Air pollution – some historical
remarks and future challenges
Peringe Grennfelt
IVL Swedish Environmental Research
Institute
San Francisco, 7 May 2013
Successful air pollution policies
Swedish emissions reduced by 97% since 1970
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Causes of Swedish Emission reductions :
- 1970-85: S in oil, reinvestments in the industry, nuclear power
- 1985 and onwards energy savings, replacing fossil fuels with renewables
Emissions in Europe 1880 - 2030
Source: IIASA
3
CONVENTION ON LONG-RANGE
TRANSBOUNDARY AIR POLLUTION
UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC
COMMISSION FOR EUROPE
• Signed 1979, in force 1983
Kara Sea
Barents Sea
• 51 Parties
Artic Ocean
• 8 Protocols
Canada
Iceland
• Covers SO2 , NOx, VOC, NH3,
PM , HMs, POPs
Pacific Ocean
of America
Finland
North Sea
Atlantic Ocean
Norway Sweden
Russian Federation
Estonia
• Effect based agreements
Latvia
Lithuania
Denmark
• Close interaction between
science and policy
Ireland
Belarus
United
Poland
KingdomNetherlands
Germany
Belgium
Ukraine
Czech Rep.
Luxembourg
Slovakia
Austria
Hungary
Moldova
France
Liechtenstein
Switzerland
Atlantic Ocean
Slovenia
Romania
Croatia
Bosnia and
Yugoslavia
Monaco
Herzegovina
Black Sea
Bulgaria
Italy
F.Y.R.of
Albania
Macedonia
Greece
Malta
Mediterranean Sea
Aral
Sea
Georgia
Caspian
Sea
Kyrgy
zstan
Armenia Azerbaijan
Spain
Portugal
Kazak
hstan
Turkey
Cyprus
Naturvårdsverket | Swedish Environmental
Protection Agency
Emission reductions have resulted in ecosystem
improvements
Emission control has resulted
in substantial improvements
in ecosystems, e.g. in
the return of salmon in
Norwegian rivers.
International Coordinated Programme
on Water (ICP Water 2011)
Germany
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1960
Poland
6000
4000
2000
1980
2000
2020
In West Germany the acid rain alarms
came around 1980 and most of
the control measures were flue
gas desulphurization.
Annual emissions were reduced by
more than 2 million tonnes between
1980 and 1990.
0
1960
1980
2000
2020
In Poland emission reductions
did not start until l990 and they
were largely associated with shut
downs of the Polish heavy industry
and later with FGD.
120
100
80
Germany
60
Sweden
40
Poland
20
0
1960
1980
2000
2020
120
100
80
Germany
60
Sweden
40
Poland
20
0
1960
1980
2000
2020
Emission trends 1970-2010 for
SO2 in some European countries
Conclusions
• Early awareness and actions from Sweden were of benefit
• Sweden together with other countries could through research
and policy actions set the agenda for the AP strategies and
measures in Europe.
• Research proved the continental dimension of the problem
and made it possible for Sweden and other Nordic countries
to take initiatives in the international CLRTAP negotiations:
– Critical Loads,
– Gap Closure and the
– Multipollutant/multieffect approach
Europe
Consensus
Discovery
1
Science
The first alarm,
Odén 1967
Innovative
strategies
Policy
1970
Sweden’s case
study UN
Conference 1972
OECD projekt: “Acid rain
a transboundary problem”
Start of EMEP
1980
Acid rain in North
America (Likens)
1970
CLRTAP
Convention
NAPAP
program starts
1980
Regional Acid
Deposition
Model (RADM)
Close interactions between
science and policy over time
NOx Protocol 1988
Multipollutant integrated
assessment model
Dynamic modelling
Recovery
Second Sulphur
Protocol 1994
1990
MAGIC soil and water
acidification model
Gothenburg
Protocol 1999
Whole Lake
Acidif.Experiments
in Canada
1990
2000
Climate, human
health,intercontinental
2010
transport, nitrogen
2010
New directions:
Climate, Air Toxics
Driscoll, Cowling, Grennfelt, Galloway and Dennis
Public-health and
equivalent publicwelfare based NAAQS
NAPAP Interim
Assessment
Congress passes
CAAA with Cap and
Trade provisions
2000
EU NEC Directive CMAQ dynamic
atmospheric deposition
model
EU Thematic
Strategy
Gothenburg
Protocol revision
USEPA
establishment
EPA identifies 6
”criteria Pollutants
CANSAP and
NADP
First S Protocol
1985
Start ICP effects monit.
Policy
Science
Soil acidification verified
Critical loads and
levels
Linkages with
emerging issues
North America
EPA embraces
”Critical Loads” and ”
Multiple Pollutant”
concepts
Today – the European Union has taken over
much of the AP and CC policy development
• After 2000 the European Union has become a much stronger
actor in European environmental legislation
– The new Constitution and Lisbon Treaty
– The expansion of the Union
• Results:
– Options for being first are reduced
– Regulations may include all countries
Coordinated air pollution and climate strategies
in Europe?
• EU attempt in 2007 for a combined CC and AP strategy failed
• Instead EU went away with a climate strategy without
considering possible co-benefits with air pollution.
• Calculations showed that the climate strategy by 2020 will
result in decreased emissions to a value of 20 bn € per year.
• Present air pollution strategies are taking into account the EU
Climate change strategies but not the opposite.
The European union is not meeting EU 2020 targets on
protection of health and ecosystems
Acidification
(forests)
gap-closure from 2000 - 2020.
Source: IIASA
Eutrophication
Health (PM2.5)
Current policy
Thematic strategy
Health (ozone)
0%
MTFR
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Future air pollution improvements need new
technologies and behavioral changes
Future air pollution improvements need
new technologies and behavioral changes
12
SLCP – an option for slowing down global
warming?
The idea behind
SLCP policies
•
A fast reduction in
emissions of black carbon
and methane may give
substantial climate
benefits over the next 2040 years
SLCP policies can’t replace
CO2 measures!!!
UNEP-BC/O3 Report &Science Paper
Shindell et al, 2012
0.50C Reduction by 2050
BC+Methane+Ozone
Influence on climate from soot – Bond mfl JGR 2013
Cooling
Heating
Snow
Total
Disturbance of the radiation balance (W/m2)
Upcoming workshop on air pollution
strategies
• There is a need for further development of coordinated
policies on air pollution and climate change.
• One step in order to further outline options and
possibilities are now taken by the Swedish EPA and IVL
in organizing an international workshop 24-26 June.
–
–
–
–
–
Coordinated AP and CC policies incl. SLCP
Global governance in air pollution control
Effects-based control strategies
Nitrogen
http://www.saltsjobaden5.ivl.se/
Thank you
Outlook to 2050
Amann et al. 2013
5
10
Baseline - CLE
4
Baseline - MTFR
Decarb - CLE
Million tons NOx
Million tons SO2
Decarb - MCE
3
2
Baseline - CLE
9
Baseline - MTFR
8
Decarb - CLE
7
MCE
• decarbonisation
(only SO2 and NOx),
6
5
4
• further air pollution
controls (could cut
emissions by ~half).
3
2
SO2
1
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
0
2010
1.6
2020
2030
2040
2050
9
5
1.4
Baseline - CLE
Baseline - CLE
Baseline - MTFR
Baseline - MTFR
4
Decarb - CLE
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
Baseline - CLE
8
2
Decarb - CLE
Decarb - MCE
Decarb - MCE
3
Baseline - MTFR
7
Decarb - CLE
Decarb - MCE
Million tons NH3
Million tons PM2.5
NOx
6
Million tons VOC
1
Further emission
reductions only from:
5
4
3
0.4
PM2.5
0.2
2
1
NH3
0.0
1
0
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
VOC
0
2030
2040
2050
2010
2020
Blue: BAU baseline, Red: climate policy + healthy diet scenario
2030
2040
2050