luis Cifuentes, Catholic University of Chile

Coordinating lead authors: David Streets, Argonne National Laboratory; David Fowler, CEH; Lisa Emberson, SEI; Martin Williams, Kings College

London

50 Contributors, over 100 reviewers

UNEP/WMO Coordinators: Volodymyr Demkine, UNEP / Liisa Jalkanen, WMO

Near-term Climate and Clean Air Benefits:

Actions for Controlling Short-Lived Climate

ForcersLead authors: Johan Kuylenstierna (SEI); Cristina Zucca (UNEP); Marcus Amann (IIASA); Beatriz Cardenas (INE, Mexico); Bradnee Chambers (UNEP); Zbigniew

Klimont (IIASA); Kevin Hicks (SEI); Richard Mills (IUAPPA); Luisa Molina

(MIT); Frank Murray (Murdoch University); Pam Pearson (ICCI); Surya Sethi (UoS);

Drew Shindell (NASA-GISS); Youba Sokona (ACPC); Sara Terry (US EPA); Harry Vallack (SEI); Rita van Dingenen

(EU JRC); Martin Williams (Kings College); Eric Zusman (IGES)

Editorial assisstance from Joseph Alcamo (UNEP) and Svante Bodin (Swedish

Ministry of Environment)

49 external reviewers

Climate and Clean Air Coalition to reduce Short-Lived Climate Pollutants

There is a lot of scientific and political interest – Why?

What are short-lived climate pollutants?

Multiple benefits of reducing short-lived climate pollutants:

• Reduce air pollution - Protect health and crops

• Slow down near-term global warming, reduce regional impacts of climate change

Also some HFCs

Short-lived climate pollutants: Cause global warming & relatively short-lived in the atmosphere.

Black carbon, methane, tropospheric ozone

Lifetimes in the atmosphere

Air pollution: unfinished business on the sustainable development agenda

• about3 billion people cook and heat using open fires and leaky stoves burning biomass and coal

• Around 2 million people die each year prematurely from illness attributable to indoor air pollution

Source: WHO statistics

About 1.2 (3.7?) million premature deaths each year due to outside air pollution.

Outdoor air pollution

Indoor air pollution

Progress towards global environmental goals (UNEP GEO-5)

“little or no progress”“Indoor air pollution from particulate matter continues to have major health impacts, particularly on women and children.”

“Some progress” : Despite some progress, outdoor air pollution continues to have serious impacts on the environment & human health.

Ground level ozone increasing over wide areas

Source: UNEP GEO-5, HTAP

Due to methane and other precursors

Reducing ground level ozone:• protects public health• reduces ozone damage to crops

Impact of the Tropospheric Ozone on Crop yields

Exposure of wheat to ozone in Pakistan

Clean airAir with ambient ozone

Black carbon measures

• addressing emissions from incomplete combustion

- BC, OC, methane, CO, NMVOCs

Methane measures

• reducing methane emissions

A package of 16 measures can substantially reduce emissions and achieve multiple benefits

No technical breakthroughs

These measures already implemented in many countries

Cost-effective

IIASA ranked mitigation measures by the net climate impact (using GWP) of their emission changes (considering CO, CH4, BC, OC, SO2, NOX, NMVOCs, and CO2), picked the top measures – about 90% of warming benefit

The measures aiming at reducing methane emissions

Intermittent aeration -paddy Recovery from oil and gas

Recovery from livestock manure / feedRecovery from landfill

Recovery from wastewater

Coal mine methane capture Reducing pipeline leakage

The measures aiming to reduce black carbon

emissions

Improved biomass stoves Modern coke ovens Remove big smokers / DPF

Cooking with clean fuel

Pellet biomass heating stoves

Improved brick kilns

Coal briquettes replacing coal Reduce agricultural burning Reduce flaring

Effect of measures on emissions projected in 2030 relative to 2005

9 BC measures reduce �80% of BC

Reference: CH4 increases 7 CH4 measures reduce �25% of CH4 (2005); or

� 40% relative to 2030

BC measures reduce CO

2.4 million avoided premature deaths - from outdoor PM

S, W & C Asia 1.15 million deaths/yr

Africa 200 thousanddeaths/yr

Pre

mat

ure

mo

rtal

ity

avo

ided

(1

000s

of

dea

ths)

Health Benefits by Country

About 32 (range 21-57) million tonnes yield loss avoided in 2030

reduces air pollution & saves lives

Crop Benefits in Different Countries

Temperature changes over 20th Century

Source: NASA GISS

Estimated historic contributions to Arctic warming from CO2 and from SLCFs. Reflective aerosols produced a

substantial cooling effect (based on data in Quinn et al., 2008).

Global and regional temperature changes relative to 2009 projected under the reference scenario for

different global regions

• Largest projected increases in Arctic

Result for Global Temperature Change: CO2 and SLCF measures are complementary strategies

Source: UNEP/WMO (2011). Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone. UNEP, Nairobi

The share of global temperature reduction from methane measures

The share of global temperature reduction from methane measures

National action against air pollution can slow down global warming

Slowing down near term global warming. How much?

16 measures reduce global warming up to 2040 0.4/0.5oC relative to baseline almost halving of temperature rise; 0.7oC reduction in Arctic

Glacier lake outburst floods Why slow down near term global warming?

• Bursting glacier lakes; • increasing heat waves• Melting arctic land ice, ice caps, sea level rise

Also reduce regional climate change impactsGlacier melting; arctic ice melting; precipitation patterns

Cannot replace CO2 reductionsNeed both –1. Reducing short-lived climate forcers: slow down near-term global warming

2. CO2 reductions for long term climate protection

Near-term framing

Time series estimates of glacier mass balance in different regions of the world (from Kaser et al., 2006).

Panel a. shows mass balance normalized to the glacierized area in each region (specific mass balance), a measure of the relative response of each region, while Panel b. shows change in total mass balance, reported in millimetres of sea-level equivalent (SLE)

Global and Regional Temperature Change Relative to the Reference Scenario (hybrid modelling of GISS, ECHAM

informed by the literature)

BC measures:Larger benefits in North, greateruncertainty for temperature (largeregional precipitation & glacial meltingbenefits)

Reduced Arctic warming by 0.7oC by 2040 compared to the referenceScenario, with measures taken 2010-- 2030. ‐ Mitigating ~2/3 of projected 1.2oC warming

Methane measures:Relatively uniform benefits,low uncertainty

Global and Regional Temperature Change Relative to the Reference Scenario (modelling using of GISS)

Global and regional temperature changes due to widespread use of pellet stoves and boilers in industrialized countries and coal briquettes in the residential sector in China.

Annual average surface temperature change (ºC) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the biggest temperature benefit occurs

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

Regional Climate Changes: Preventing Disturbance of Rainfall Patterns

Change in atmospheric forcing at 2030 relative to the reference case in the two models.

• Dark areas: where the biggest energy change to the atmosphere occurs

• This drives regional weather pattern changes

Black carbon measures

• Improved stoves

• Upgraded brick kilns

Methane measures

• Recovery from fossil fuel production (coal mines; gas distribution)

• Waste / landfill management

How much does it cost? Costs of implementing 16 measures

50% of black carbon and methane emission reductions:

Low cost or no-cost Recovery of methane, better fuel efficiency

• Addressing SLCPs is a development issue – countries reducing emissions will benefit from improved health (avoid 2.4 million deaths), crop yields (avoid > 30 million tonnes loss) etc

• 16 identified measures, implemented by 2030, would reduce global warming by 0.5oC (0.2-0.7oC) in 2050 – half the warming projected by the Reference Scenario

• Near-term measures would improve the chance of not exceeding 2oC target, but only if CO2 is also addressed, starting now (complementary strategies; not alternatives)

• Substantial regional climate benefits: e.g. in the Arctic reduce warming by 0.7 oC (range 0.2-1.3oC by 2040), for Himalayas and South Asian monsoon

• The identified measures are all currently in use in different regions around the world; much wider and more rapid implementation is required to achieve the full benefits

• Many measures achieve cost savings over time.

Conclusions

‘An Integrated Assessment of Black Carbon and Tropospheric Ozone’

http://www.unep.org/dewa/Portals/67/pdf/BlackCarbon_SDM.pdf

Near-term Climate and Clean Air Benefits: Actions for Controlling Short-Lived Climate Forcers

http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/SLCF/

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

GROUP 1: Cost Savings or Low Cost e.g.- Recovery and utilization of vented gas during oil production- Replacement of traditional brick kilns with more efficient kilns

GROUP 2: Moderate Cost,

e.g. Coal mines: oxidation of ventilation methane

GROUP 3: High Cost,

e.g. Applying Euro VI/6 standards to vehicles

How much does it cost? Costs of implementing 16 measures

Actions on the National, Regional and Global Scales

Why regional action? • Reduce regional-scale pollution, e.g. black carbon transported long

distances to Himalayas, Arctic• Integrate abatement of black carbon and methane into existing or new

regional air pollution agreements

Why global action?• Support and catalyze national and regional action – awareness raising,

financing, technical assistance • Control international emission sources Work within existing treaties: e.g.

Reduce black carbon emissions through MARPOL?

Why national action?

• Most health benefits close to emission sources; local sustainable development; unique mix of emission sources

• Fast action on obvious emission sources, National Action Plans

Actions on the National, Regional and Global Scales

Why national action?

• Most health benefits close to emission sources; local sustainable development.

• Fast action on obvious emission sources, National Action Plans

Why regional action?

• Reduce regional-scale pollution, e.g. black carbon transported long distances to Himalayas, Arctic

• Integrate abatement of black carbon and methane into existing or new regional air pollution agreements

Why global action?

• Control international emission sources Work within existing treaties: e.g. Reduce black carbon emissions through MARPOL?

• Support and catalyze national and regional action – awareness raising, financing, technical assistance Climate and Clean Air Coalition

Coalition for Climate and Clean Air

February, 2012: 6 countries + UNEP

End 2012: + 10 countries + other partners ?

Action on Reducing Short-Lived Climate Pollutants

• Awareness raising

• National action plans

• Black carbon from vehicles, brick kilns

• Methane from landfills, oil & gas production

• HFCs from refrigeration & air conditioning

Political action now: the Coalition

Conclusions

Urgent questions about SLCPs require scientists and other experts to work on two tracks:

1. Quick response Costs and benefits of emission reduction measures science-basis for priority actions

2. Focused medium-term research Reduce uncertainties

Acting on SLCPs an important opportunity

Convergence of interests, new impulse to ...

Link solutions to climate change, air pollution and development

1. Reduce 2nd most important greenhouse gas – methane

2. Address major public health danger & important air pollutant – particulate matter – a priority for sustainable development

Further thoughts

Coalition needs to achieve some rapid successes – showing progress over the next year

To encourage further participation from Asia, Africa and Latin America, highlight multiple benefits of SLCP mitigation – allow countries to find key issues they want to address in the SLCP agenda.

Link SLCP mitigation to on-going activities in different countries – e.g. national development plans in sectors such as waste management, energy access

Needs to understand barriers and solutions to implement different measures – informed by past experience and case studies

Better characterised costs and wider societal benefits of health improvement and infrastructure development need to be made accessible

Observed (left) and modelled (right) surface BC concentrations (ng/m3) (Koch et al., 2009a).

• showing rather sparse measurements but reasonable correlation between model and measurement

Source: Koch et al., 2009a

Black carbon and ozone concentrations (daily averages) measured from March 2006 to February 2008 at the GAW-

WMO Global station "Nepal Climate Observatory - Pyramid" at 5 097 m above mean sea level near Mt. Everest

showing values comparable with polluted areas during several pre-monsoon day

Source: Bonasoni et al., 2010

550 ng m-3

Impact of the Measures on Health and

Crop yields

• Models give PM2.5 and ozone concentrations for health and crop yield impact assessment

• Concentration-response relationships from literature used to evaluate global impacts

Exposure of wheat to ozone in Pakistan

Clean airAir with ambient ozone

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

Annual average albedo forcing change (W/m2) from implementing all measures

• Dark areas: where the forcing benefit from increased albedo occurs

Warming in different latitude bands due to O3 and aerosols only following the reference scenario for emission projections from 2010 to 2030 and then

assuming constant emissions at 2030 levels thereafter

• Largest projected increases in Arctic

stratospheric O3

deposition

O3

stratosphere

troposphere

8 – 15 km

cattle

miningfossi

l fuels

biofuels

chemical destruction

NOCH4 CO VOCs

chemical production

gas l

eaks

Tropospheric Ozone