Issuu on Google+

CLEANER SHIPPING – focus on air pollution, technology and regulation

Table of content Air pollution from shipping · page 3 Adverse effects · page 5 Technical solutions · page 12 Current regulation · page 20 Further regulation · page 25 Danish competences · page 29 Recommendations · page 30 Further information · page 31

Text: Kåre Press-Kristensen and Christian Ege Layout: Designkonsortiet, Hanne Koch Print: Ecoprint, printed according to the principles of the Nordic swan ecolabel Edition: 1st edition, 1st printing – June 2011 The publication can freely be read and downloaded: The publication is free and can be ordered through the Danish Ecocouncil against payment of postage and costs of expedition. Citation, copying and other use of the publication is permitted under citation of the source. The publication is financially supported by The Danish Maritime Fund, Danish Energy Net Conservation Fund and the Ministry of Science. Published by

Blegdamsvej 4B, 2200 København N Denmark Tlf. (+45) 33 15 09 77

L U F T F O R U R E N I N G F R A S K I B S FA RT About 90 percent of the global cargo is transported

Consequently, flue gas from ships contains carbon

by ships and shipping is thereby the platform of the

monoxide as well as vapours and particles consist-

increasing global trade. However, shipping emits

ing of unburned oil composites. High sulphur con-

about 3 percent of the global CO2-emission and is

tent also increases the amount of particles in the

thereby contributing significantly to global warm-

flue gas. The most significant pollution composite


in regards to air pollution from shipping is CO2, SO2, NOX and fine particles (PM2.5)

The majority of shipping uses bunker oil (heavy fuel oil) as fuel. The sulphur content in bunker oil can be

Combustion of bunker oil in ships thereby generates

as high as 4.5 percent. In special SECA-areas

the same pollution components as emitted from

(Sulphur Emission Control Areas), including the Baltic

vehicles, power plants, waste incineration etc.

Sea and Danish inland waters, a maximum of 1 per-

However, most of the sulphur is removed from

cent sulphur content is allowed. For comparison, the

diesel for land based transport and both SO2, NOX

sulphur content of diesel oil is 0.001 percent.

and particles are effectively cleaned from the flue

Consequently, the bunker oil used by these ships

gas from all larger power plants in Denmark. For

can contain 1,000 times more sulphur than cars

comparison, only a very weak pollution control is

crossing the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.

implemented in regards to the flue gas from ships.

When burned, carbon and sulphur in the bunker oil

On top of the above mentioned air pollution, ultra-

is oxidised to CO2 and sulphur oxides (mainly sul-

fine particles (PM0.1) and carbon monoxide from

phur dioxide, SO2). At the same time, the content of

the flue gas could pose a risk for dock workers and

nitrogen (N2) in the combustion air is oxidized to

be a local air pollution problem for areas with many

nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the engine of the ship.

cruise ships.

However, a complete combustion does not occur.

Bunker oil is actually considered a waste product from refineries. When all the light hydrocarbons, which is used for jet fuels, gasoline and diesel etc. is distilled from the crude oil, the remaining parts are used as bunker oil for ships and asphalt. The bunker oil is extremely thick and has a high content of sulphur. The bunker oil is heated and put under high pressure before it can be combusted in the ship engine. Today bunker oil is combusted at sea without any means of flue gas cleaning.


Kilde: Danmarks Rederiforening

Since SO2, NOX and particles can be transported

days of decreased activity due to illness in Denmark.

over large distances air pollution from shipping has

In Denmark the socio-economic costs are estimated

significant impact on environment and health.

to about 0.5 million euros each year.

According to Centre of Energy, Environment and socio-economic health costs of approx. 60 billion

This publication focuses on air pollution with CO2, SO2, NOX and fine particles from shipping, technical

euros per year are caused by air pollution from ship-

solutions, existing regulation of air pollution from

ping. On top of this is nature destruction.

shipping and possibilities for further regulation. The

Health (CEEH) about 50,000 premature deaths and

aim is to inspire decision makers and other key Yearly around 100,000 ship passages occur in the

stakeholders to implement further regulation of air

waters surrounding Denmark. Large container ships

pollution from shipping to the benefit of climate,

only move 8-12 meters per litre bunker oil.

public health and nature.

Consequently, huge amounts of bunker oil are burned in Danish waters resulting in serious air pol-

Shipping also causes other serious environmental

lution. Air pollution with SO2 and NOX from ship-

challenges e.g. fauna pollution with invasive

ping in waters surrounding Denmark is larger than

species, the risk of oil spills, environmental issues

pollution from Danish land based sources.

due to uncontrolled ship dumping in third world countries etc. However, these issues are not includ-

Estimations from CEEH shows that each year the air pollution from shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea causes 4,000 lost years of life, approx. 250,000 respiratory illnesses and approx. 400,000


ed below since the focus is air pollution.

ADVERSE EFFECTS The significant pollution from shipping is mainly

Consequently, the member states of EU have to rely

due to the fact that shipping is international and

on decisions in the IMO to enforce further regula-

often occurs in international waters and is thereby

tion (see page 25).

regulated by international legislation. The easy reflagging of ships provides the opportunity to

Only recently, the IMO have decided to reduce air

freely choose under which flag ships are sailing. If

pollution from shipping. However, the decided regu-

one nation tries to regulate shipping through

lation (see page 20) is far from optimal from an

national environmental legislation shipowners can

environmental point of view. The regulation can be

just reflag their ships to nations with less strict

considered the best possible compromise between

environmental legislation.

the conflicting interests in the member nations of the IMO.

International shipping legislation is decided by the shipping organisation of the UN: International

Table 1 provides an overview of the most significant

Maritime Organization (IMO). Theoretically, EU could

air pollutants, adverse effects and externality health

decide environmental regulation for ships using

costs in Europe from shipping in international

ports in EU no matter which flag the ships have.

waters on the northern hemisphere.

However, EU has not yet used this type of action. Table 1 CO2 Direct health effects Global warming


Acidification of the oceans


Acid rain in terrestrial ecosystems





(X) 2)

(X) 2)





– 4)








Harmful secondary particles Damage costs (Euro/ton bunker oil) 5)

X (X) 1)

Eutrophication Damage cost (Euro/kg pollutant) 3)

Primary particles

Table 1: Adverse effects and externality health costs due to air pollution from shipping in international waters. 1) Some particles (black carbon particles) are deposited at the inland ice in Polar Regions and accelerate ice melting. 2) Of minor importance compared to the acidification of the oceans caused by increasing CO2 concentrations. 3) Only health effects. Damage to nature is not included. Reference: Centre of Energy, Environment and Health. 4) It is impossible to find a reasonable externality cost for CO2 due to the large uncertainties related to the consequences of global warming. 5) The emissions from combustion of 1 ton of bunker oil is estimated to be approx. 3,200 kg CO2, 60 kg SO2, 70 kg NOX and 1.5 kg primary particles.


Figure 1 Dry cargo 6 % Other 3 %

Dry cargo 7 % Other 2 %

Cargo (Ro-Ro) 13 %

Tanker 20 %

Cargo (Ro-Ro) 16 %

Tanker 22 %

Container 20 %

Container 26 %

Passenger (Ro-Ro) 32 %

Passenger (Ro-Ro) 33 %

Figure 1: Emissions of CO2 and SO2 in 2011 distributed among ship types in waters surrounding Denmark. In 2011 the total emission of CO2 and SO2 was 7.8 million tons and 41,000 tons respectively. Reference: National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark

Table 1 shows externality costs (based solely upon

problem is that shipping does not pay the externali-

health costs) from pollution with SO2, NOX and primary particles. Estimating an externality cost from

ty costs related to damage on health and nature

CO2 is far more complicated and seems impossible for the time being since the direct, and especially

health externality costs related to combustion of 1

the indirect, consequences of global warming are impossible to predict in details. One possible way is

this comes nature damage and costs related to CO2 pollution. For comparison, the price of bunker oil is

only to focus upon the predicted direct conse-

approx. 450 euros per ton for shipping companies -

quences of global warming i.e. reduced harvest, dis-

they only pay for the bunker oil and not for dam-

eases, climate refugees, building and reinforcement

ages caused by pollution.

from air pollution. As seen from table 1, the overall ton of bunker oil are approx. 1,300 euros. On top of

of dikes, sewage systems etc. However, the indirect consequences (massive changes of society as we know it today) will probably dominate the costs of

Figure 1 shows the emission of CO2 and SO2 in 2011 from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark dis-

global warming. Thereby it does not make much

tributed on different types of ships. It is clear that

sense to estimate a cost based upon the predicted

the emission of SO2 from different types of ships

direct consequences.

generally follows the trend of the CO2-emission. The same trend is observed for NOX and particles since

Consequently, it is not possible to conclude whether

all pollutants can be directly related to combustion

green house gasses or health effects caused by air

of bunker oil.

pollution from shipping is most important. Action has to be taken to reduce all pollutants. The main


Carbon dioxide

atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases acidifica-

The global emission of CO2 from shipping is yearly

tion of the oceans (carbonic acid, H2CO3) which has

about 1 billion tons, contributing about 3 percent of

lethal consequences for marine ecosystems e.g. the

global emissions. But at the same time shipping

unique and extremely species rich coral reefs.

accounts for approx. 90 percent of global cargo transport. However, CO2 emission from shipping is not included in the Kyoto-protocol or any other interna-

Sulphur dioxide

tional regulation. Consequently, CO2 emission from

The emission of SO2 from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark is approx. 41,000 tons pr. year.

shipping is still not accounted or included in any

The emission is thereby four times larger than the

global agreements to reduce global warming. Danish

overall emission from land based Danish sources.

shipping companies transport 10 percent of world trade. Thus, the emission of CO2 from Denmark would be almost doubled if the emission of CO2 from Danish shipping companies were included in the

In the atmosphere most SO2 from the flue gas is converted to sulphate (SO42-) e.g. by creation of sulphuric acid (H2SO4) which could create acid rain

Danish climate accounting. On the other hand, the

and damage sensitive ecosystems. In addition, SO2

emission of CO2 from international shipping to and

is a health hazardous gas. However, the primary

from Danish harbours would only add an emission of

health effect related to SO2 from shipping is haz-

2.5 million tons CO2 per year to the Danish emissions

ardous secondary particles formed by atmospheric

and thereby increase the national CO2 emission by

reactions between SO2 and other pollutants (mainly

approx. 5 percent. The CO2 emission from shipping in

ammonia and organic compounds). The sulphur

the waters surrounding Denmark is about 7.8 million

content in bunker oil is included in an IMO agree-

tons CO2 per year and would thereby increase the Danish CO2 emission by approx. 15 percent if included

ment. This will significantly decrease the sulphur content towards 2020 (see page 20).

in the national CO2 accounting. It is not obvious how the emission of CO2 should be accounted but it is

Figure 2 shows the estimated emissions of SO2 from

important to include the shipping in international

shipping in waters surrounding Denmark. The ships

agreements. Thereby the emission of CO2 will be

routes are clearly pictured. The emissions of CO2,

accounted which makes regulation of CO2 from ship-

NOX and particles follow the same pattern.

ping possible. Besides global warming, the increasing Figur 2: The emission of SO2 in 2011 from shipping through waters surrounding Denmark. Reference: National Environmental Research Institute of Denmark

Tonnes SO2


Nitrogen oxides

directly from the engine of the ships as unburned

Nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the flue gas mainly consist of nitrogen monoxide (NO) and to lesser

bunker oil. This differ the primary particles from the

extent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The emission of

and NOX through chemical reactions in the atmos-

NOX from shipping in water surrounding Denmark is approx. 173,000 tons pr. year thus significantly

phere after emission of the gasses.

larger than the overall emission from Danish land

The primary particles are health hazardous.

based sources. In the atmosphere NOX can be con-

Furthermore, the particles can be transported to

verted to nitric acid (HNO3) which could create acid

Polar Regions, where black carbon particles deposit

rain and damage sensitive ecosystems.

on the inland ice. Consequently, the ice becomes

Furthermore, NOX increases the formation of health

grey thus increasing the absorption of sunlight and

damaging ozone and a significant part of NO is con-

hereby accelerating the melting of the ice which

verted to health damaging NO2. However, NOX

further increases the absorption of sunlight. Hence,

from shipping mainly contributes to health effects

this is a self-perpetuating process. According to new

through hazardous secondary particles formed

research it has been documented that black carbon

through chemical reactions in the atmosphere

particles significantly facilitate the melting of ice

between NOX and other pollutants (primarily

and temperature increases in Polar Regions.

secondary particles, which is formed from e.g. SO2

ammonia and organic compounds). Finally, NOX can destroying the unique nature of the oligotrophic

Table 2 shows estimated emissions of SO2, NOX and particles from the total international shipping in

ecosystems which are habitat for series of rare ani-

the northern hemisphere and shipping in the North

mals and plants. The emission of NOX from shipping is regulated by an IMO agreement which limits

Sea and the Baltic Sea in 2011. For comparison is

the emission of NOX from new ships (see page 20).

rounding Denmark and emissions from Danish land

be deposited in ecosystems and act as fertiliser thus

shown the emissions from shipping in waters surbased sources of pollution.

Particles Primary particles (PM2.5) are emitted as particles

Table 2

The northern hemisphere (ton) The North Sea and the Baltic Sea (ton)

SO2 1,870,000


Primary particles


250,000 20,000



Waters surrounding Denmark (ton)




Land based Danish sources (ton)




Table 2: Emission of SO2, NOX and primary particles (PM2.5) in tons from international shipping in the northern hemisphere and from shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. For comparison emissions from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark and from land based Danish sources are shown. The emissions are estimated for 2011. Reference: National Environmental Research Institute and Centre of Energy, Environment and Health.


From table 2 it is seen that pollution with SO2 and particles from shipping in the northern hemisphere is 10-12 times larger than in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea, while pollution with NOX is only approx. 3.5 times larger. This is due to the regulation of the sulphur content of the bunker oil in SECA-areas which among others include the Danish waters and the Baltic Sea (page 20). Finally, it is seen that the pollution with SO2 and NOX from shipping exceeds the pollution from all Danish land based sources. The emission of primary particles from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark is approx. 4,000 tons pr. year only making up around 15 percent of the overall particle emissions in Danish areas. Table 3 shows estimated health effects in Denmark and Europe in 2011 caused by pollution with SO2, NOX and particles from shipping on the northern

Furthermore, the table shows that air pollution

hemisphere and in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

from shipping causes several hundred thousands years of lost living and many millions of illness days

Table 3 shows that air pollution from shipping on

in Europe. Finally it is seen that air pollution from

the northern hemisphere is causing approx. 3.3

shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea causes

times as many health damages in Europe as the

around 75-80 percent of the total health damages

pollution in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

in Denmark from shipping.

Table 3 Shipping on/in: Effects in: Years of lost living Cases of lung cancer Number of respiratory illness 1) Number of heart failure Number of heart diseases Illness days 2)

The northern hemisphere

The North Sea and the Baltic Sea





























Table 3: Estimated health effects for Denmark and Europe in 2011 caused by pollution with SO2, NOX and particles from shipping on the northern hemisphere and in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. 1) Covers many different types of respiratory illnesses with different severity. 2) Days with limited activity due to health effects related to air pollution. Reference: Centre of Energy, Environment and Health.


Table 4 SO2

Total (billion euros)









The northern hemisphere The North Sea and the Baltic Sea

Europe (billion euros) NOX Primary particles

Table 4: Estimated total socio-economic costs of health damages (billion euros in 2006-prices) in Europe in 2011 due to pollution with SO2, NOX and particles from shipping in the northern hemisphere and in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea. Reference: Centre of Energy, Environment and Health.

Table 4 shows the total socio-economic costs in

waters) which is regulated as a SECA-area (see page

Europe due to health effects caused by air pollution


from shipping on the northern hemisphere and in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.

For comparison the socio-economic costs in Denmark due to air pollution from shipping are

From table 4 it is clear that air pollution from ship-

around 0.4 billion euros per year from shipping in

ping yearly has gigantic socio-economic costs in

the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and 0.6 billion

Europe. NOX pollution causes the greatest socio-

euros per year from shipping in the northern

economic costs in relation to air pollution from

hemisphere. The health costs are (as expected)

shipping. Furthermore, it is seen that pollution with

dominated by shipping in the surrounding waters.

NOX constitute a relatively large part of the costs

The overall cost from air pollution from land based

from shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea

pollution sources in Denmark is 0.65 billion Euro per

compared to shipping in the northern hemisphere.

year. Consequently, air pollution from shipping cau-

This is partly due to the lower sulphur content in

ses about the same damage in Denmark as the

bunker oil in the Baltic Sea (and inner Danish

total land based air pollution sources. However, in this comparison the serious health effects from ultrafine diesel particles are not taken into account. The comparison should therefore be used with care.


Climate winner but environmental loser

pare ship emissions with emissions from other

Compared to shipping, the emission from cargo

transport options. “No transport” is in any case to

transport by train has 2-5 times higher CO2 emis-

prefer from a narrow environmental point of view.

sion per ton while cargo transport by truck has 5-15

However, global transport does have a number of

times higher CO2 emission. Consequently, shipping

advantages and as long as ship transport is as

is a favourable transport in regards to global warm-

cheap as today it will continue to grow. The last 25

ing. However, shipping emits above hundred times

years global cargo transport has doubled and it is

more SO2 and particles compared to modern trucks

still rising fast.

per ton cargo and above 10 times more NOX per ton cargo. Therefore shipping is a serious environmental

Since shipping constitutes far the largest part of

problem in regards to health and nature.

global cargo transport a quick solution would be to lower the environmental and climate impact of

From a clear-cut air pollution perspective shipping is

shipping. This could make shipping the “green”

therefore not a favourable transport for the time

transport of the future. Luckily, many technical solu-

being. But shipping contains a series of advantages

tions can minimise air pollution from shipping and

in terms of less noise pollution, less traffic acci-

most technical solutions have low reduction cost

dents, less tearing of roads etc.

compared to further reduction from land based pollution sources. This is due to the fact that signifi-

A significant part of global cargo transport would

cant efforts to reduce land based air pollution have

never take place if cheap shipping was not avail-

already been taken, while almost no effort to reduce

able. Therefore it does not make sense just to com-

air pollution from shipping.


TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS Many efficient technical solutions have been devel-

However, today shipowners have no incentives to

oped to minimise the emission of CO2, SO2, NOX

implement technical solutions since the costs of

and particles from shipping. As shown in this chap-

health and nature damage is paid by society and

ter, CO2 emissions from shipping can be lowered by

not by the shipowners. Thus, it is urgent to create

25-50 percent by combining existing technical solu-

clear economic incentives to reduce pollution from

tions and the emission of SO2, NOX and particles

shipping. This can be done by further regulation

can be reduced more than 80 percent per ton of

(see page 24). Only thereby the health and nature


benefits can be realised.

The reduction costs for most technical solutions are

There are four technical solutions:

estimated to be more than 10 times lower than the


health costs of the air pollution. Hence, the invest-

2) Ships can use cleaner fuel.

ments are profitable from a socio-economic point of

3) The pollution from the engine can be

view since society save (earn) more than 100 euros every time 10 euros are invested in technical solu-

Fuel consumption can be reduced.

reduced. 4) The flue gas can be cleaned.

tions. As an example, it will cost 0.5-0.8 euros to reduce one kg NOX from ships with SCR-systems

It is important to stress that not all the described

according to AirClim (Marked-based instruments for

technical solutions are additive. Thus, the effects

NOX abatement in the Baltic Sea, 2009). For compa-

can not just be summed up. Furthermore, it is not

rison, the health costs are 8.53 euros per kg NOX

all types of solutions that fit all type of ships. The

(table 1). Society thereby earns around 8 euros per

largest reductions can be achieved on new ships.

kg NOX removed from ships by SCR.


Reduced fuel consumption Fuel consumption can be reduced directly through several operational actions e.g. better use of capacity and logistic (route optimisation), combined with better maintenance of hull, propeller(s) and engines, along with optimal sailing with respect to weather and the physical characteristics of the ship. Furthermore, scheduled arrivals can avoid ships waiting for permission to enter harbour. Finally, the ships speed has great influence on the fuel consumption. By lowering the speed it is possible to achieve significant fuel savings. However, lowering the speed will require more ships since the transport time increases. But still a significant net fuel saving is possible. The potentials from operational actions are utilised as far as the earnings from fuel savings allow. Consequently, further operational actions will be taken if bunker oil prices increase. In a complete ideal market economy, shipowners would pay for the health and nature damages (externalities) from air pollution. This would quadruple the price on traditional bunker oil (cf. page 5) and thereby create incentives to further use of operational actions (to gain fuel savings) and to limit the pollution by development and use of cleaner fuel, better engines and air pollution control technologies. But since shipping is an international transport it has been impossible to introduce the “polluter pays� principle so far. However, the marked price on bunker oil has increased from 20 to 50 percent of the overall transport cost over the last 10 years. This has made shipping companies reduce speed (slow steaming) to save fuel. Furthermore, speed reduction increase flexibility (speed can be increased in case of delays) and thereby increases the probability of scheduled arrival and fast harbour access. This underlines that higher prices will result in operational actions (savings).

Reference: Maersk


By minimising water, wave and wind resistance of the

According to FORCE Technology, the mentioned

hull through design changes, new types of paint and

operational improvements can reduce the fuel con-

by releasing air bubbles under the hull (air lubrica-

sumption by 15-30 percent for existing ships while

tion) it is possible to achieve further fuel reductions.

more than 30 percent reduction is possible for new

Furthermore, windmills on ships may both produce

ships. Finally, series of more speculative options are

electricity and reduce the wind resistance. This can be

available for shipping e.g. kites, sails, Fletner Rotors,

combined with optimisation of the engine (e.g. waste

solar panels etc.

heat recovery) and the propeller/rudder (optimal design) in relation the actual ship.

Reference: FORCE Technology

Reference: Danmarks Rederiforening


Cleaner fuel By use of cleaner fuel the pollution can be significantly reduced. The main focus is on liquid natural gas (LNG) or low-sulphur bunker oil (0.1 percent sulphur). Besides, the use of biofuels/biogas can in the long run be an important way to reduce greenhouse gas emission. In table 5 potentials from use of cleaner fuels are shown. There is a dispute about the effects of LNG since there are very different opinions on how much

to LNG. One is the technical challenge regarding

methane (CH4) that leak unburned from 2-stroke

engine, pressure tank and safety. Another is the

and 4-stroke engines (the greenhouse gas potential

infrastructure (LNG supply in harbours). A project

of CH4 is 25 times higher than CO2). Likewise, the

was initiated by the Danish Maritime Authority in

reduction of SO2 dependent on how clean the gas is

2011 focusing on safety and infrastructural changes

and how much traditional bunker oil is used as aux-

in regards to use of LNG in the Baltic Sea, the North

iliary fuel (usually around 5 percent unless a pure

Sea and the British Channel. However, LNG is

gas engine is considered). Finally, there is a great dif-

already today an environmentally friendly alterna-

ference between NOX reductions for 2-stroke and 4-

tive for ferries and LNG tankers. LNG will be even

stroke engines. The values for reductions should

more favourable when the maximum limit for sul-

therefore be used with caution due to the uncer-

phur content in the SECA-areas is lowered to 0.1 per-


cent in 2015. Finally, large CO2 reductions can be achieved in the future by replacing LNG with Liquid

LNG has great potential to reduce pollution from

Biogas (LBG).

shipping. However, several challenges are attached Table 5 Engine Liquid natural gas (LNG)






20-25 %

90-95 %

20-25 %

35-40 %


0-25 % 1)

> 95 % 2)

80-90 %

> 40 %


90 % 3)

5-10 %

50 %

Low-sulphur bunker oil (0.1 % sulphur)

Table 5: Reduction of pollution by the use of cleaner fuels. It should be underlined that uncertainty is attached to the reductions by use of LNG and the values should thereby be used with care. 1) Dependent on amount of unburned CH4 released through the engine. 2) Dependent on sulphur content and possible auxiliary fuel/lubrication oil. 3) Compared to bunker oil with 1 percent sulphur. The reduction for SO2 and particles are larger, if compared to traditional bunker oil (outside SECA) with higher content of sulphur. Reference: MAN Diesel & Turbo and Clipper Ferries


Reference: MAN Diesel

Bunker oil with 0.1 percent sulphur (today the con-

expected to continue to a certain degree, although

tent is 1 percent) will be required in SECA-areas from

in more attenuate fashion, as older and smaller

2015 but not in the international waters (see page

ships are replaced with new and larger ships with

20). Still, air pollution from international waters will

still more efficient engines. Several important inven-

therefore give rise to serious health and environ-

tions can reduce air pollution from engines further

mental damage. Consequently, a more general regu-

e.g. systems for utilisation of waste heat (waste

lation regarding low-sulphur bunker oil would in the long run lower the pollution. However, at the

heat recovery, WHR) and low-NOX valves for 2-stroke engines reducing the emission of NOX by 10-20 per-

moment it seems difficult to find the sufficient

cent and additionally reducing the particle emis-

refinery capacity to produce enough low-sulphur

sions significantly.

bunker oil just to satisfy upcoming demands in the SECA-areas.

Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) where some of the flue gas is recirculated through the engine is a well

Better engine technology

documented engine improvement to reduce NOX

During the last 40 years the consumption of bunker

emission. EGR can reduce the emission of NOX by

oil pr. container pr. sea mile has been reduced

80 percent from 2-stroke engines according to MAN

approx. 80 percent through development of larger

Diesel & Turbo. For comparison the reduction by

engines (for increasingly larger ships) with still

EGR on 4-stroke engines is 35-50 percent.

increasing engine efficiency. This development is


Cleaning the flue gas

Thereby efficient scrubbers can achieve the same

SO2 from the flue gas can be efficiently removed in a scrubber where SO2 is “washed� out of the flue

SO2 reduction as low sulphur bunker oil and are thereby a technical alternative to low sulphur fuels.

gas using sea water. SO2 is converted to harmless sulphate (SO42-) in the scrubber, which can be discharged with the scrubber water at sea. However, the scrubber water can contain several toxic tar compounds that will cause adverse effects if discharged in coastal areas. Consequently, the scrubber water is recirculated (under addition of sodium hydroxide) in coastal areas. The scrubber usually removes more than 95 percent SO2 and 50-60 percent of the primary particles according to Alfa Laval Aalborg. Some scrubbers have even shown removal rates of 70-80 percent of the primary particles (Venturi scrubber).

Reference: Aalborg Industries



NOX from the flue gas can be efficiently removed by several technologies. The most promising for 4-

Finally, primary particles in the flue gas can proba-

stroke engines is SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction).

heavy vehicles. Laboratory tests have shown 60-85

The SCR system automatically adds a precise

percent removal. The particles are continuously

amount of urea to the flue gas. Ammonia (NH3) is

burned in the filter (by addition of an additive) and

released from urea and reacts with NOX in a catalytic process converting NOX and NH3 to harmless

thereby transformed to CO2 and steam. It has not been possible to find detailed results from full scale

free nitrogen (N2) and steam. Up to 90 percent

tests with particle filters. This is probably due to the

removal of NOX and 30-35 percent removal of the

fact that the high sulphur content in real life flue

primary particles are achievable by SCR systems. In

gas causes serious technical challenges. However, by

addition, SCR systems reduce noise significantly.

combining particle filters with scrubbers an almost

Today full scale SCR systems on 4-stroke engines

complete removal of sulphur and primary particles

have shown promising results. SCR systems will

should be possible. Particle filters have, as well, a

probably be efficient for 2-stroke engines as well, if

potential for reducing the more acute health effects

the technology can compete with EGR systems (see

of primary particles for the crew and dock workers.

page 16).


bly be removed in particle filters as known from

Combining technical solutions As mentioned, the effects of the described technolo-

to sum up. Table 6 shows the effects of three differ-

gies are not additive. Thereby it is not possible just

ent combinations of technical solutions.

Table 6 LNG



Reduction of CO2

23 %

32 %

31 %

Reduction of SO2

95 %

96 %

97 %

Reduction of NOx

24 %

25-35 %

85-95 %

Reduction of PM2.5

37 %

45 %

61 %

Table 6: Effects of combinations of technical solutions compared to a traditional container ship. LNG: Liquid natural gas, WHR: Waste heat recovery and EGR: Exhaust gas recirculation. Reference: Estimated from key values provided by MAN Diesel & Turbo.

Kilde: MĂŚrsk


C U R R E N T R E G U L AT I O N Table 7

Sulphur content






Non-SECA (Oceans)

4.5 %


0.5 1)

SECA (Coastal areas)

1.5 %


0.1 %

Table 7: IMO-regulation of the sulphur content in bunker oil. SECA: Sulphur Emission Control Areas. 1) If the supply of bunker oil with 0.5 percent sulphur is insufficient in 2020 the regulation will be enforced in 2025. Reference: The International Maritime Organisation

Table 7 shows the present IMO-regulation of the

Waters surrounding Denmark are SECA-areas.

sulphur content in bunker oil.

Consequently, the SO2 pollution from shipping is expected to be reduced by 91 percent from 2007 to

Ships can choose to clean the flue gas for SO2 as

2020. The decrease is percentage-wise less than the

alternative to using bunker oil with lower sulphur

reduction in sulphur content (93 %) since an

content. For instance, above 95 percent of the SO2

increase in shipping is expected (increase of 3.5 per-

can be removed in a scrubber. Consequently, the

cent yearly) in the waters around Denmark. The

scrubber enables the same SO2-reduction as low

Danish Centre of Energy, Environment and Health

sulphur bunker oil. Thereby the present loophole in the 2020 regulation seems meaningless i.e. there is

has estimated that this reduction in SO2 pollution will only reduce the total health effects from ship-

no reason to postpone the 0.5 percent sulphur regu-

ping by 10-15 percent in Denmark. This is due to the

lation five years. Not even if the supply of low sul-

fact that most health effects from shipping around

phur bunker oil is insufficient because

Denmark are caused by pollution with NOX which is

the regulation can be achieved with

expected to increase slightly towards 2020 due to

scrubbers. As an alternative, the regu-

an expected increase in shipping.

lation can be achieved by using LNG instead of the low-sulphur bunker oil (see table 5).


Kilde: Danmarks Rederiforening

Figure 3


2.50 2.25 2.00 1.75 1.50 1.25 1.00 0.75 0.50 <


< - 2.50 - 2.25 - 2.00 - 1.75 - 1.50 - 1.25 - 1.00 - 0.75 0.50

Figure 3: Concentration of SO2 in Denmark in 2007 and 2020. Reference: National Environmental Research Institute

SO2 from shipping) and the land based emissions in Europe (EU27). From the figure is seen that shipping

Figure 3 shows the concentration of SO2 in Denmark in 2007 and 2020. It is evident that shipping has a crucial significance on the concentration of SO2 in 2007. Likewise it is evident that the IMO-regulation

emission on the northern hemisphere would have

causes large reductions in 2020, where the SO2 pol-

(EU27) in 2020 if no IMO regulation (or other regula-

lution is almost invisible.

tion) had been implemented. Furthermore, it is seen

exceeded the total land based emissions in Europe

that the 2015 regulation in SECA-areas only has tion on SO2 from shipping in the northern hemi-

minor influence on the total SO2 emission on the northern hemisphere underlining that the SECA-

sphere compared to the baseline (no regulation on

areas mainly have local effects upon emissions.

Figure 4 shows the estimated effect of the regula-

SO2 emissions 2010 - 2020

1,000 tonnes 4000

Figure 4: Estimated effect


of the IMO regulation on


SO2 from shipping on the northern hemisphere.


To comparison the baseli-


ne (no regulation on SO2)


and the land based emis-


sions in Europe (EU27) are shown.


Reference: The Air Pollution &


Climate Secretariat.

2010 Shipping IMO regulation

2015 Shipping baseline

2020 Land based sources (EU27)


Figure 5 Figure 5: : IMO-regulation of the emissions of

18 16 14


NOX from shipping.


Tier I: Ship engines (above 130 kW) installed on a ship


built after 1. January 2000.



Tier II: Ship engines (above 130 kW) installed on a ship


built after 1. January 2011.


Tier III: Ship engines (above 130 kW) installed on a ship


built after 1. January 2016. Only valid in NECA-areas


(NOX Emission Control Areas).


Reference: International Maritime Organisation. 0 0







Figure 5 shows the IMO-regulation of NOX emissions. However, the strict 2016 regulation is only

Finally, ship engines built between 1990 and 2000 has to be upgraded to fulfil Tier I requirements.

valid for new ships in NECA-areas (NOX Emission Control Areas).

Figure 6 compares the estimated effect of the regu-

Note, that it is the age of the ship that determines

lation on NOX from shipping on the northern hemisphere with the baseline (no regulation on NOX

the NOX pollution from the engine. A new engine on a ship build before 1st of January 2011 can there-

from shipping) and the land based emissions in

by pollute more than a new engine on a ship build after 1st of January 2011. Thus, the regulation moti-

emission on the northern hemisphere will increase

vates shipowners to use old ships which (other

Europe (EU27) in 2020 even though the IMO regula-

things being equal) have a higher fuel consumption

tion has been implemented. The baseline shows

and thereby a higher pollution than newer ships.

that the IMO regulation has very limited effects on

From an environmental point of view the NOX regu-

the NOX pollution from shipping.

Europe (EU27). From the figure is seen that shipping and be close to the total land based emissions in

lation should be independent of the age of the ship. 1,000 tonnes

NOx emissions 2010 - 2020


Figure 6: Estimated effect of the


IMO regulation on NOX from shipping in the northern


hemisphere. In comparison the


baseline (no regulation on NOX) and the land based emissions in


Europe (EU27) are shown.


Reference: The Air Pollution & Climate



1000 0 2010 Shipping IMO regulation




Shipping baseline

Land based sources (EU27)

Figure 7


> 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 <



10.00 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00

Figure 7: The concentration of NO2 (indicator for the NOX pollution) in Denmark in 2007 and 2020. Reference: National Environmental Research Institute.

From 2007 to 2020 a minor increase (0-5 percent) in

A reduction of primary particles as a direct effect of

the NOX emission from shipping in waters around

the IMO sulphur regulation is expected. As a is

Denmark is expected, even though IMO is expected

expected that the pollution with primary particles

to recognise the waters as NECA-areas and thereby

from shipping will be reduced by approx. 55 percent

be included in the hardest IMO NOX regulation

in waters surrounding Denmark towards 2020.

from 2016. The increase is due to the fact that the hardest regulation is only valid for new ships and due to an expected increase in shipping towards 2020. Thereby the air pollution with NOX will be responsible for 80 percent of the health effects in Denmark related to shipping in 2020. At that time, air pollution from shipping in waters around Denmark will cause more health damage than the overall damages from all Danish land based pollution sources. However, the new IMO regulation does have a significant effect since the emission of NOX in waters around Denmark would have increased by 15 percent without the new IMO regulation. Figure 7 illustrates the concentration of NO2 in Denmark in 2007 and 2020. The concentration of NO2 can be used as a direct indicator for the NOX pollution. The figure shows that the regulation from the IMO does not have great impact on the NOX pollution from shipping. On the other hand, regulation of land based NOX sources (through e.g. EUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s NEC-directive) has a significant effect on the NO2

Reference: Danmarks Rederiforening



Tabel 8 CO2


2011 (tons)





2020 (tons)





+ 18

- 86

+ 2.5

- 34

Difference (%)


Primary particles

Table 8: Emissionen of CO2, SO2, NOx and primary particles from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark. Reference: National Environmental Research Institute.

Table 8 shows emissions of CO2, SO2, NOX and pri-

can still contain 100 times more sulphur in 2015

mary particles from shipping in waters surrounding

than diesel today. Compared to trucks, new ships in

Denmark in 2011 and after full implementation of

NECA-areas in 2016 can emit 5-10 times as much

IMO regulation in 2020 (SECA- and NECA-areas).

NOX pr. kWh engine performance.

As mentioned above, the emission of NOX increases

Even the hardest IMO-regulation in SECA- and

due to increasing shipping activities in waters sur-

NECA-areas will thereby not ensure that shipping

rounding Denmark. This increase exceeds the effect

becomes “green” transport. And the general regula-

of IMO’s NECA-areas. Consequently, NOX pollution

tion of shipping emissions outside these areas is

will still be a serious health challenge in 2020

much weaker. Consequently, the health effects from

unless further regulations are implemented to

air pollution caused by shipping are expected to be

reduce NOX emissions from shipping.

almost unchanged towards 2020. This is mainly due to the very weak regulation of NOX from the exist-

The environmental regulation from the IMO is a big

ing fleet. Thus, there is an urgent need for further

step forward. However, shipping is still subject to a

regulation of air pollution from shipping.

very weak regulation compared to land based transport. Bunker oil in the hardest regulated SECA-areas


F U RT H E R R E G U L AT I O N The regulation of shipping (and thus the air pollu-

emission from shipping included in international

tion from shipping) is traditionally decided by the

agreements to build a basis for reducing the CO2

IMO and applies globally. This is justified by the easy

emissions from shipping. This can be done by imple-

reflagging of ships to other nations and the legal

menting a global tax on conventional bunker fuel

challenges faced when regulating pollution in inter-

(see below).

national waters. The IMO has spent very long time to establish the current environmental regulation.

Finally, there is an urgent need for a much harder

This is mainly due to the many different interests represented in the IMO. If IMO-regulation is not

regulation of NOX pollution from shipping since the regulation decided in the IMO is too weak. The regu-

tightened significantly, further regulation outside

lation can not even counterbalance the NOX pollu-

the IMO is necessary to reduce the adverse effects

tion from the increasing shipping - not even in the

of air pollution from shipping. This could be done by

hardest regulated NECA-areas. Consequently, the

market based regulation or regional regulation (through EU/USA). Below, three options for further

NOX pollution will increase towards 2020 and be responsible for almost the same number of health

regulation are discussed:

effects in 2020 as all air pollution from shipping today. Even though, several technical solutions are


Further IMO regulations

2) Market-based regulations

ready (LNG, EGR and SCR) which can reduce NOX pollution more than 80 percent.

3) Regional regulations On basis of this is only focused on further IMO reguCompared to 2011, the existing IMO regulation

lation of CO2 and NOX in this publication. However,

reduces the SO2 emissions per tonne transported

for marked-based and regional regulation is focused

goods by approx. 90 percent in 2015 in SECA-areas

upon regulation of all air pollutants since these two

and by approx. 90 percent outside SECA-areas from

regulation forms are independent of the IMO regu-

2020 (possibly 2025 cf. table 7). This significant SO2


reduction will automatically give a significant (but smaller) reduction in the emission of primary parti-

Further IMO regulation

cles. In the short run it is unlikely that the IMO will

There are several ways to regulate CO2 emissions

do further regulation in terms of SO2 and particle

from shipping. First, it is important to regulate the

emissions from shipping. Instead it is much more

design of new ships (so they travel further per ton

important to ensure that the decided IMO regula-

of fuel). This will reduce the energy consumption

tions are actually implemented on time. Already, a significant lobby activity for postponement of the

and thereby the pollution with CO2 (as well as SO2, NOX and particles). In addition, a tax could be

deadlines is taking place. However, it is necessary to

implemented on bunker oil and the yield could be

reduce the SO2 and particle emissions further if shipping is going to be the â&#x20AC;&#x153;greenâ&#x20AC;? transport of the

used for climate projects in developing countries,

future. Luckily, the technical solutions are ready as

i.e. additional reductions). This will, at the same

mentioned above.

time, increase the price on bunker oil and thereby

reducing the CO2 emission (compared to baseline

motivate shipowners further to save fuel which In addition, it is of vital importance to get the CO2

would reduce the CO2 emissions as well.


Denmark has proposed this (energy efficient design

reductions compared to a baseline pollution e.g.

of new ships and a tax on bunker oil) in the IMO

determined on basis of how much a similar “aver-

and in the process up to COP17 in Durban in the end

age” ship pollute in 2012. The baseline value and the

of 2011. If decided in Durban this could form the

reductions must be documented by an independent

basis of guidelines to a coming IMO agreement.

and recognised auditing. The label could be issued

However, several important developing countries in

by an organisation designated by the IMO and the

IMO are against an agreement since they believe it

World Wildlife Fund.

would be implementing a binding agreement to reduce the CO2 emission from developing countries.

Table 9 shows suggested air pollution reductions

The proposal to implement taxes on bunker oil is on

compared to a baseline for different labels.

standby so far. Mainly because of disagreement about how the revenue should be distributed and

Consequently, to achieve a D-labelling a ship would

which tax model should be used. There is an

have to reduce its emission of CO2 by minimum 30

increasing support for the Danish tax proposal. However, important developing countries (e.g.

percent, SO2 and NOX emissions by min. 80 percent and particle emission by min. 50 percent. As seen

China, Brazil, India, South Africa and Saudi-Arabia)

from table 6 this can be achieved in 2-stroke

make it difficult to find an agreement.

engines by using LNG, WHR and EGR. By further using a mix of the technical solutions which reduce

The IMO regulation of the NOX pollution (figure 5)

the fuel consumption (page 13) or biofuels/biogas a

should as soon as possible be revised to require a

C-label is achievable. On the other hand, achieving a

reduction of 80 percent NOX for all Tier III engines

B-label would require a combination of biofuel/bio-

and earlier in NECA-areas from 2016. The 80 percent

gas with a very low content of sulphur combined

NOX reduction should apply to all ships in all waters from 2020.

with several technical solutions. This is on the edge of what is possible today. A-labelling would require new technology.

Market-based regulation First step in a market-based regulation of air pollu-

The labelling should be voluntary, like the FSC-label

tion is to create transparency in the market leading

and Fairtrade (former “Max Havelaar”). Through

to full information about air pollution from ship-

labelling requirements, global companies can create

ping. This can be done by labelling ships from A to E.

a demand for cleaner shipping. The management

The labelling should be based on air pollution

could then make a CSR policy requiring that the

Table 9 A 1)





> 80 %

> 65 %

> 50 %

> 30 %

> 20 %

> 99 %

> 99 %

> 95 %

> 80 %

> 80 %


> 99 %

> 99 %

> 95 %

> 80 %

> 30 %


> 99 %

> 95 %

> 70 %

> 50 %

> 30 %


Table 9: Suggested air pollution reductions (compared to a baseline) for different ship labels. 1) For the reduction of CO2 must be included adverse climate effects from engine emission of unburned methane and CO2 and methane emissions from the fuel lifecycle.


company will use e.g. 40 percent D-labelled, 30 per-

Thereby some shipowners will see an economic

cent E-labelled and 30 percent unlabelled ships in

potential in having their ships labelled since it will be

2015. The following years the requirements could be

a requirement in order to get certain shipping orders.

still more ambitious i.e. increasing the demand for

With an increasing amount of companies setting still

cleaner shipping.

more ambitious requirements for their shipping deliveries, more shipowners will have their ships

Furthermore, the labelling makes it possible that the

labelled and start implementing technical solutions

environmental reports of the companies will provide

to achieve better labelling. Better labelling will then

a quantitative overview of their shipping deliveries

be a competitive parameter in an ongoing labelling

distributed on labels. Likewise, it becomes possible for

process reducing air pollution from shipping.

companies to require specific minimum labelling standards for their suppliers. Consequently, the air

The real technical challenge in the suggested

pollution from shipping becomes visible and thereby

labelling is that container ships often carry cargo

the green NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s can start pushing the companies to

from many different clients. They will probably have

require still more ambitious labelling. Through the

different environmental requirements for labelling.

media, NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s can communicate whether companies

Consequently, flexibility may be needed in a transi-

are ambitious on their environmental requirements

tional period. But implementation is possible. Let us

for shipping and thereby making the pollution from

assume that 10 percent of customers require label

shipping visible to the consumer. The consumer can

C, 20 percent label D, 40 percent label E and 30 per-

thereby further accelerate more ambitious labelling

cent do not make any requirements. Then the entire

by choosing products from companies with ambi-

load could, of course, be transported with a C-label

tious labelling requirements.

ship. Alternatively, the cargo could be transported in a manner that ensures that the overall pollution during the ship transport is similar to the pollution if 10 percent of the cargo had been transported with a label C ship, 20 percent of the cargo has been transported with a label D ship and 40 percent of the cargo had been transported with a label E ship. However, this would increase the requirements for documentation and control during the transition period.


Reference: Maersk Line

Regional regulation

very little influence on the consumer price. The

In continuation of the suggested labelling of ships,

supermarket price of a bottle of wine from New

large regional areas (e.g. EU and/or USA) could

Zealand would in Denmark increase less than 0.15

introduce port fees depending on the label of the

euros, if it was transported with B-labelled ships in

ships (table 9). Consequently, it would be very

the future. This would be invisible to consumers

expensive for unlabelled ships to use ports in e.g.

taking the general inflation and special offers of the

EU and/or USA, expensive for E-labelled ships,

supermarkets into account.

cheaper for the D-labelled ships etc. This would give shipowners (a further) economic incentive to have

Consequently, there is no risk that a much harder

their ships labelled and to use technical solutions to

environmental regulation of shipping will reduce

improve the labelling in order to get reduced port

shipping in favour of alternative transport. And no

fees. Regional regulation will require all ports in a

risk that regional regulation would shift shipping to

large area e.g. EU and/or USA to have similar mini-

ports outside the e.g. EU and/or USA. Shipowners

mum port fees in relation to labelling. Hence, mini-

would just pass on the costs from pollution reduc-

mum port fees must be decided and charged at a

tions (technical solutions) to customers in the usual

supra-national level e.g. by a central authority in EU

manner, and end users will hardly notice a differ-

and/or USA.

ence. But society will achieve large gains in terms of better public health and nature values.

Technical solutions to get the most ambitious labels will increase the costs of shipping, while costs of

Market-based and regional regulation through

fulfilling labelling D-E are limited. The costs of the

labelling of ships should be seen as a supplement to

transportation for cargo transported by ships typi-

IMO-regulations. Thereby the IMO-regulation

cally represent less than 2 percent of the final prod-

becomes the minimum regulation, while labelling

uct price. Thereby, even retrofitting technical solu-

will motivate for faster and further reductions of air

tions to get the most ambitious labels will have

pollution from shipping.



Denmark has a unique position in relation to ship-

Denmark with an export that has grown from 3.3

ping and technical solutions to reduce air pollution

billion euros in 1992 to 23.3 billion euros in 2010.

from shipping, because Denmark is hosting the

Danish ships are generally larger, newer and thus

largest container shipping company in the world,

more “green” than the average world fleet. But at

the largest supplier of ship engines and several

the moment most Danish ships would not even be

leading clean-tech companies within flue gas clean-

able to get an “E labelling” according to table 9.

ing. In this connection, Denmark has developed several strong research and consulting communities in

It is possible to implement further regulation of

relation to mapping and reduction of air pollution

shipping to limit air pollution without jeopardising

from shipping.

the export earnings and the employment from shipping. Properly designed environmental regula-

Danish shipping companies control approx. 10 per-

tion of air pollution from shipping is necessary if

cent of the global cargo transport and 80 percent of

shipping should be the “green” transport of the

2-stroke engines in ships origin from a Danish sup-


plier. 100,000 Danes are employed in relation to shipping incl. shipyards, technology suppliers etc.

Important Danish key stakeholders in relation to

Shipping is the second largest export industry in

“green” shipping are shown in figure 8.

Figure 8 Danish key stakeholders in relation to ”green” shipping The list of stakeholders is not complete

Research institutions Technical University of Denmark Aalborg University National Environmental Research Institute Centre for Energy, Environment and Health

Consultants Grontmij FORCE Technology

Clean-tech suppliers Haldor Topsoe MAN Diesel & Turbo DANSK TEKNOLOGI Alfa Laval Aalborg DK Group AAB APV DESMI GreenSteam Hempel

Rederier Maersk Line Clipper Ferries DFDS J. Lauritzen NORDEN Nordic Tankers TORM

Figure 8: Danish key stakeholders in relation to ”green” shipping


R E CO M M E N DAT I O N S The basis for achieving the health and nature

(table 9) in their SCR policy (for their own as

potentials of further regulation of air pollution from

well as their suppliers ship transport).

shipping is, of course, that further regulation is implemented in an anti-competitive form and that shipping companies and affiliated companies take

5) Making EU and/or USA implementing minimum port fees depending on ship labelling.

the environmental challenges seriously. 6) Making harbours in EU and/or USA implementFurther regulation

ing minimum port fees depending on labelling

Further regulation of air pollution from shipping

of ships (until minimum port fees are decided

should be promoted by:

and charged at a supranational level, cf. point 5)


Increasing the pressure in the IMO for environ-

7) Support all anti-competitive environmental reg-

mental regulation in relation to CO2 as well as

ulation of shipping within and outside the IMO.

an active political effort in the climate negotia-

The pressure for harder environmental regula-

tions up to COP 17 in Durban in November 2011.

tion in IMO must be done on a pure â&#x20AC;&#x153;political levelâ&#x20AC;? while the other recommendations can be

2) Increasing the pressure in IMO for a much more

carried out in collaboration between authorities,

ambitious environmental regulation of NOX by

shipping companies and other involved stake-

informing the nations in IMO about the socio-

holders including green NGOâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.

economic costs of the weak NOX regulation. Finally, it is important to make sure that the decided 3) Working for further reductions of the sulphur content in bunker oil after 2020 in the IMO.

IMO regulation is fulfilled on time. Progressive countries can do this e.g. by illustrating how technical solutions already today can fulfil the IMO regu-

4) Making multinational companies (IKEA, Nike, Wall-Mart etc.) require ambitious ship labelling


lation coming into force in 2020, without significantly affecting the competitiveness of shipping.

F U RT H E R I N F O R M AT I O N Homepages The Danish Ecocouncil: National Environmental Research Institute: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health: Danish Shipownersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Association: Green ships of the future: Society for Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: The Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat: International Maritime Organisation: European Environmental Bureau: Transport & Environment: Danish Ministry of the Environment: Danish Maritime Authority: Key publications Ship emissions and air pollution in Denmark. Present situation and future scenarios. Devised by the National Environmental Research Institute for the Danish Environmental Ministry, Environmental project no. 1307, 2009. Assessment of Health Cost Externalities of Air Pollution at the National Level using the EVA Model System Devised by the interdisciplinary research centre: Centre for Energy, Environment and Health, Denmark, 2009. Market-based instrument for NOx abatement in the Baltic Sea. The Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat, Sweden, 2009.


CLEAN ER SH I PPI NG â&#x20AC;&#x201C; focus on air pollution, technology and regulation Shipping accounts for around 90 percent of global cargo transport and is thereby the basis of the fast increasing global trade. However, the significant shipping volume causes air pollution with CO2 and hazardous sulphur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX) and primary particles. Shipping thereby contributes to about 3 percent of global warming and the air pollutants cause serious health effects on land and harm sensitive aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Yearly, about 50,000 cases of premature deaths in Europe are caused by air pollution from shipping. The annual costs in Europe are approx. 60 billion euro due to health damages related to shipping. On top of this come damages to ecosystems. Large container ships only move 8-12 meters per litre bunker oil. Consequently, huge amounts of bunker oil are burned each year resulting in serious air pollution. Air pollution with SO2 and NOX from shipping in waters close to land can be significantly larger than the air pollution from land based sources â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for instance in a country like Denmark. The International Maritime Organisation IMO has adopted a regulation that will lead to 90 percent decrease in SO2 emissions from shipping towards 2020, while the adopted regulation of NOX will lead to far less reductions. Event though technical solutions to significantly reduce NOX as well as particles and CO2 are available. This publication focuses on air pollution with CO2, SO2, NOX and fine particles from shipping, technical solutions, existing regulation of air pollution from shipping and possibilities for further regulation. The aim is to inspire decision makers and other key stakeholders to implement further regulation of air pollution from shipping to the benefit of climate, public health and nature.

Cleaner shipping