Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

1. Links between climate, air pollution and energy policies Findings from the GAINS (Greenhouse Gas – Air Pollution Interactions and Synergies) model Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)

2. Air pollutant emissions as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020)

3. The GAINS model: The RAINS multi-pollutant/ multi-effect framework extended to GHGs Economic synergies between emission control measures Physical interactions Multiple benefits

4. Emission control options considered in GAINSwith country/region-specific application potentials and costs Air pollutants : ~1500 options for SO2, NOx, VOC, NH3, PM CO2: 162 options for power plants, transport, industry, domestic CH4 : 28 options for the gas sector, waste management, enteric fermentation, manure management, coal mines, rice paddies N2O : 18 options for arable land and grassland, industry, combustion, health care, waste treatment F-gases : 22 options for refrigeration, mobile and stationary air conditioning, HCFC22 production, primary aluminum production, semiconductor industry and other sectors

5. Structure of primary energy consumptionfor different GHG targets (Source: PRIMES) Source: E3mlab – ICCS-NTUA ,

6. Costs of CAFE TSAP proposal (7.1 bio €/yr) + 5 mio YOLLs saved(~5 bn €/yr) “Current legislation” air pollution control costs(SO2, NOx, PM) as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020) Baseline

7. Net costs of GHG mitigationconsidering cost savings from avoided current EU legislation air pollution control measures (EU25, 2020) 50 €/t CO2 20 €/t CO2

8. Ambition level of Thematic Strategy Net costs for further air pollution control as a function of CO2 mitigation (EU-25, 2020) - Sequential approach Sequential approach: Climate policy first – then air pollution control on the resulting energy pattern Baseline

9. Ambition level of Thematic Strategy Cost savings from an integrated approachProvisional GAINS estimates, EU-25, 2020 Integrated approach: Joint optimization of GHG and air pollution control Baseline

10. From a climate perspective:Net costs of GHG mitigation for fixed AQ targets (considering cost savings for avoided air pollution control) Integrated approach: Joint GAINS optimization for GHG and air pollution targets

11. Conclusions (1) • There are physical and economic interactions between the control of air pollution emissions and GHG mitigation • If these problems are considered separately: • From the an air pollution perspective: • Baseline AP emissions, impacts and control costs (for fixed AP legislation) depend on the level of GHG mitigation • Costs of strengthened AQ policies depend on the level of GHG mitigation • Further AP control strategies have co-benefits on GHG mitigation costs. • From a climate perspective: • GHG mitigation costs depend on the level of AP control • GHG mitigation costs have co-benefits on AQ impacts

12. Conclusions: (2) • An integrated approach could reduce total costs for GHG mitigation and air pollution control. • Cost savings are immediate, they are “real money” and they occur to the actors who have to invest into mitigation. • GAINS offers a tool for such an integrated analysis to identify concrete measures that are beneficial. • All quantitative estimates are provisional.