Download Identifying the Win:Win Actions

CO-MANAGEMENT OF CARBON
DIOXIDE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY:
Identifying the Win:Win Actions
Tim Chatterton
[email protected]
University of the West of England, Bristol, UK
Tuesday 11th March 2008
Scottish Government
Annual Air Quality Seminar 2008
Air Quality Management Resource Centre, UWE, Bristol
0117 328 3825
[email protected]
Outline
• Council duties and responsibilities
• Why Co-Manage?
• Why Not to Co-Manage?
• Some easy places to start
• 3 examples of co-management
• Some specific wins and loses
• Conclusions
UK Local Air Quality Management (LAQM)
AQMAs by Source in the UK (April 2006)
• Local authorities have a
statutory duty to review and
assess local air quality against
health based objectives.
Tran/Ind 5%
Domestic 5%
Unknown 3%
Industrial 5%
Transport 82%
• This process has been in place since 1997
• To date 218 (50%) of local authorities in the UK have
declared an AQMA and have prepared, or are in the process
of developing, an AQAP.
•In Scotland only 9 out of 32 LAs (28%) have AQMAs
UK Climate Change Management
• Conversely, local authorities have
no statutory obligation to manage
climate change at a local level.
UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector 2006
Agriculture 1% Public 3%
Domestic 26%
Business 37%
• However, some proactive
authorities have joined initiatives
such as the Nottingham Declaration1
and Cities for Climate Protection2.
Int Shipping 1%
Int Aviation 6%
Transport 26%
• 236 local authorities have signed the Nottingham Declaration (since
2000)
• 37 have joined the Cities for Climate Protection.
1The
Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change: http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/housingbuildings/localauthorities/NottinghamDeclaration/
for Climate Protection Programme: http://www.iclei.org/index.php?id=800
2 Cities
Is Climate Change the
Responsibility of LAs?
• “Tackling climate change is the greatest
challenge of our generation. Local government
is not just a partner in this fight. You are one of
the leaders of this fight.”
Hilary Benn, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Speaking at the annual conference of the Local
Government Association 2007)
• “…local authorities have a special status as
local, directly elected bodies. They are uniquely
placed to provide vision and leadership to their
local communities, and their wide range of
responsibilities and contacts means that they are
critical to the delivery of this programme.”
UK Climate Change Programme 2006
Why Co-Manage AQ & CC?
• Both areas relate to management of
atmospheric emissions
• Much of the skills and knowledge required
are the same
• Many of the sources being managed are
the same
• Some of the solutions are the same
• BUT some are not
The Stern Report
Chapter 12
‘ Policies to meet air pollution and climate
change goals are not always compatible.
But if governments wish to meet both
objectives together, there can be
considerable cost savings compared to
pursuing both separately’
Comparing Impacts from Transport
London Borough of Camden
www.travelfootprint.org
• Life cycle impact of travel modes
• Full vehicle & fuel cycle
• AQ & climate change impacts
• Several fuel types considered
Why Not?
• “Climate Change measures are far reaching, whereas
effective LAQM can be relatively straightforward where
distinct actions can provide some significant and appropriate
reductions. Integration of Climate Change into LAQM will
result in climate change dominating the LAQM agenda.”
• “LAQM has failed to deliver the required improvements in air
quality and I see no reason why it would deliver the required
improvements in carbon emissions.”
• “Climate change is an air pollution issue but it does not lend
itself to the LAQM "hotspots" methodology (which is why
ozone is not within the LAQM framework).”
• “Although the two areas have strong links in some areas, they
can be entirely independent in others. While LAQM may
address some aspects of climate change very well, in other
important areas it will have no effect whatsoever.”
– Quotes from PhD work of Simon Baldwin @ UWE
Commercial and Industrial Energy Use
2
Heating, Hot Water and Electricity (kWh per m )
Retail
Factories
Commercial
Offices
Warehouses
Local Govt Offices
0
50
100
150
200
250
Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution
300
350
400
450
500
Which Has the Higher Profile?
• Climate Change has a huge profile with
the media and politicians
• There is evidence to show that members
of the public relate more closely to air
quality issues
• Therefore co-management can be used to
‘sell’ both AQ and CC solutions to
appropriate audiences
Integration of CO2 management into
aspects of LAQM – emission inventories
• Role in establishing baseline data to assess the emissions
to the atmosphere from within a local authority. They can:
– Assess priority polluters
– Assist in setting effective emissions reductions targets
– Assist in monitoring progress.
• An integrated emissions inventory can act as a basis for
LAQM and Climate Change planning, actions and
strategies.
• England and Wales now have N194 & N185 tools for
calculating LA emissions\footprints
Integration of CO2 management into
aspects of LAQM – Local AQ strategies
• 35% of SW and 38% English LA respondents have a
voluntary Local Air Quality Strategy
• Recommended in the Policy Guidance where there is no
current AQMA
• Local and Regional Air Quality Strategies
• Integration of wide number of policy areas
• Utilise the experience and knowledge of a large and
diverse consultation group.
• Tool for dissemination of information
Integration of CO2 management into
aspects of LAQM – AQAP
• Action planning consideration of CO2 should be
introduced early in the process.
• CO2 emissions reduction through an AQAP should not
be considered as an ‘add-in’ but rather an integral
component.
• A combined action plan is primarily about identifying
synergistic or ‘win-win’ options and if possible avoiding
options that require trade-off.
• Monitor the combined action plan.
– Development of indicators – ‘surrogate’ indicators.
– Statutory obligation for reporting on CO2?
3 AQAP Case Studies
• Gateshead – Transport
• Neath Port Talbot – Industrial
• Leeds – Domestic
Gateshead Council Case Study:
Transport AQAP
• Urban authority, declared an AQMA for Nitrogen Dioxide in 2005.
• Climate Change was considered throughout the AQAP development
process. All actions were graded to identify ‘win-win’ and ‘trade off’
options under a ‘Wider Environmental Impact’ heading using a matrix
approach: very positive, positive, both positive and negative, negative,
very negative and neutral.
• Additionally, both local air quality relevant (Local Development
Framework, Community Plans) and climate change relevant (Local
Agenda 21, local Climate Change Action Plan) were considered.
• Good example of effective co-management through the AQAP process
and identification of synergistic and antagonistic options.
• AQAP was integrated into the Local Transport Plan in which air quality
was one of four shared key priorities – unfortunately climate change
was not a priority!!
Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council
Case Study: Industrial AQAP
• Declared an AQMA for PM10 in 2000.
• Attributed to a local steel works and associated infrastructure.
• AQAP was developed in close liaison with the operators and
local regulatory agency (in this case the Environment Agency).
• AQAP was developed prior to climate change becoming high on
the local and national agenda
• Authority was proactive in identifying co-beneficial actions such
as: BAT improvements to the process, establishing sustainable
development policies, green transport plans, tree planting and
fleet improvement.
• Industrial AQAPs also have the additional issue of balancing
sustainable economic operation with effective and efficient cobeneficial actions.
Leeds City Council Case Study:
Domestic AQAP
• Urban authority, declared an AQMA for PM10 in 2001.
• Attributed to domestic use of solid fuel from domestic heating
and cooking.
• Provision of gas for domestic use solved the local air quality
issue but is not considered a sustainable, climate friendly
action.
• Majority of ‘win-win’ actions for domestic AQAPs are usually
for future developments rather than solving current issues.
• Future development such as energy efficiency plans,
awareness raising and sustainable development control (of
cumulative impacts) can ensure that the need for domestic
related AQMAs does not reoccur.
AQ Win : CC Lose
• Relocation of traffic (incl. Bypasses)?
• Hydrogen vehicles from unsustainable
sources?
• Electric vehicles from unsustainable
sources?
• Park and Ride?
CC Win : AQ Lose
• Some bio-fuels for transport?
• Some biomass heat/power generation?
– Questions over full life cycle climate impacts
– These have potential increases in Black Carbon emissions
– Some estimates suggest BC has Global Warming Potential
≈ 650 (but lower Global Temperature Potential)
– They don’t necessarily drive clean technology forwards
• Park and Ride?
Win:Win(:Win)s
• More efficient & cleaner vehicles
• Creating modal shift to Non-Motorised Transport (also
wins on health)
• Increased (clean) public transport use
• Demand management
• Some traffic management
• More green spaces and trees (also wins on health)
• Encouraging and supporting Energy Efficiency (can also
win on health)
• Electricity/Hydrogen/Biogas from sustainable sources
Key Drivers and Advantages for
Successful Co-Management
Drivers for successful integration:
• Identifying ‘wilful’ and proactive individuals
• Improving the provision of training, guidance and support
• Improving the channels of communications (internal and external)
Advantages of integration:
•
•
•
•
•
Identification and implementation of co-beneficial actions
Health and quality of life benefits
Sustainable decision making and development
Cost effectiveness
Dissemination of relevant information to individuals and business
Conclusions
• AQ and Climate Change NOT interchangeable
• AQM and Climate Change closely linked in some areas
• Both disciplines have important knowledge and skills to share
• All AQ work on emissions should consider Greenhouse Gases
• All CC work should consider other environmental, social and
public health impacts (and not just ‘carbon reduction’)
• Big savings or better cost:benefit ratios can be achieved
• Greater political leverage can be achieved
Sensible, integrated governance!