Download
1 / 29
290 likes | 295 Views
This analysis explores the alignment of the IPPC Review with the CAFÉ (Clean Air For Europe) Philosophy, focusing on maintaining the effects driven approach rather than a technology driven one. The stakes are high as economic implications vary across EU countries.
E N D
Aligning the IPPC Review Withthe CAFÉ Philosophy Maintaining the Effects Driven rather than Technology Driven Approach What’s at Stake? Les White
Approach to Analysis • Analysis utilised Concawe’s in-house IAM to undertake analysis • Algorithms and data bases entirely consistent with IIASA RAINS Model (Concawe grateful to IIASA for making these available) • Concawe IAM designed to be complementary to RAINS (rapid scenario analysis a key feature) • Using PM exposure as the example, two alternative routes to delivering improvements explored: • “Optimised Effects Driven” route (fully aligned with the CAFÉ/TSAP approach). Here by definition, the marginal €/YOLL improvement, is the same in each MS for a given ambition level. This is consistent with the principle of “the Polluter Pays” • “Technology Driven” route where, for each pollutant, the same marginal €/tonne emission control cost was applied to every MS; This marginal cost was progressively increased to deliver further reductions in YOLL for the EU as a whole So What did the analysis Indicate?
The Effects Driven Approach Aligns with the “polluter pays” principle
The Effects Driven Approach Requires the concept of “local BAT”
The Technology or “Euro-Wide BAT” ApproachLevel Playing Field for Technology
The Technology or “Euro-Wide BAT” ApproachMoves Far away from the Polluter Pays Principle
