Local Arctic air pollution: Sources and impacts

Local emissions of Arctic air pollutants and their impacts on climate, ecosystems and health are poorly understood. Future increases due to Arctic warming or economic drivers may put additional pressures on the fragile Arctic environment already affected by mid-latitude air pollution. Aircraft data were collected, for the first time, downwind of shipping and petroleum extraction facilities in the European Arctic. Data analysis reveals discrepancies compared to commonly used emission inventories, highlighting missing emissions (e.g. drilling rigs) and the intermittent nature of certain emissions (e.g. flaring, shipping). Present-day shipping/petroleum extraction emissions already appear to be impacting pollutant (ozone, aerosols) levels along the Norwegian coast and are estimated to cool and warm the Arctic climate, respectively. Future increases in shipping may lead to short-term (long-term) warming (cooling) due to reduced sulphur (CO₂) emissions, and be detrimental to regional air quality (ozone). Further quantification of local Arctic emission impacts is needed.     

Climate and air quality-driven scenarios of ozone and aerosol precursor abatement

In addition to causing domestic and regional environmental effects, many air pollutants contribute to radiative forcing (RF) of the climate system. However, climate effects are not considered when cost-effective abatement targets for these pollutants are established, nor are they included in current international climate agreements. We construct air pollution abatement scenarios in 2030 which target cost-effective reductions in RF in the EU, USA, and China and compare these to abatement scenarios which instead target regional ozone effects and particulate matter concentrations. Our analysis covers emissions of PM (fine, black carbon and organic carbon), SO₂, NO_x, CH₄, VOCs, and CO. We find that the effect synergies are strong for PM/BC, VOC, CO and CH₄. While an air quality strategy targeted at reducing ozone will also reduce RF, this will not be the case for a strategy targeting particulate matter. Abatement in China dominates RF reduction, but there are cheap abatement options also available in the EU and USA. The justification for international cooperation on air quality issues is underlined when the co-benefits of reduced RF are considered. Some species, most importantly SO₂, contribute a negative forcing on climate. We suggest that given current knowledge, NO_x and SO₂ should be ignored in RF-targeted abatement policies.     

Transport impacts on atmosphere and climate: Metrics

The transport sector emits a wide variety of gases and aerosols, with distinctly different characteristics which influence climate directly and indirectly via chemical and physical processes. Tools that allow these emissions to be placed on some kind of common scale in terms of their impact on climate have a number of possible uses such as: in agreements and emission trading schemes; when considering potential trade-offs between changes in emissions resulting from technological or operational developments; and/or for comparing the impact of different environmental impacts of transport activities.Many of the non-CO₂ emissions from the transport sector are short-lived substances, not currently covered by the Kyoto Protocol. There are formidable difficulties in developing metrics and these are particularly acute for such short-lived species. One difficulty concerns the choice of an appropriate structure for the metric (which may depend on, for example, the design of any climate policy it is intended to serve) and the associated value judgements on the appropriate time periods to consider; these choices affect the perception of the relative importance of short- and long-lived species. A second difficulty is the quantification of input parameters (due to underlying uncertainty in atmospheric processes). In addition, for some transport-related emissions, the values of metrics (unlike the gases included in the Kyoto Protocol) depend on where and when the emissions are introduced into the atmosphere – both the regional distribution and, for aircraft, the distribution as a function of altitude, are important.In this assessment of such metrics, we present Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) as these have traditionally been used in the implementation of climate policy. We also present Global Temperature Change Potentials (GTPs) as an alternative metric, as this, or a similar metric may be more appropriate for use in some circumstances. We use radiative forcings and lifetimes from the literature to derive GWPs and GTPs for the main transport-related emissions, and discuss the uncertainties in these estimates. We find large variations in metric (GWP and GTP) values for NO_x, mainly due to the dependence on location of emissions but also because of inter-model differences and differences in experimental design. For aerosols we give only global-mean values due to an inconsistent picture amongst available studies regarding regional dependence. The uncertainty in the presented metric values reflects the current state of understanding; the ranking of the various components with respect to our confidence in the given metric values is also given. While the focus is mostly on metrics for comparing the climate impact of emissions, many of the issues are equally relevant for stratospheric ozone depletion metrics, which are also discussed.     

Global temperature change from the transport sectors: Historical development and future scenarios

Transport affects climate directly and indirectly through mechanisms that operate on very different timescales and cause both warming and cooling. We calculate contributions to the historical development in global mean temperature for the main transport sectors (road transport, aviation, shipping and rail) based on estimates of historical emissions and by applying knowledge about the various forcing mechanisms from detailed studies. We also calculate the development in future global mean temperature for four transport scenarios consistent with the IPCC SRES scenarios, one mitigation scenario and one sensitivity test scenario. There are large differences between the transport sectors in terms of sign and magnitude of temperature effects and with respect to the contributions from the long- and short-lived components. Since pre-industrial times, we calculate that transport in total has contributed 9% of total net man-made warming in the year 2000. The dominating contributor to warming is CO₂, followed by tropospheric O₃. By sector, road transport is the largest contributor; 11% of the warming in 2000 is due to this sector. Likewise, aviation has contributed 4% and rail ～1%. Shipping, on the other hand, has caused a net cooling up to year 2000, with a contribution of ?7%, due to the effects of SO₂ and NOx emissions. The total net contribution from the transport sectors to total man-made warming is ～15% in 2050, and reaches 20% in 2100 in the A1 and B1 scenarios. For all scenarios and throughout the century, road transport is the dominating contributor to warming. Due to the anticipated reduction in sulphur content of fuels, the net effect of shipping changes from cooling to warming by the end of the century. Significant uncertainties are related to the estimates of historical and future net warming mainly due to cirrus, contrails and aerosol effects, as well as uncertainty in climate sensitivity.     

Contents Volume 7

Volume Contents

Contents Volume 7     

The adequacy of GWPs as indicators of damage costsincurred by global warming

This article looks at the ability of Global Warming Potentials (GWPs) towork as indicators of equivalence for temperature development and damagecosts. We look at two abatement scenarios that are equivalent when using100-year GWPs: one scenario reduces short-lived gases, mainly methane(CH₄); the other scenario reduces carbon dioxide (CO₂).Despite their equivalence in terms of CO₂ equivalents, the scenariosdo not result in equal rates or levels of temperature change. The disparitiescontinue as we move further down the chain of causality toward damagecosts, measured either in terms of rate of climate change or level of climatechange. Compared to the CH₄ mitigation scenario, the CO₂mitigation scenario gives present value costs 1.3 and 1.5 times higher forlevel- and rate-dependent damage costs, respectively, assuming a discountrate of 3%. We also test the GWPs for other time horizons and theconclusions remain the same; using GWP as an index to reflect equivalentclimate effects and damage costs from emissions is questionable.