Reducing Harmful Aerosols and Resolving Global Warming: An Example of the Emission Control Area

Author: Haifeng Wang College of Earth, Ocean, and Environment University of Delaware hfwang@udel.edu

Abstract
The reduction of conventional air pollutants such as SOx, NOx, and PM can be helpful to the environment and human health. However, due to their potential to cool the atmosphere, the reduction of such emissions may potentially intensify the global warming, creating a dilemma to policy makers. This paper uses the shipping Emission Control Area (ECA) as an example to quantify the net warming effects from reducing such emissions and discusses policy implications. The paper shows that from the perspective of harmful pollutant reductions, the ECA is a success. It reduces the SOx, NOx, and PM which endanger the environment and human health cost-effectively. Although it may result in a slight of warming effect in the short term, it will reduce the warming effect in the long term. The paper also illustrates that the reduction of harmful aerosols and global warming are two separate issues. The harmful aerosols should be reduced and the global warming can be resolved by applying existing technologies and operational strategies. The dilemma is a false statement. Future conventional pollutant reduction should be cited as a conflict with global warming reduction effort.

1.

Introduction
The important role played by aerosols and ozone in anthropogenic climate change has

been gradually realized. The Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) include a host of projections and details of future aerosols and ozone (Shindell, Levy et al. 2008). Yet, the warming effect of aerosols and ozone remain uncertain due to the sensitivity of climate and the uncertainty of atmospheric modeling. A variety of aerosols have cooling effects, whereas ozone and black carbon warm the planet (Hansen, Sato et al. 2000; Arneth, Unger et al. 2009). It has been shown that a maximum feasible reduction of short-lived aerosol emissions in the future may substantially warm the earth (Kloster, Dentener et al. 2009). Most of the warming effects come from sulfur emission reductions in the industry and power generators. Their warming effect is almost as severe as the effect of Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) (Kloster, Dentener et al. 2009). The aerosol reduction can increase global mean temperature by 2.2 C at 2030. Andreae et al suggest that atmospheric aerosols can potentially reduce warming effects of anthropogenic GHGs. The reduction of those aerosols may increase the temperature through sensitive climate interactions and carbon cycle feedbacks (Andreae, Jones et al. 2005). The mid- and high-latitude climate is more sensitive to the location of aerosol forcing than other parts of the world (Shindell and Faluvegi 2009). The Arctic is particularly sensitive. The black carbon and troposphere ozone have increased temperature in the Arctic of 1.4 C and 0.4 C, respectively (Shindell and Faluvegi 2009). A general consensus is that some aerosols do cool the earth such as sulfate, nitrogen dioxide (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SOx), while some aerosols (such as Black Carbon) and ozone have warming effects. The reduction of the former type of aerosols may warm the environment. In other words, there seems to have a dilemma: should we reduce emissions with cooling effects but unhealthy impacts to human beings or should we not

reduce those emissions and buy time for effective carbon reductions? To answer these questions, policy makers are left to choose which global warming metric they plan to use, which timeline they want to focus on, and which pollutants they intend to consider. A similar question is raised when the U.S. and Canada governments proposed the designation of the Emission Control Area (ECA). Under the ECA, ships that approach their 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone have to burn cleaner fuel or use scrubbing technology. The designation will help to reduce SOx, NOx, and PM from ships and health hazards to people living in coastal areas (IMO 2009). The proposal has been approved by the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The ECA will help to substantially reduce SOx, NOx, two gases with cooling effects, from ships and health hazards to people living in coastal areas (IMO 2009). The proposal of the ECA has attracted that other countries such as EU and Mexico. However, SOx and NOx have cooling effects. In particular, the shipping SOx and NOx have even larger cooling impacts on the atmosphere (Fuglestvedt, Shine et al. 2009). The reduction of those pollutants, therefore, may intensify the global warming, an example of the dilemma mentioned above. This paper is to use the ECA as an example to show the net effect from air pollution reduction, the implications to policy makers, and some answers to this dilemma.

2.

Background
Marine shipping is one of the major sources of Nitrogen oxides (NOx), Sulfur oxides

(SOx), Particulate Matter (PM), and Carbon Dioxide (CO2)(Wang, Liu et al. 2009). Oceangoing vessels contributed to about 25 million metric tons (Mmt) of NOx, 15 Mmt of SOx, and 1.8 mmt of PM, and 1046 mmt of CO2 in 2007 (Buhaug, Corbett et al. 2009). This is about 15-30% of global NOx emission, 5-7% of global SOx emission (Corbett and Khler 2003), and 3.3% of global CO2 emission (Buhaug, Corbett et al. 2009). Nitrogen oxides (NOx), including nitrogen

monoxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) emissions, are major contributors to acid rain, leading to the over-fertilization of lakes as well as to the formation of smog. Sulfur oxides (SOX), including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfur trioxide (SO3), lead to acid rain and have detrimental effects on vegetation and human health (Wang, Liu et al. 2009). PM, including sulfate, water, and black carbon, is also harmful to lung, especially to people living near coastal areas. CO2 is the major GHG leading to global warming and has become one of top agendas in international shipping industry. Ship emissions are projected to grow unevenly for different pollutants. Although NOx have grown 35% between 2000 and 2007, a reduction of 12-14% is expected due to the replacement of pre-regulation (Tier I) engines. The sulfur emission will be reduced by 42% due to the existing and proposed sulfur emission control areas. The reduction of NOx and SOx are mainly attributed to regulations on ship engine and fuel sulfur contents issued by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the top regulatory body of the international shipping industry. However, the CO2 will grow by 150% by 2050 because of the more frequent international trade. A net warming effect has been forecasted due to the reduction of pollutants with cooling effects in 2050, although before 2050, the air emissions from ships contribute to a net cooling effect to the global environment (Eyring, Isaksen et al. 2009). In other words, the reduction of harmful pollutants seems to be conflicting with the reduction of global warming, creating a dilemma that scientists are only beginning to answer. Should we reduce ship-based conventional pollutants due to their potential to cool the environment? Do we have methods to avoid such a dilemma? This paper attempts to answer these questions. The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 3 presents the methodology, data, and some basic assumptions for this paper. Section 4 introduces the proposed ECA, revisits

chemical reactions of pollutants in the atmosphere, calculates the net warming/cooling effects based on various scenarios, and discusses the result in a policy context. Section 5 is devoted to provide some concluding remarks and make some policy recommendations based on results.

3.
3.1

Methodology, Data, and Assumption

Methodology: Global Warming Potential and Global Temperature

Change Potential
To quantify the effects of various air pollutants, some metrics have to be determined beforehand. One of the most used concepts to investigate potential climate change impacts of air pollutant is the radiative forcing (RF) (IPCC 2001). The key assumptions for using RF are that the global mean forcing is related to the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change and that the climate sensitivity can be considered to be constant and independent of the forcing applied for homogeneously distributed forcing (Hansen, Sato et al. 2000; Stuber, Ponater et al. 2001). Such a value of RF cannot fully illustrate what would happen in the future to the global warming as a result of emissions. Forward-looking metrics are used for formulation of policy and for assigning CO2-equivalent (CO2-e) emissions. Metrics such as the Global Warming Potential (GWP) or the Global Temperature change Potential (GTP; (Shine, Bernsten et al. 2005)) examine the marginal impacts, at some point in the future, of a unit emission of a radiatively active species compared to that of CO2. The GWP for a gas is the ratio of the cumulative, globally-averaged RF over a specified time horizon produced by a unit-mass emissions impulse of that gas to that due to a unit-mass impulse of carbon dioxide (Smith and Wigley 2000). In the policy context, GWPs have become the de facto standard for estimating. The relative effectiveness of reducing emissions of different greenhouse gases and therefore at 6

the center to evaluate approaches to GHG mitigation (IPCC 1995; U.S. 2000). The attraction of GTP is that it requires essentially the same inputs as the GWP but reflects the response of the global-mean surface temperature (Shine, Bernsten et al. 2005). It is also further down the cause and effect chain from emissions to impacts (Derwent, Steveson et al. 2008). Therefore it provides a different perspective to evaluate the relative importance of emissions of different species and how it changes over time (Fuglestvedt, Shine et al. 2009). In this paper, the GWP and GTP are used to evaluate the warming effects of reduced pollutants in the ECA. The calculation is straightforward. The net warming effects of the ECA can be shown in the Equation 1:
Wt GC h ,t ,i Ei GW h ,t ,i Ei

(1)

h=GWT if h=1 h=GTP if h=2 Where Wt is the net warming effect in time t; GCh,t,i is the cooling effects of emission i in time t; E is the total reduction of emission type i; GWh,t,i is the warming effects of emission i in time t. The GWP and GTP are estimated and reported by different literature with widely different ranges. They are not directly comparable. The GWT and GTP used for different emissions are shown in the Appendix A. The Appendix A also shows the warming potential of different aerosols under various time horizons. Most pollutants are potent in a relatively short time line. CO2 is a notable exception. Its effect lasts hundreds of years without too much decaying. Therefore, they have to be converted to CO2 equivalents to describe how much global warming a given amount and type of GHG may cause.

3.2

Data
7

The data used in this paper are all from published literature. The SOx, NOx, PM, and CO2 reductions from the ECA are from the technical reports of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The composition of the PM is from Lack et al (Lack, Corbett et al. 2009). The lower, median, and upper estimates of GWP and GTP for the reduced emissions are based on the values in Table 1 (Collins, Derwent et al. 2002; Endresen, Soergaard et al. 2003; Eyring, Corbett et al. 2007; Derwent, Steveson et al. 2008; Fuglestvedt, Shine et al. 2009).
Table 1 GWP and GTP Metrics (All SOx values are on a per kg S basis, NOx values are on a per kg N basis, and OC are on organic carbon basis)

GWP H=20 SOx NOx Sulfate BC OC CO2 -150 to -120 -76 to -31 -140 1600 -240 1 H=100 -43 to -11 -36 to -25 -40 460 -69 1 H=20 -44 to -11 -190 to -130 -41 470 -71 1

GTP H=100 -6.1 to -1.5 -35 to -30 -5.7 64 -10 1

Table 1 shows the estimates of the GWP and the GTP for different aerosols. Three scenarios are calculated. In the first scenario, the means of different estimates are taken from various literature. In the second and third scenarios, the upper and lower bounds of these estimates are taken, respectively (Collins, Derwent et al. 2002; Endresen, Soergaard et al. 2003; Eyring, Corbett et al. 2007; Derwent, Steveson et al. 2008; Fuglestvedt, Shine et al. 2009). In other words, scenario one, two, and three shows the average, upper, and lower potential for the warming effects, respectively. Two timelines are focused: a 20-year and a 100-year horizon.

3.3

Assumption
This paper is based on a number of assumptions which are supported by previous literature.

First, climate sensitivity is constant and independent of the RF applied for homogeneously distributed forcing. Although this assumption is not necessarily true for the inhomogeneous forcing, the emission control area can be considered homogeneous due to the limited areas and relatively simple atmosphere (Figure 1).

Figure 1 The geographical scope of the proposed emission control area (Source: http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/nonroad/marine/ci/420f09015.htm)

Second, the RF is additive and linear. This assumption is valid when the forcings are independent of each other and dependent on climate conditions. Therefore the mean RF is a good predictor of the change in the annual global mean surface temperature. Such an almost additive relationship has been approved by general circulation model (Gillett, Wehner et al. 2004; KIRKEVG, Iversen et al. 2008). Third, the reduction of CO2 is the only standard to evaluate the policy. In fact, although the reduction of CO2 is challenging to human society, the SOx, NOx and PM are detrimental to

human health and harmful to the environment. Reducing them is necessary. The multidimensional policy consideration would be discussed in the section 4.4.

4.

The Net Warming Effects from Emission Reductions in the

Emission Control Area

4.1 Emissions Reduction in the Emission Control Area
On March 27, 2009, the U.S. and Canadian governments submitted a proposal to amend MARPOL Annex VI to designate North American coastal waters as an ECA. Ships operating in the ECA would be required to use low-sulfur fuel with a sulfur content no more than 10,000 ppm (1% sulfur content); in 2015, the requirement would be reduced to 1,000 ppm (0.1% sulfur). As an alternative to using low sulfur fuel, ship operators may choose to use the scrubber to extract sulfur from the exhaust. Engines on vessels constructed in 2016 and later would need to comply with the Annex VI Tier 3 NOx limits, when operating in an ECA. These NOx limits are expected to necessitate the use of after-treatment technology, such as selective catalytic reduction (SCR), which can reduce NOx emissions to harmless substances. Those measures are expected to reduce SOx by 920000 ton, NOx by 320000 ton, and PM by 90000 ton. The designation will help to reduce SOx, NOx, and PM from ships and health hazards to people living in coastal areas (IMO 2009). Under the regulation in ECA, ships have to use distillate fuel, which, on a mass basis, has higher energy content than fuel oils used by most ships currently. Therefore the fuel switch can result in a reduction of CO2 (Entec UK limited 2002). The ECA is projected to reduce CO2 by 2.17 million tons of CO2 by 2020 (EPA 2009). Not only substantial emissions are reduced, they are reduced more cost-effectively. Based on the estimate of the EPA, The cost to reduce a ton of NOx, SOx and PM is estimated at $2,400, 10

$1,100 and $10,000, respectively. Comparatively, the 2007 heavy-duty highway truck rule issued by the EPA costs $2,300/ ton for NOx and $15,000/ ton for PM (IMO 2009). The heavy-duty truck rule in EU is even more expensive, exceeding 11,000 $ per ton for NOx.

4.2

Warming Effects of Aerosol Reduction

The emission of NOx and SOx can contribute to net cooling effects to the global

environment. This section briefly discusses the major chemical reactions of aerosols in the atmosphere which contributes to the global cooling. NOx can increase the OH radical, which removes methane and hydrocarbons, two types of potent global warming gases. The production of OH from NOx is to react with HO2 (R1) or generate O3 (R2). Ships are the major contributor of NOx in the high sea where the environment is relatively cleaner. Therefore the production of ozone from shipping NOx is much more efficient (Fuglestvedt, Shine et al. 2009). R1: NO + HO2 = NO2+OH R2: NO2 + hv = NO + O R3: O+ O2 + M = O3 + M SOx contribute to the cooling effect mainly due to the reaction from R4 to R6. The sulfate in the PM has similar chemical reaction. The aerosols from H2SO4 and H2O increase the optical depth of the atmosphere, reflecting and absorbing incoming solar energy, reducing globally averaged net radiation at the top of the atmosphere. The sulfate, one component of PM, is formed by SO2 and SO3 and thus can contribute to global cooling effects. R4: SO2+ OH+M=HSO-3+ M R5: HSO-3+ O2=HO2+ SO3 R6: SO3+ H2O+M=H2SO4

4.3

Net Warming Effect of Emission Control Area: A Quantitative Analysis

11

To quantify the net effect of emission reduction, the aerosols have to be determined first. This is related to the composition of different emissions. Constant to other literatures (EPA 2009; EPA 2009; Eyring, Isaksen et al. 2009; Winebrake, Corbett et al. 2009), SOx is assumed to contain 98% of SO2 and 2% of SO4. All NOx is assumed to be NO2. The composition of PM is difficult to determine. There are a few of estimations of the PM from ships (Endresen, Srgard et al. 2003; Eyring, Corbett et al. 2007; Sax and Alexis 2007; Buhaug, Corbett et al. 2009; EPA 2009; Lack, Corbett et al. 2009). The estimation in Lack et al (Lack, Corbett et al. 2009) is used. Based on the field observation from Lack et al, the PM contains 46% of SO4, 39% of OM, and 15% of BC for fuel with 0.1% sulfur. SO4 and OM mass are dependent on fuel sulfur content and BC mass is dependent on engine type and combustion efficiency. The total emission reductions from the ECA is reported in Table 2
Table 2 Emission reductions from the ECA

Types of Emissions SOx NOx CO2 SO4 Organic Carbon Black Carbon

Emission Reductions (ton) 920000 320000 2200000 41400 35100 13500

To compute the total GWP and GTP of sulfate (S) and nitrogen (N), the SOx and NOx have to be converted to S and N. One ton of SOx contains about 0.50 ton of S. In the same way, one ton of NOx contains about 0.304 ton of N. Three scenarios are included in this paper. The first scenario includes the computation that uses the mean of different estimates in Table 1. In the second and third scenarios, the upper and lower bounds of Table 1 are applied, respectively. Therefore, Scenario Two approaches the upper bound of cooling effect and the Scenario Three approaches the upper bound of warming 12

effect. Two timelines are used to facilitate the comparisons of different matrix: a 20-year and a 100-year horizon. The 20-year horizon is defined as the short period, from the perspective of climate change; the 100-year horizon is defined as the long period. Using the data from Table 1 and 2 and applying the Equation 1, Table 3 shows the GWP and GTP in Scenario One. It illustrates that for a 20-year horizon, both GWP and GTP show net warming effects due to the designation of the ECA. For the 100-year horizon, the GTP shows net cooling effects and the GWP shows net warming effects.
Table 3 CO2 equivalent emissions (in ton (CO2)/year for various metrics) using the Mean Estimates

GWP SOx NOx SO4 OM BC CO2 Total H=20 -62,100,000 -5,204,480 -1,932,000 -6,017,143 21,600,000 2,700,000 -50,953,623 H=100 -12,420,000 -5,934,080 -551,994 -1,729,929 6,210,000 2,700,000 -11,726,003 H=20 -18,170,000 -15,564,800 -516,010 -1,780,071 6,345,000 2,700,000 -26,985,881

GTP H=100 -2,507,000 -500,992 -235,980 -250,714 864,000 2,700,000 69,314

In a similar method to Table 3, Table 4 and Table 5 show the GWP and GTP in Scenario Two and Three, respectively. Both GWP and GTP show net warming effects in Scenario Three. In 100-year horizon under Scenario Two and Three, the GTP shows net cooling effects.
Table 4 CO2 equivalent emissions (in ton (CO2)/year for various metrics) using the Upper Bound

GWP SOx Nox SO4 BC OC CO2 Total H=20 -17,020,000 -3,015,680 -1,932,000 21,600,000 -6,017,143 2,700,000 -3,684,823 H=100 -5,060,000 -8,000,000 -1,656,000 6,210,000 -1,729,929 2,700,000 -7,535,929 H=20 -5,060,000 -12,646,400 -565,800 6,345,000 -2,492,100 2,700,000 -11,719,300

GTP H=100 -690,000 -403,200 -235,980 864,000 -250,714 2,700,000 1,984,106

13

Table 5 CO2 equivalent emissions (in ton (CO2)/year for various metrics) using the Lower Bound

GWP SOx Nox SO4 BC OC CO2 Total H=20 -69,000,000 -7,296,000 -1,931,998 21,600,000 -6,017,143 2,700,000 -59,945,141 H=100 -19,780,000 -2,400,000 -551,994 6,210,000 -23,288 2,700,000 -13,845,282 H=20 -20,240,000 -3,360,000 -95,210 6,345,000 -1,780,071 2,700,000 -16,430,282

GTP H=100 -2,806,000 -403,200 -78,660 864,000 -351,000 2,700,000 -74,860

In summary, using the GWP, the designation of the ECA would have a net warming effect for both the short and long periods for all scenarios. Using the GTP, the ECA would have a net warming effect for the 20-year time horizon in all scenarios, but have a net cooling effect for the 100-year time horizon in Scenario One and Two. Therefore, the emission reductions in the ECA are not necessarily causing warming effects. The reduction of black carbon and CO2 can substantially reduce the warming effects and even have cooling effects in the long term.

4.4

Discussion: Global Warming, Conventional Air Pollutants, and Equity

Table 3 and Table 4 show the net warming/cooling effect depends on which metric policy

makers would choose and how long the time horizon policy makers would consider. Because the CO2 would be in the atmosphere for hundreds of years and global warming has multi-decadal effect, policy makers may choose a longer time horizon to evaluate their policy. In the case of the ECA, both the reduction of harmful pollutants and the mitigation of GHGs (long time horizon) are achieved. The reduction of the warming effect and long run net cooling effect from the ECA are mainly due to the reduction of CO2, which may be not common to other conventional pollutant reduction programs. In fact the mitigation of other pollutants generally requires more energy,

14

which may exacerbate the global warming. Therefore, the dilemma mentioned in the section one seems to be common. It is hard to reconcile the two policy goals. However, this dilemma can be overcome at least from two perspectives: harmful air pollutants should be reduced and global warming can be resolved from other means. The argument that conventional air pollutants should not be reduced due to their global cooling effects is against the equity principle. The damage of SOx, NOx and PM to human health has been well-understood using epidemiology, animal toxicology, and controlled human exposure studies (Folinsbee 1993). It is particularly unfair to people living near pollution source since they already suffer from the poor air quality and will continue to suffer if nothing changes and, more often than not, the pollution intensifies. Not to reduce these pollutants contradicts the original purpose to combat the global warming: protecting the welfare of the human beings. For example, the PM from ships is responsible for 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer death in 2002 and the annual mortalities could increase by 40% by 2012 (Corbett, Winebrake et al. 2007). The more important point is that human beings have already possessed the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the global warming problems for the next half-century (Pacala and Socolow 2004). The IPCC has also claimed that technologies that exist in operation or pilot stage today are sufficient to follow a less-than-doubling trajectory over the next hundred years or more (IPCC 2001). Back to the example of the shipping industry, It is estimated that using current technical and operational strategies can reduce ship CO2 emissions by 25% -75%. Buhaug et al (2009) show a 20% CO2 reduction, or 250 mmt CO2 mitigation can be achieved by applying existing technologies and operational measures whose marginal abatement costs are negative (Buhaug, Corbett et al. 2009). In other words, applying these technical and operational measures, ships not only reduce CO2 emissions by 25% but also save

15

cost. This is enough to offset the net warming effects even in the worst scenario (Scenario Three in Table 5). In other words, reducing harmful pollutants and global warming can be achieved together. The reasons ships have not used them are due to imperfect information, split profits (parties that pay for technical and operational measures do not harvest the profit), and low priorities to reduce CO2 (CE Delft 2009). These problems can be resolved by proper institutional arrangement. Policy makers have identified a host of measures to incentivize shipping companies to increase fuel efficiency and reduce GHG. Shipping companies also recognize the needs to reduce GHGs (Kat, Cerup-Simonsen et al. 2009).

5.

Conclusion
The net warming effects from the reduction of harmful aerosols have attracted increasing

attention. This paper shows that in the case of the ECA, the reduction of SOx, NOx, and PM, in the short term, presents a net warming effect. In the long run, a net cooling effect is expected because of the reduction of CO2 and black carbon. Therefore, evaluating the net effect of air pollution reduction policy rests on a conscious use of the metrics for policymakers, the time horizon they want to consider, and, above all, the policy target they intend to pursue. In the case of ECA, the primary policy focus is on the mitigation of harmful aerosols. This aim can be achieved. The net warming effect is not that serious and in the long run, the net effect is cooling, therefore, ECA does not present a conflict between reducing harmful pollutants and reducing global warming. On the other hand, reducing global warming does not prohibit reducing aerosols that are harmful to environment but can potentially cool the environment. Scientific consensus has been reached that harmful pollutants should be reduced to decrease risk to the environment and human health; human beings have already had technologies to reduce global warming. Harmful

16

pollutants should be mitigated and global warming can be resolved at the same time. Therefore, the dilemma mentioned in the first section is a false statement. Policy makers should continue to focus on the reduction of conventional pollutants, which should be cited as a conflict with reducing global warming.

17

References
Andreae, M., C. Jones, et al. (2005). "Strong Present-day aerosol cooling implies a hot future." Nature 435: 1187-1190. Arneth, A., N. Unger, et al. (2009). "Clean the Air, Heat the Planet?" Science 326(5953): 672-673. Buhaug, ., J. J. Corbett, et al. (2009). Second IMO Greenhouse Gas Study 2009. London, International Maritime Organization. Buhaug, ., J. J. Corbett, et al. (2009). Second IMO GHG Study 2009 Update of the 2000 GHG Study: Final Report covering Phrase 1 and Prase 2. Longdon, IMO. CE Delft (2009). Technical support for European action to reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from international maritime transport, CE Delft. Collins, W. J., R. G. Derwent, et al. (2002). "The oxidation of organic compounds in the troposphere and their global warming potentials " Climate Change 52: 453-479. Corbett, J. J. and H. W. Khler (2003). "Updated emissions from ocean shipping." Journal of Geophysical Research(108): 17. Corbett, J. J., J. J. Winebrake, et al. (2007). "Mortality from Ship Emissions: A Global Assessment." Environmental Science & Technology 41(24): 85128518. Derwent, R., D. Steveson, et al. (2008). "Radiative Forcing From Surface NOx Emissions: Spatial and Seasonal Variations." Climate Change 88: 385-401. Endresen, O., E. Soergaard, et al. (2003). "Emission from international sea transportation and environmental impact." Journal of Geophysical Research.D.Atmospheres 108(D17). Endresen, ., E. Srgard, et al. (2003). "Emission from International Sea Transportation and Environmental Impact." Journal of Geophysical Research 108(D17): 4560. Entec UK limited (2002). Quantification of Emissions from Ships Associated with Ship Movements between Ports in the European Community prepared for the European Commission. EPA (2009). Emission Inventory. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (2009). Impacts of Shipping Emissions on Air Quality, Health and the Environment. Washington, DC, Environmental Protection Agency. EPA (2009). Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulfur Oxides and Particulate Matter Technical Support Document. Washington, DC, United States Environmental Protection Agency. Eyring, V., J. J. Corbett, et al. (2007). Brief summary of the impact of ship emissions on atmospheric composition, climate, and human health, Health and Environment sub-group of the International Maritime Organization. Eyring, V., I. S. A. Isaksen, et al. (2009). "Transport Impacts on Atmosphere and Climate: Shipping." Atmospheric Environment. Folinsbee, L. J. (1993). "Human health effects of air pollution." Environmental Health Perspective 100: 45-56. Fuglestvedt, J., K. Shine, et al. (2009). "Transport Impacts on Atmosphere and Climate: Metric." Environmental Science & Policy. Gillett, N. P., M. F. Wehner, et al. (2004). "Testing the linearity of the response to combined greenhouse gas and sulfate aerosol forcing." GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS 31. 18

Hansen, J., M. Sato, et al. (2000). "Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(9875). IMO (2009). Proposal to Designate an Emission Control Area for Nitrogen Oxides, Sulphur Oxides and Particulate Matter submitted by United States and Canada. Longdon, MEPC 59. IPCC (1995). The Second Assessment Report: Climate Change 1995, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC (2001). Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press. IPCC (2001). IPCC, Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. T. Banuri, T. Barker, I. Bashmakowet al. Geneva, IPCC Secretariat. Kat, J. O., B. Cerup-Simonsen, et al. (2009). An Integrated Approach towards CostEffective Operation of Ships with Reduced GHG Emissions. SNAME Annual Meeting Rhode Island. KIRKEVG, A., T. Iversen, et al. (2008). "On the additivity of climate response to anthropogenic aerosols and CO2, and the enhancement of future global warming by carbonaceous aerosols." Tellus A 60(22): 513-527. Kloster, S., F. Dentener, et al. (2009). "A GCM Study of future climate response to aerosol pollution reduction." Climate Dynamics. Lack, D., J. J. Corbett, et al. (2009). "Particulate emissions from commercial shipping: Chemical, physical, and optical properties." Journal of Geophysical Research 14(D3). Pacala, S. and R. Socolow (2004). "Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies " Science 305(5686): 968-972. Sax, T. and A. Alexis (2007). A Critical Review of Ocean-Going Vessel Particulate Matter: Emission Factors. Sacramento, California Air Resource Board. Shindell, D. and G. Faluvegi (2009). "Climate Response to regional radiative forcing during the twentieth century." Nature Geoscience 2: 294-297. Shindell, D., H. Levy, et al. (2008). "Multimodel projections of climate change from shortlived emissions due to human activities." Journal of Geophysical Research 113. Shine, K., T. Bernsten, et al. (2005). "Alternatives to the Global Warming Potential for Comparing Climate Impacts of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases." Climate Change 68: 281-302. Smith, S. and T. Wigley (2000). "Global Warming Potentials: Climatic implications of emissions reduction." Climate Change 44(4): 445-457. Stuber, N., M. Ponater, et al. (2001). "Is the climate sensitivity to ozone perturbation enhanced by stratospheric water." Geophys. Res. Lett 28(5): 28872890. U.S. (2000). Climate Action Report: Submission of the United States of America under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Washington DC, State Department. Wang, H., D. Liu, et al. (2009). "Review of maritime transportation air emission pollution and policy analysis " Journal of Ocean University of China 8(3): 283-290. Winebrake, J. J., J. J. Corbett, et al. (2009). "Mitigating the Health Impacts of Pollution from Oceangoing Shipping: An Assessment of Low-Sulfur Fuel Mandates." Environmental Science & Technology 43(13): 4776-4782.

19

20

Appendix
Table 6 shows the GWP and GTP coefficients for GHG from ships. The number is from selective literatures (Collins et al, 2002, Derwent et al, 2008 and Fuglestvedt et al, 2009). Since GWP and GTP use different methodologies, they are not directly comparable.
Table 6 GTP and GWP of some GHG

GHGs CO2 VOC CH4 BC CO N2O H=20 1 14 72 1600 7.50 289

GWP H=100 1 4.5 25 460 2.53 298

H=500 1 1.4 7.6 140 0.77 153

H=20 1 14 57 470 4.6 303

GTP H=50 1 4.5 12 77 1.1 322

H=100 1 1.4 4 64 0.4 265

21