multiple benefits of slcp mitigation in alpine and polar regions
DESCRIPTION
Presentation of Johan C.I. Kuylenstierna, Director of the Stockholm Environment Institute York CentreIt describe the main findings of an Integrated Assessment developed under UNEP and WMO on tropospheric ozone and black carbon. This has been put together by key experts around the globe, with Drew Shindell of NASA-GISS as the Chair of the Assessment and which has been coordinated by the Stockholm Environment Institute. Tropospheric ozone is ozone which is formed in the lower atmosphere – different from Stratospheric ozone layer. This ozone is not emitted but created in the atmosphere from emitted precursors, of which methane and carbon monoxide are important ones. Black carbon is emitted as particles of carbon – essentially the main compnent of soot. These substances warm the atmosphere and act as air pollutants and there has been a lot of interest recently in the potential for reducing climate warming by addressing these substances.TRANSCRIPT
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