126.96.36.199 Air pollutants, including co-benefits
Quantitative analysis on a global scale on the implications of climate mitigation for air pollutants such as SO2, NOx, CO, VOC (volatile organic compounds), BC (black carbon) and OC (organic carbon), are relatively scarce. Air pollutants and greenhouse gases are often emitted by the same sources, and changes in the activity of these sources affect both types of emissions. Previous studies have focused on purely ancillary benefits to air pollution that accrue from a climate mitigation objective, but recently there is a focus on integrating air quality and climate concerns, thus analyzing the co-benefits of such policies. Several recent reviews have summarized the issues related to such benefits (OECD 2000, 2003). They cover absolute air pollutant emission reductions, monetary value of reduced pollution, the climatic impacts of such reductions and the improved health effects due to reduced pollution.
The magnitude of such benefits largely depends on the assumptions of future policies and technological change in the baseline against which they are measured, as discussed in Morgenstern (2000). For example, Smith et al. (2005) and Rao et al. (2005) assume an overall growth in environmental awareness and formulation of new environmental policies with increased affluence in the baseline scenario, and thus reduced air pollution, even in the absence of any climate policies. The pace of this trend differs significantly across pollutants and baseline scenarios, and may or may not have an obvious effect on greenhouse gases. An added aspect of ancillary benefit measurement is the representation of technological options. Some emission-control technologies reduce both air pollutants and greenhouse gases, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on gas boilers, which reduces not only NOx, but also N2O, CO and CH4 (IPCC, 1997). But there are also examples where, at least in principle, emission-control technologies aimed at a certain pollutant could increase emissions of other pollutants. For example, substituting more fuel-efficient diesel engines for petrol engines might lead to higher PM/black carbon emissions (Kupiainen and Klimont 2004). Thus estimating co-benefits of climate mitigation should include adequate sectoral representation of emission sources, a wide range of substitution possibilities, assumptions on technological change and a clear representation of current environmental legislation.
Only a few studies have explored the longer-term ancillary benefits of climate policies. Alcamo (2002) and Mayerhofer et al. (2002) assess in detail the linkages between regional air pollution and climate change in Europe. They emphasize important co-benefits between climate policy and air pollution control but also indicate that, depending on assumptions, air pollution policies in Europe will play a greater role in air pollutant reductions than climate policy. Smith and Wigley (2006) suggest that there will be a slight reduction in global sulphur aerosols as a result of long-term multi-gas climate stabilization. Rao et al. (2005) and Smith and Wigley (2006) find that climate policies can reduce cumulative BC and OC emissions by providing the impetus for adoption of cleaner fuels and advanced technologies. In addition, the inclusion of co-benefits for air pollution can have significant impacts on the cost effectiveness of both the climate policy and air pollution policy under consideration. Van Harmelen et al. (2002) find that to comply with agreed upon or future policies to reduce regional air pollution in Europe, mitigation costs are implied, but these are reduced by 50–70% for SO2 and around 50% for NOx when combined with GHG policies. Similarly, in the shorter-term, Van Vuuren et al. (2006c) find that for the Kyoto Protocol, about half the costs of climate policy might be recovered from reduced air pollution control costs. The exact benefits, however, critically depend on how the Kyoto Protocol is implemented.
The different spatial and temporal scale of greenhouse gases and air pollutants is a major difficulty in evaluating ancillary benefits. Swart et al. (2004) stress the need for new analytical bridges between these different spatial and temporal scales. Rypdal et al. (2005) suggest the possibility of including some local pollutants, such as CO and VOCs, in global climate agreement with others (e.g. NOx) and aerosols being regulated by regional agreements. It should be noted that some air pollutants, such as sulphate and carbonaceous aerosols, exert radiative forcing and thus global warming, but their contribution is uncertain. Smith and Wigley (2006) find that the attendant reduced aerosol cooling from sulphates can more than offset the reduction in warming that accrues from reduced GHGs. On the other hand, air pollutants such as NOx, CO and VOCs act as indirect greenhouse gases having an influence for example via their impact on OH (hydroxil) radicals and therefore the lifetime of direct greenhouse gases (e.g. methane and HFCs). Further, the climatic effects of some pollutants, such as BC and OC aerosols, remain unclear.
While there has been a lot of recent research in estimating co-benefits of joint GHG and air pollution policies, most current studies do not have a comprehensive treatment of co-benefits in terms of reduction costs and the related health and climate impacts in the long-term, thus indicating the need for more research in this area.