NERAM V October 17 2006 Quentin Chiotti* Ken Ogilvie* John Drexhage # Mary Pattenden*...
-
Upload
chester-russell -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of NERAM V October 17 2006 Quentin Chiotti* Ken Ogilvie* John Drexhage # Mary Pattenden*...
NERAM V October 17 2006
Quentin Chiotti*
Ken Ogilvie*
John Drexhage#
Mary Pattenden*
www.pollutionprobe.org
Joint Air Quality and Climate Change Strategies: Challenges
and Opportunities
*Pollution Probe# IISD
NERAM V October 17 2006
Energy and Air Issues
* Limited emissions from various sources, including biomass burning.
COAL
OIL
NATURALGAS
OTHER*
NOX
VOCs
SO2
N2O
CH4
CO2
PARTICULATEMATTER
TOXICS
ACID RAIN
SMOG
CLIMATECHANGE
HAZARDOUS AIRPOLLUTANTS
Energy Productionand Use
Emissions AtmosphericIssues
NERAM V October 17 2006
MAIN ISSUES
Key sources
Atmospheric chemistry and interactions
Direct and indirect health effects
Policies
Solutions – Technical and non-technical
Co-benefits or unanticipated outcomes
NERAM V October 17 2006
Knowledge Gaps: AQ & CC• Atmospheric science: highly complex, uncertainties,
forecasts/scenarios• Scale: hemispheric, transboundary, local – [GHG] truly
global• Temporal differences between pollutants and response
times• Sources: Energy/Electricity, Transportation, Agriculture,
LIEs, SMEs• Health effects: Climate change on air quality; synergistic
impacts of heat stress; other health effects (e.g. WNV)• Technological and non-tech solutions: similar challenges
but significant differences• Policies: silos; counteractive; synergistic
NERAM V October 17 2006
• Deny there is a problem
• Deny you are a source/part of the problem
• Deny that there is a technological solution
• Deny that the technological solution is economically feasible or affordable
So How Do We Move Forward?Need to Move Past the Four Stages of Denial
NERAM V October 17 2006
Framework To Evaluate AQ and Climate Change Strategies
• Degree of scientific certainty about the problem and health effects
• Knowledge of main emission sources?• Agreement on solutions and expected
outcomes?• Which are economically feasible and
politically acceptable?• Direct and indirect impacts of solutions and
how are these being contested in the political arena? (e.g. nuclear option)
NERAM V October 17 2006
Key Linkages: Chapter 5• Chemical/atmospheric interactions• Actions that directly reduce GHGs and
other air pollutants• Actions that indirectly reduce energy
use and emissions• Actions that are both mitigation and
adaptation – measures which reduce emissions and enhance adaptive capacity
NERAM V October 17 2006
Climate Change – Air Quality: IPCC• Co-benefits: big picture is challenging• Substantial health benefits from CO2
mitigation strategies via improved AQ• Need for integration: options for harvesting
synergies– Coal AQ technologies lock in coal, can undermine
alternatives (e.g. renewables, efficiency)– Agriculture: ammonia emissions – nitrous oxide
and methane– Methane as a precursor to tropospheric ozone– Tropospheric ozone a potent GHG– Biofuels and black carbon– Diesel: CO2 and PM2.5
NERAM V October 17 2006
Air Quality – Climate Change
Q. What is the perspective from AQ experts?
A. ??????????????????????????????
Our Challenge Tomorrow:
• Guidance Document
• Recommendations from NERAM Colloquium V
NERAM V October 17 2006
Engineered interventions to avoid• Aerosols help reduce 25% regional effects of
climate change (cooling effect)– Produce more locally based sulphates
• NOx scavenges O3:
– Encourage more car use to reduce smog
These types of decisions best left to a higher authority!
NERAM V October 17 2006
Actions to Consider• Actions that are
ethical, consider environmental justice and lead to a clear environmental and health gain
• Need to address more than just the symptoms, but also the underlying causes
• Should focus on sources and solutions that produce the biggest benefits
NERAM V October 17 2006
AIR QUALITY
CLIMATE CHANGE
Does addressing air quality issues through actions that reduce GHG emissions produce a broader suite
of benefits and clear outcomes, than addressing climate change by reducing emissions of other air
pollutants?
2006
NERAM V October 17 2006
AIR QUALITY
CLIMATE CHANGE
What about 2026?
NERAM V October 17 2006
What do we do in 2050 when the Climate Change Dog becomes the
[Dangerous] Killer Rabbit?
NERAM V October 17 2006
2XCO22XCO2
3XCO23XCO2
4XCO24XCO2
NERAM V October 17 2006
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
• Article 2• “ … stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.
Dangerous – how much change?Stabilization – at what level?
The EU has chosen 2C global warming as the “dangerous” level – only 1.3C more warming.
NERAM V October 17 2006
The abundance, atmospheric lifetime, and Global Warming Potential of GHGs vary
considerably
GHG Abundance(1998, ppbv)
Lifetime(years)
GWP(100 yr)
CO2 365,000 variable 1
CH4 1745 12 23
N2O 314 114 296
CFCs, HCFCs
up to 0.5 2-1700 120-14,000
HFCs up to 0.02 0.3-220 12-12,000
PFCs, SF6 up to 0.08 2600-50,000 5700-22,200
CarbonDioxide
Methane
NitrousOxide
Halo
Carbons
NERAM V October 17 2006
Kyoto and the Inevitability of Climate Change
“The overwhelming majority of scientific experts, whilst recognizing that scientific uncertainties exist, nonetheless believe that human-induced climate change is inevitable. . The question is not whether climate will change... but rather how much... how fast, and where”
Robert Watson, Chair of IPCC to CoP6 Delegates, The Hague, November 2000
Stabilization: 40 Kyotos Needed
Based in IMAGE 2 model output
2000 2020 2040 2060 2080 2100300
400
500
600
700
800
Kyoto
Year
Co
nc
en
trat
ion
(p
pm
v)
1IS92a
BAU1
2xCO2
Adaptation is necessaryMore mitigation is needed
NERAM V October 17 2006
Urgency of Situation:Window is 0-15 years
EU: 25% reduction by 2020; Global reductions of 60 to 80% by 2050
NERAM V October 17 2006
Canada’s Projected GHG Emissions
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020
Kyoto Target 571 Mt6% below 1990
2010 Emissions 809 Mt
1990 Emissions 607 Mt
BAU Gap
238 Mt33% above 1990
Mt
CO
2 eq
uiva
len
t
Business as Usual
(1999)
699 Mt
Projections
36 Mt
+23%
NERAM V October 17 2006
Smog Advisories/AlertsYear Advisories Days1993 1 11994 2 61995 6 141996 3 51997 3 61998 3 81999 5 92000 3 42001 7 232002 10 272003 7 19 2004 6 142005 31 55
2005
• 48 smog alert days
• 19 heat-alert/extreme heat-alert days
NERAM V October 17 2006
How will climate change affect air quality?
2005 2015 2026
PD 5,829 7,436 10,061
HA 16,807 20,067 24,587
ERV 59,696 71,548 87,963
MI 29,292,100 31,962,200 38,549,300
OMA Estimates
NERAM V October 17 2006
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Victoria
Calgary
Winnipeg
London
Toronto
Quebec
Fredericton 2080-2100
2041-2069
2020-2040
1961-1990Number of hot
days above 30C
Heat waves in Canadian cities will become more frequent
Emission increase by 20% by 2050 and 32% by 2080. The annual total number of poor O3 days would increase 4-11 and 10-20 respectively.
Air pollution mortality will increase by 20-25% and 30-40% by 2050 and 2080
Number of heat-related deaths will double and triple
Background ambient levels of O3 could increase by 40 ppm
NERAM V October 17 2006
Where do we need to make reductions?
NERAM V October 17 2006
Transportation Example1. Further reduce the
emissions of the current transportation system using new and improved technologies
2. Get more people out of their cars and onto public transit
3. Change development patterns to slow urban sprawl and to encourage denser development
NERAM V October 17 2006
Accomplishments?• Low sulphur fuels• Improved technologies• Inspection and maintenance• Gas tax allocation to support transit• Infrastructure renewal• Tax credits for transit passes• Ethanol/biodiesel• CAFE standards• Mercury switch-out• Vehicle retirement
NERAM V October 17 2006
Pollution Probe: Current Activities Related to Transportation
• Education and awareness: Clean Air Commute• Fuel efficiency• National vision and strategy on TDM (Cross
Canada workshop series)• National conference on commercial goods and
freight• Merits of mobile emissions reduction credits• Application of the net-gain approach to land use
planning• Alternative fuels – LCA
NERAM V October 17 2006
Canadian Attitudes Towards the Environment
• 10% identified environment as the most important issue facing Canada today
• 23% identified air pollution as the most important environmental issue
• 4% climate change/global warming• 91% agreed that we have a responsibility to
the next generation to do all we can to correct climate change
• 77% agreed that Canada must act now on climate change because the risk of waiting is too high
NERAM V October 17 2006
Thank You