Assessing the air pollution benefits of further climate measures in the EU up to 2020 pot

AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Assessing the air pollution benefits of further climate measures in the EU up to 2020 November 2006 Service Contract for Carrying out Cost-Benefit Analysis of Air Quality Related Issues, in particular in the Clean Air for Europe (CAFE) Programme AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Title Assessing the air pollution benefits of further climate measures in the EU up to 2020 for Service Contract for carrying out cost-benefit analysis of air quality related issues, in particular in the clean air for Europe (CAFE) programme Customer European Commission DG Environment Customer reference ENV.C.1/SER/2003/0027 Confidentiality, copyright and reproduction This document has been prepared by AEA Technology plc in connection with a contract to supply goods and/or services and is submitted only on the basis of strict confidentiality The contents must not be disclosed to third parties other than in accordance with the terms of the contract Validity Issue File reference Reference number AEAT/ ED48763001/ Climate policy co-benefits AEA Technology Environment The Gemini Building, Fermi Avenue Harwell International Business Centre Didcot, OX11 0QR, United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0) 870 190 6554 Facsimile +44 (0) 870 190 6318 Email: stephen.pye@aeat.co.uk AEA Technology Environment is a business division of AEA Technology plc AEA Technology Environment is certificated to ISO9001 & ISO 14001 Reviewed by Name Mike Holland (EMRC) Steve Pye (AEA Technology) Steve Pye Approved by Steve Pye Authors Signature Date 08/11/06 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Executive Summary Action to reduce CO2 emissions has the potential to also reduce emissions of various regional air pollutants, such as SO2, NOx and fine particles This can arise, for example, as a result of fuel switching or through the implementation of various energy efficiency measures This report assesses the co-benefits of climate policy scenarios via changes in emissions of NH3, NOx, PM2.5, SO2 and VOCs to get an understanding of the magnitude of these benefits Three levels of climate policy are considered using the CAFE methodology against scenarios for the year 2020: • Carbon price of €0; • Carbon price of €20 and • Carbon price of €90 All three scenarios describe emissions assuming that current legislation (CLE, the baseline for the CAFE assessments) for air pollutants is in place As a sensitivity these three carbon price scenarios were combined with the Maximum Feasible Reduction case (MFR) for air pollutants according to the RAINS model at price levels of €20 and €90/t CO2 For the Current Legislation Scenario, moving from a shadow carbon price of €0/t CO2 to €20/t CO2 leads to a fall in emissions of 390 million tonnes for CO2, 277 thousand tonnes (kt) for NOx, 43 kt for PM2.5 and 397 kt for SO2 by 2020 Increasing the price from €20/t CO2 to €90/t CO2 would lead to a further increase of 563 million tonnes for CO2, 460 thousand tonnes (kt) for NOx, 38 kt for PM2.5 and 418 kt for SO2 by 2020 An increase in price from €0/t CO2 to €90/t CO2 would thus lead to a total fall in emissions of 953 million tonnes for CO2, 737 thousand tonnes (kt) for NOx, 81 kt for PM2.5 and 815 kt for SO2 by 2020 The following figure summarises these results in terms of the % change in emissions of each pollutant across the EU25 relative to a price of €0/t CO2 t in 2020 under the Current Legislation Scenario i AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue 105 100 95 90 85 CO2 80 75 SO2 NOx PM2.5 70 €0/t CO2 €20/t CO2 €90/t CO2 Estimated % reduction (in 2020 under CLE scenario) in emissions of CO2, NOx, PM2.5 and SO2 in 2020 in response to increasing levels of climate policy Emissions of NH3 and VOCs are little affected by climate policy The PRIMES model, run at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), was used to estimate the effect of CO2 prices on energy consumption and fuel use in Europe The outputs from PRIMES were used by the RAINS model to forecast emissions of NH3, NOx, PM2.5, SO2 and VOCs for each country in the EU25 for baseline conditions under current legislation (CLE) for 2020 with shadow carbon prices of €0, €20 and €90/t CO2, and also for scenarios describing the maximum feasible reduction (MFR) These emission estimates fed into the EMEP Eulerian model, which models the associated changes in air pollution concentrations The changes in concentration levels (relative to the baseline) were then input into the CAFE cost-benefits model; using concentration-response functions, the health impacts were estimated The CBA analysis enables a link between changes in NOx, PM2.5 and SO2 and various health impacts including mortality, the incidence of bronchitis, hospital admissions for respiratory and cardiac illness and various other effects such as restrictions to daily activity and increased incidence of asthma symptoms Quantified impacts are monetised using values agreed with stakeholders during the CAFE programme Results are shown in the figure below The low-high ranges reflect sensitivity to the approach used to characterise mortality impacts ii AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Health benefits, €billion/year 60 50 Low High 48.1 40 27.8 30 20.4 20 10 14.7 8.5 6.2 €0 to €20/t CO2 €20 to €90/t CO2 €0 to €90/t CO2 Annual co-benefits (€ billions) for climate policy under the CLE scenario in terms of the change in health impacts as a result of reduced emissions of NOx, PM2.5 and SO2 in 2020 for the EU-25.1 Results indicate that climate policy is likely to generate ancillary benefits through reductions in regional air pollutants of several €billion each year The analysis indicate that the cobenefits can be significant and vary between nearly 10 to just under 50 billion € per year depending on how vigorous a climate policy is pursued The analysis does not include all impacts of NOx, PM and SO2, perhaps most significantly the effects of SO2 and NOx on ecosystems but also impacts on materials and crops are also missing This clearly biases the results to underestimation of benefits Co-benefits under the Maximum Feasible Reduction Scenario according to the RAINS model are smaller as there is significantly less emission of NOx, etc., at the starting point iii AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Contents THE CO-BENEFITS OF CLIMATE POLICY INTRODUCTION SCENARIOS INVESTIGATED METHODS RESULTS DISCUSSION 11 REFERENCES 13 APPENDIX CO-BENEFITS OF CLIMATE POLICY UNDER MAXIMUM FEASIBLE REDUCTION (MFR) SCENARIO 14 APPENDIX EMISSIONS FOR THE CLIMATE POLICY ANALYSIS 17 iv AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue v AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue The co-benefits of climate policy Introduction Action to reduce CO2 emissions has the potential to also reduce emissions of various regional air pollutants, such as SO2, NOx and fine particles This can arise, for example, as a result of fuel switching or through the implementation of various energy efficiency measures Past analysis of the benefits of abating the CAFE pollutants (NH3, NOx, PM2.5, SO2 and VOCs) has started from a baseline scenario where CO2 emissions are stabilised by 2020, with an estimated shadow price for CO2 control of €20/t The question then naturally arises of what additional benefits via further reductions in the CAFE pollutants could accrue from different levels of climate policy Scenarios investigated As part of the CAFE work, a set of emission scenarios were developed based around three different prices for CO2, €0/t (IIASA, 2005), €20/t and €90/t (IIASA, 2004) The PRIMES model, run at the National Technical University of Athens (NTUA), was used to estimate the effect of these prices on energy consumption and fuel use in Europe For this analysis PRIMES implicitly assumed that the overall economy did not change (i.e Europe produces the same amount of cement, steel, etc in each model run) with exactly the same GDP growth between 2000 and 2020 This would of course not be the case if it was known that CO2 would cost €90/t The European economy would be likely to move towards different production modes, producing less energy intensive goods One effect of this is that the model runs presented here are likely to provide an underestimate of ancillary benefits in Europe via reductions in emissions of the CAFE pollutants A general equilibrium analysis should ideally be performed to characterise these broader impacts on the economy The outputs from PRIMES were used by the RAINS model to forecast emissions of NH3, NOx, PM2.5, SO2 and VOCs for each country in the EU25 for baseline conditions under current legislation (CLE) for 2020 with shadow carbon prices of €0, €20 and €90/t CO2, and also for scenarios describing the maximum feasible reduction (MFR) in each pollutant according to the measures included in RAINS for shadow carbon prices of €20 and €90/t CO2 The results associated with the MFR scenario are shown in Appendix Total emissions are shown in Table and the change in emissions with increasing carbon price is shown in Table National emissions of each pollutant are given in Appendix Table Total emissions (kt) in 2020 under the scenarios investigated Pollutant NH3 NOx PM2.5 SO2 VOCs CLE, €0/t CO2 3,687 12,114 1,364 6,729 6,135 CLE, €20/t CO2 3,687 11,837 1,321 6,332 6,139 CLE, €90/t CO2 3,677 11,377 1,283 5,914 6,107 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table Change in emissions (kt) in 2020 with increased CO2 price Pollutant NH3 NOx PM2.5 SO2 VOCs CLE, €0 to €20/t CO2 277 43 397 -4 (increase) CLE, €20 to €90/t CO2 10 460 38 418 32 CLE, €0 to €90/t CO2 10 737 81 815 28 Methods The emissions data derived by RAINS for each scenario were used in the EMEP model to estimate the concentration and deposition of air pollutants across Europe on a 50 x 50 km grid The analysis presented here then applied the CAFE methodology (Holland et al, 2005a, b; Hurley et al, 2005) to the EMEP outputs to quantify the health impacts arising from emissions of each pollutant, mediated through exposure to primary and secondary particles Effects on both mortality and morbidity were quantified Sensitivity analysis on mortality characterisation and valuation provides a range of estimates, as follows: • CAFE-low: Quantifies mortality as years of life lost (YOLL) and applies the median estimate of the value of a life year (VOLY)2 • CAFE-low/mid: Quantifies mortality as deaths and applies the median estimate of the value of a statistical life (VSL) • CAFE-high/mid: Quantifies mortality as YOLL and values it using the mean estimate of the VOLY • CAFE-high: Quantifies mortality in terms of deaths and values it using the mean estimate of the VSL The analysis presented here did not include quantification of various other impacts associated with emissions of NOx, PM and SO2 The most significant omissions are likely to be: Effects of acidification and eutrophication following emission of nitrogen and sulphur on ecosystems Effects of ozone on health, crops and ecosystems linked to emissions of NOx and VOCs Following from the CAFE analysis it is very likely that these effects are small compared to the health impacts of exposure to PM Note that effects on health and crops from ozone are usually included in the CAFE analysis Damage to materials Results Estimates of health impacts from exposure to primary and secondary particles are shown in Table Health impacts are subsequently shown in monetary equivalent in the following tables Total estimates of annual damage are given in Table Incremental benefits arising from the changes in CO2 price are shown in Table Results at the national level are shown in Table to Table for the CAFE-low and CAFE-high assumptions Results have been More complete discussion of mortality valuation is given in Volume of the CAFE-CBA methodology report (Hurley et al, 2005), and in the CAFE-CBA scenario analyses (Holland et al, 2005d, e) AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue checked against a simplified method, using marginal damage estimates generated using the CAFE methods, and good agreement has been found (Holland and Pye, 2006) Table Estimated annual health impacts in 2020 (EU25) via population exposure to primary and secondary particles under current legislation (CLE) scenario based on different prices applied to CO2 (thousands) Health endpoint €0/t CO2 Chronic Mortality – thousand years of life lost (YOLLS)1 Chronic Mortality – thousand deaths1 Infant Mortality (0-1yr) – thousand deaths Chronic Bronchitis (thousand cases, adults) Respiratory Hospital Admissions (thousands) Cardiac Hospital Admissions (thousands) Restricted Activity Days (thousands) Respiratory medication use (thousand days, children) Respiratory medication use (thousand days, adults) Lower respiratory symptom days (thousands, children) Lower respiratory symptom days (thousands, adults) €20/t CO2 €90/t CO2 2,484 2,369 2,285 265 0.34 125 41 25 216,631 252 0.33 119 39 24 206,661 243 0.32 115 38 23 199,323 1,956 1,872 1,815 20,359 19,409 18,708 87,109 83,199 80,477 202,518 193,111 186,213 For chronic mortality (PM), two alternative values are presented, based on quantification using years of life lost and numbers of premature deaths) The two measures are not additive Table Estimated annual damage in 2020 (EU25) via population exposure to primary and secondary particles under current legislation (CLE) scenario based on different prices applied to CO2 Sensitivity case €0/t (€M) €20/t (€M) €90/t (€M) CAFE-low CAFE-low/mid CAFE-high/mid CAFE-high 183,084 312,573 345,197 587,298 174,606 297,824 329,219 559,544 168,410 286,996 317,556 539,170 Table Incremental benefits in 2020 with increasing price of CO2 under the CLE scenario Sensitivity case €0 - 20/t (€M) €20 - 90/t (€M) €0 - 90/t (€M) CAFE-low CAFE-low/mid CAFE-high/mid CAFE-high 8,479 14,749 15,979 27,754 6,196 10,828 11,663 20,374 14,674 25,577 27,641 48,128 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 10 % change in health damage from PM2.5 exposure between scenarios Countries with a negative effect (increased damage) are highlighted (under the CLE scenario) Country Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK Total €0 to 20/t CO2 €20 to 90/t CO2 €0 to 90/t CO2 7% 3% 19% 10% 3% -1% 0% 5% 6% 10% 6% -1% 4% 2% 3% 8% 3% 2% 7% 2% 9% 5% 2% 3% 0% 5% 6% 3% -1% 8% 0% -3% -4% 2% 5% 2% 6% -3% 3% 0% 2% 5% 0% 2% 8% -1% 8% 5% 2% -1% 0% 3% 12% 7% 17% 18% 4% -4% -4% 7% 11% 11% 13% -3% 8% 2% 5% 12% 4% 5% 15% 1% 17% 11% 4% 2% 0% 8% AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 11 Reduction in emissions of SO2 (kt) between CLE scenarios for 2020 Highlighted cells correspond to the cells with negative incremental damages from Table and Table Country Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean North Sea Sea regions Total €0 to 20/t CO2 €20 to 90/t CO2 €0 to 90/t CO2 10 1 -2 18 94 27 -2 169 15 10 16 397 0 0 0 397 12 17 23 73 10 11 38 169 20 418 0 0 0 418 20 27 4 41 167 13 19 65 338 13 13 35 11 23 815 0 0 0 815 SO2 changes in the country/scenario combinations with negative damage tend to be small (a maximum of kt/year, for Portugal and the UK) compared to the other estimates (a maximum of 338 kt/year for Poland) AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 12 Reduction in emissions of NOx (kt) between CLE scenarios for 2020 Highlighted cells correspond to the cells with negative incremental damages from Table and Table Country Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean North Sea Sea regions Total €0 to 20/t CO2 €20 to 90/t CO2 €0 to 90/t CO2 12 11 -5 28 101 29 2 0 26 -2 16 11 12 277 0 0 0 277 10 17 23 41 55 15 7 41 2 13 55 15 54 71 460 0 0 0 460 10 29 34 4 69 156 21 15 70 16 81 24 70 18 83 737 0 0 0 737 In general, the country/scenario combinations with negative incremental damage tend to have small reductions in NOx emissions compared to those seen elsewhere, exceptions being the UK and to a lesser extent Portugal 10 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Discussion Results indicate that climate policy is likely to generate ancillary benefits through reductions in regional air pollutants of several €billion each year To illustrate, the incremental benefit through reduction in regional air pollutant emissions of moving from CLE €20/t CO2 to CLE €90/t CO2, is estimated at between €6 and €20 billion Benefits of moving from CLE €0/t CO2 to CLE €90/t CO2 is estimated between nearly €15 and €48 billion Comparing the data in Table with the results of Table shows that the move from €0/t CO2 to €20/t yields a rather higher benefit than the move from €20/t to €90/t, although the emission reductions for the latter are slightly higher (with the exception of PM2.5) There are likely to be two reasons for this: Non-linearities in some atmospheric processes as emission levels change Differences in the location of emission reductions Given that these results are entirely health-driven, emissions in areas with a high regional population density (i.e central parts of Europe, including countries such as the Czech Republic, Germany and France) will generate higher damage than emissions at the edges of Europe (e.g in countries like Latvia, Greece or Portugal) The benefits calculated here for moving to a higher CO2 price are lower for the MFR scenario (see results in Appendix 1) than for the CLE scenario In large part this is due to the MFR €20/t scenario starting at a lower level of NOx, PM2.5 and SO2 emission than its CLE counterpart Table 10 highlighted negative increments (increased damage) between scenarios of reduced emissions for some countries Inspection of the countries concerned reveals that they are all around the edges of Europe Six reasons are offered for this behaviour, most linked to secondary aerosol (sulphate and nitrate) formation as this underpins the health impacts quantified here In some cases there are modest increases in emission between successive scenarios, going against the trend seen in most other countries This will reflect particular characteristics of the energy and transport sectors in the countries concerned (such as shifts from coal to gas to reduce carbon emissions that could increase NOx emissions, or from gas to biomass that could increase PM emissions) Emissions of SO2 and NOx from shipping are not affected by the scenarios considered The countries affected all border the sea (though some countries that border the sea, such as Italy and Greece not behave in this way) On its own this would not lead to an increase in secondary aerosols, but provides a rich source of pollutants available for reaction with ammonia and photo-oxidants Emissions of NH3 from agriculture are almost unaffected by the scenarios investigated Reduced emissions of SO2 and NOx in more central areas of Europe could lead to a larger amount of NH3 being transported to surrounding countries and becoming available there for reactions leading to the formation of nitrate and sulphate aerosols Emissions of VOCs are similarly little affected Reduced emissions of NOx in central parts of Europe could lead to more VOC leaking out to surrounding countries, raising ozone concentrations there and thus accelerating oxidation of SO2 and NOx to sulphate and nitrate 11 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Non-linearities in ozone-NOx-VOC relations mean that for some countries (especially Belgium, the Netherlands and the UK, though the precise list of countries is dependent on which ozone metric is selected) a reduction in NOx emissions leads to an increase in ozone levels Again, this would accelerate oxidation of SO2 and NOx to sulphate and nitrate Country/scenario combinations with negative damage tend to be associated with small reductions in emissions of SO2 and NOx (noting the apparent exceptions of the UK particularly, and Spain and Portugal, with respect to NOx) These results emphasise the need to reduce emissions of: • SO2 and NOx from shipping (see point above) • NH3 from agriculture (see point above) • VOCs from various sources (see points and above) None of these are affected at all significantly by the scenarios considered The results also emphasise the trans-boundary nature of the air pollutants considered under the CAFE Programme and the need to examine the occasional, counterintuitive small increases in damage for some countries in detail to reveal the causes (such as a change in energy supply, atmospheric chemistry) Nevertheless, the incremental benefits through reduction in regional air pollutant emissions of more demanding climate policies reflected in higher carbon prices can be significant, ranging from €6-20 billion per year (for a price increase of €20/t CO2 to €90/t CO2) to nearly €15 and €48 billion (for an increase of €0/t CO2 to €90/t CO2 with current air pollution legislation) This scenario analysis could be improved by using the PRIMES model to perform a general equilibrium analysis to describe the overall effects of the change in the shadow price for CO2 on the structure of the overall economy 12 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue References Holland, M., Hunt, A., Hurley, F., Navrud, S., Watkiss, P (2005a) Methodology for the CostBenefit analysis for CAFE: Volume 1: Overview of Methodology http://www.cafe-cba.orgHolland, M., Hurley, F., Hunt, A and Watkiss, P (2005b) Methodology for the Cost-Benefit analysis for CAFE: Volume 3: Uncertainty in the CAFE CBA Available at: http://cafe-cba.aeat.com/files/cba_method_vol3.pdf Holland, M and Pye, S (2006) An update on cost-benefit analysis and the CAFE Programme Produced for EC DG Environment, August 2006 Hurley, F., Cowie, H., Hunt, A., Holland, M., Miller, B., Pye, S., Watkiss, P (2005) Methodology for the Cost-Benefit analysis for CAFE: Volume 2: Health Impact Assessment Available at: http://cafecba.aeat.com/files/CAFE%20CBA%20Methodology%20Final%20Volume%202%2 0v1h.pdf IIASA (2004) The "Current Legislation" and the "Maximum Technically Feasible Reduction" cases for the CAFE baseline emission projections November 2004 CAFE scenario analysis report number Available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/activities/pdf/cafe_scenario_report_2.pdf IIASA (2005) Baseline scenarios for the Clean Air For Europe Programme CAFE scenario analysis report number Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/cafe/activities/pdf/cafe_scenario_report_1.pdf 13 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Appendix Co-benefits of climate policy under Maximum Feasible Reduction (MFR) scenario The data tables in this appendix present the co-benefits of climate policy under the Maximum Feasible Reduction (MFR) scenario Similar to the CLE analysis, they show that moving to higher CO2 price is likely to generate benefits through air quality pollutant emission reductions, although such benefits are smaller than seen under the CLE scenario Table 13 Total emissions (kt) in 2020 under the MFR scenario, and change in emissions (kt) in 2020 with increased CO2 price Pollutant NH3 NOx PM2.5 SO2 VOCs Total emissions MFR, €20/t CO2 MFR, €90/t CO2 2,219 6,582 958 2,257 4,449 Change in emissions MFR, €20 to €90/t CO2 2,203 6,329 935 2,111 4,425 16 253 23 146 24 Table 14 Estimated annual health impacts in 2020 (EU25) via population exposure to primary and secondary particles under maximum feasible reduction (MFR) scenario based on different prices applied to CO2 (thousands) Health endpoint Chronic Mortality – thousand years of life lost (YOLLS)1 Chronic Mortality – thousand deaths1 Infant Mortality (0-1yr) – thousand deaths Chronic Bronchitis (thousand cases, adults) Respiratory Hospital Admissions (thousands) Cardiac Hospital Admissions (thousands) Restricted Activity Days (thousands) Respiratory medication use (thousand days, children) Respiratory medication use (thousand days, adults) Lower respiratory symptom days (thousands, children) Lower respiratory symptom days (thousands, adults) €20/t CO2 1,223 129 0.17 61 20 13 106,565 986 9,993 43,233 99,566 €90/t CO2 1,197 126 0.16 60 20 12 104,282 970 9,770 42,453 97,386 For chronic mortality (PM), two alternative values are presented, based on quantification using years of life lost and numbers of premature deaths) The two measures are not additive Table 15 Estimated annual damage in 2020 (EU25) via population exposure to primary and secondary particles under maximum feasible reduction (MFR) scenario based on different prices applied to CO2, and incremental benefits with increasing price of CO2 Sensitivity case CAFE-low CAFE-low/mid CAFE-high/mid CAFE-high €20/t (€M) 90,074 152,832 169,888 287,038 €90/t (€M) 88,134 149,337 166,237 280,445 €20 - 90/t (€M) 1,940 3,494 3,651 6,592 14 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 16 Estimated annual damage and incremental benefits (€millions) in 2020 by country for each CO2 price scenario using the CAFE-low assumptions (under the MFR scenario) Country Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK Total €20/t CO2 1,382 4,161 81 1,811 962 99 343 12,435 21,634 1,274 1,475 553 8,980 172 360 143 105 6,698 6,937 1,177 863 296 4,371 993 12,769 90,074 €90/t CO2 1,307 4,053 85 1,663 982 108 383 12,392 20,579 1,263 1,371 594 8,745 180 361 137 107 6,581 6,428 1,227 794 280 4,445 1,029 13,040 88,134 €20 - 90/t CO2 75 108 -4 148 -20 -9 -40 43 1,055 11 104 -41 235 -8 -1 -2 117 509 -50 69 16 -74 -36 -271 1,940 15 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 17 Estimated annual damage and incremental benefits (€millions) in 2020 by country for each CO2 price scenario using the CAFE-high assumptions (under the MFR scenario) Country Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK Total €20/t CO2 4,283 12,927 196 5,933 3,228 362 1,091 36,334 73,535 4,642 5,403 1,398 33,099 445 1,693 339 306 19,860 21,371 3,973 2,596 989 14,311 3,118 35,605 287,038 €90/t CO2 4,051 12,590 205 5,450 3,294 394 1,218 36,210 69,947 4,603 5,022 1,504 32,233 467 1,697 323 312 19,514 19,802 4,140 2,386 934 14,555 3,231 36,363 280,445 €20 - 90/t CO2 232 337 -9 483 -66 -32 -127 124 3,588 39 381 -106 866 -22 -4 16 -6 346 1,569 -167 210 55 -244 -113 -758 6,593 16 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Appendix Emissions for the climate policy analysis This appendix provides emissions data for the following pollutants: • SO2 (Table 18) • NOx (Table 19) • VOCs (Table 20) • NH3 (Table 21) • PM2.5 (Table 22) • CO2 (Table 23) Table 18 SO2 emissions in 2020 under the scenarios considered (kt) SO2 Emissions Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean North Sea Sea regions Total €0/t 2020 CLE 28 91 63 14 11 60 363 426 113 96 19 308 25 62 723 87 38 19 350 60 225 3203 657 225 138 2082 424 3526 6729 €20/t 2020 CLE 26 83 53 13 10 62 345 332 110 88 19 281 22 2 64 554 81 33 16 335 50 209 2806 657 225 138 2082 424 3526 6332 €20/t 2020 MFR 22 51 26 10 46 148 220 40 32 10 117 11 1 41 223 33 13 155 39 102 1357 146 90 31 464 169 900 2257 €90/t 2020 CLE 23 71 36 13 56 322 259 100 77 18 243 19 62 385 74 25 14 315 49 202 2388 657 225 138 2082 424 3526 5914 €90/t 2020 MFR 20 47 17 43 149 177 34 29 10 102 11 1 40 178 30 153 38 100 1211 146 90 31 464 169 900 2111 17 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 19 NOx emissions in 2020 under the scenarios considered (kt) NOx Emissions Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean North Sea Sea regions Total €0/t 2020 CLE 127 202 19 124 105 16 112 847 909 215 91 65 692 17 29 18 243 390 165 58 28 697 161 829 6163 954 592 199 3095 1111 5951 12114 €20/t 2020 CLE 127 190 18 113 105 15 117 819 808 209 83 63 663 15 27 18 240 364 156 60 24 681 150 817 5886 954 592 199 3095 1111 5951 11837 €20/t 2020 MFR 91 112 10 60 65 63 461 600 120 42 39 363 15 11 166 209 97 34 16 398 75 474 3540 488 302 102 1582 568 3042 6582 €90/t 2020 CLE 117 173 17 90 101 12 110 778 753 194 76 56 622 15 25 16 227 309 141 53 22 627 143 746 5426 954 592 199 3095 1111 5951 11377 €90/t 2020 MFR 88 104 10 51 63 58 450 550 109 38 34 338 15 10 158 177 86 31 15 375 70 439 3287 488 302 102 1582 568 3042 6329 18 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 20 VOC emissions in 2020 under the scenarios considered (kt) VOC Emissions Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean North Sea Sea regions Total €0/t 2020 CLE 138 148 120 58 17 95 921 783 146 92 46 739 28 43 203 324 165 64 21 697 182 870 5916 35 22 114 41 219 6135 €20/t 2020 CLE 139 147 120 58 17 97 924 777 144 91 47 735 28 44 204 321 164 65 21 702 179 880 5920 35 22 114 41 219 6139 €20/t 2020 MFR 94 109 74 39 11 63 660 618 79 53 29 552 16 22 145 215 116 32 12 492 136 652 4230 35 22 114 41 219 4449 €90/t 2020 CLE 139 146 119 59 17 96 935 767 139 90 46 740 26 44 202 314 162 67 20 697 177 871 5888 35 22 114 41 219 6107 €90/t 2020 MFR 94 108 75 38 11 62 667 612 76 52 29 552 15 22 144 210 115 33 12 489 134 645 4206 35 22 114 41 219 4425 19 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 21 NH3 emissions in 2020 under the scenarios considered (kt) NH3 Emissions Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 €0/t 2020 CLE 54 76 65 78 12 32 702 603 52 85 121 399 16 57 140 333 67 33 20 370 49 310 3687 €20/t 2020 CLE 54 76 65 78 12 32 702 603 52 85 121 399 16 57 140 333 67 33 20 370 49 310 3687 €20/t 2020 MFR 27 47 36 40 22 387 441 34 39 84 248 39 103 150 40 17 197 33 206 2219 €90/t 2020 CLE 54 76 65 78 12 32 702 599 51 85 121 398 16 57 139 332 67 32 20 370 48 310 3677 €90/t 2020 MFR 27 47 36 40 22 386 437 34 39 83 246 39 103 147 39 16 197 33 203 2203 20 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 22 PM2.5 emissions in 2020 under the scenarios considered (kt) Primary PM2.5 Emissions Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 Atlantic Ocean Baltic Sea Black Sea Mediterranean North Sea Sea regions Total €0/t 2020 CLE 27 26 21 13 27 174 123 44 25 100 12 26 107 38 14 92 42 69 1012 57 35 12 182 66 352 1364 €20/t 2020 CLE 27 24 18 13 27 167 111 41 22 100 12 26 102 37 14 91 40 68 969 57 35 12 182 66 352 1321 €20/t 2020 MFR 20 16 12 10 16 101 83 23 69 20 53 21 56 23 48 606 57 35 12 182 66 352 958 €90/t 2020 CLE 27 22 13 13 27 167 107 37 22 95 12 26 92 38 12 87 40 66 931 57 35 12 182 66 352 1283 €90/t 2020 MFR 20 16 16 102 79 21 66 20 48 21 54 22 47 583 57 35 12 182 66 352 935 21 AEAT/ ED48763001/Climate policy co-benefits Issue Table 23 CO2 emissions in 2020 under the scenarios considered (Mt) Note that the MFR and CLE values are the same for the €20 and €90/t CO2 scenarios respectively Note also that CO2 emissions in particular are subject to periodic recalculation, and that those shown here for any country may not be the latest estimates CO2 Emissions Austria Belgium Cyprus Czech Rep Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden UK EU25 €0/t 2020 CLE 69 131 102 44 13 61 464 896 116 66 49 469 11 22 13 185 341 87 48 18 344 81 549 4189 €20/t 2020 CLE 69 121 90 46 12 61 431 734 106 59 47 439 19 12 180 305 80 49 15 324 63 515 3799 €20/t 2020 MFR 69 121 90 46 12 61 431 734 106 59 47 439 19 12 180 305 80 49 15 324 63 515 3799 €90/t 2020 CLE 57 106 63 40 52 380 604 93 52 40 386 14 11 162 240 64 39 13 286 52 455 3236 €90/t 2020 MFR 57 106 63 40 52 380 604 93 52 40 386 14 11 162 240 64 39 13 286 52 455 3236 22 ... ED48763001 /Climate policy co -benefits Issue Title Assessing the air pollution benefits of further climate measures in the EU up to 2020 for Service Contract for carrying out cost-benefit analysis of air. .. for SO2 by 2020 The following figure summarises these results in terms of the % change in emissions of each pollutant across the EU2 5 relative to a price of €0/t CO2 t in 2020 under the Current... VOCs to get an understanding of the magnitude of these benefits Three levels of climate policy are considered using the CAFE methodology against scenarios for the year 2020: • Carbon price of €0;