Costs and benefits of low-sulphur fuel standard for Baltic Sea shipping

被引：46

作者：

Antturi, Jim ^{[1
,5
]}

Hanninen, Otto ^{[2
]}

Jalkanen, Jukka-Pekka ^{[3
]}

Johansson, Lasse ^{[3
]}

Prank, Marje ^{[4
]}

Sofiev, Mikhail ^{[4
]}

Ollikainen, Markku ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Helsinki, Dept Econ & Management, Latokartanonkaari 7,POB 27, FI-00014 Helsinki, Finland

[2] Natl Inst Hlth & Welf, THL Hlth Protect, POB 95, FI-70701 Kuopio, Finland

[3] Finnish Meteorol Inst, Erik Palmenin Aukio 1,POB 503, FI-00101 Helsinki, Finland

[4] Finnish Meteorol Inst, Erik Palmenin Aukio 1, Helsinki 00560, Finland

[5] Finnish Forest Ind Federat, Snellmaninkatu 13,POB 336, FI-00171 Helsinki, Finland

来源：

JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT | 2016年 / 184卷

关键词：

Sulphur Directive; Cost-benefit analysis; Particulate matter; Health impacts; Shipping; PARTICULATE MATTER; EXHAUST EMISSIONS; AIR-POLLUTION; MODEL; MORTALITY; QUALITY; DISEASE; BURDEN; EUROPE; IMPACT;

D O I：

10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.09.064

中图分类号：

X [环境科学、安全科学];

学科分类号：

08 ; 0830 ;

摘要：

The maximum allowable fuel sulphur content for shipping in the Baltic Sea dropped from 1%S to 0.1%S in 1 January 2015. We provide a cost-benefit analysis of the sulphur reduction policy in the Baltic Sea Sulphur Emission Control Area (SECA). We calculated the abatement costs based on shipowners' optimal decision-making in choosing between low-sulphur fuel and a sulphur scrubber, and the benefits were modelled through a high-resolution impact pathway analysis, which took into account the formation and dispersion of the emissions, and considered the positive health impacts resulting from lowered ambient PM2.5 concentrations. Our basic result indicates that for the Baltic Sea only, the latest sulphur regulation is not cost-effective. The expected annual cost is roughly 465 M and benefit 2200 saved Disability Adjusted Life-Years (DALYs) or monetized (sic)105 M. Based on our sensitivity analysis, the benefits yet have a potential to exceed the costs. The analysis neither takes into account the acidifying impact of sulphur nor the impact North Sea shipping has on the cost-benefit ratio. Lastly, a similar approach is found highly recommendable to study the implications of the upcoming Tier III NOR standard for shipping. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

引用

页码：431 / 440

页数：10

共 29 条

[1]

[Anonymous], GLOB HLTH EST 2012 S

[2]

[Anonymous], EUROPEAN EMISSION BA

[3]

[Anonymous], THL REPORTS

[4]

[Anonymous], BUNK PRIC ROTT

[5]

[Anonymous], BALTIC TRANSPORT OUT

[6]

[Anonymous], ASSESSMENT REPORT AI

[7]

Bacher H., 2013, EVALUATING COSTS ARI

[8]

Boardman A.E., 2014, COST BENEFIT ANAL CO

[9] Assessment of past, present and future health-cost externalities of air pollution in Europe and the contribution from international ship traffic using the EVA model system [J].

Brandt, J. ;

Silver, J. D. ;

Christensen, J. H. ;

Andersen, M. S. ;

Bonlokke, J. H. ;

Sigsgaard, T. ;

Geels, C. ;

Gross, A. ;

Hansen, A. B. ;

Hansen, K. M. ;

Hedegaard, G. B. ;

Kaas, E. ;

Frohn, L. M. .

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS, 2013, 13 (15) :7747-7764

[10] The mortality effect of ship-related fine particulate matter in the Sydney greater metropolitan region of NSW, Australia [J].

Broome, Richard A. ;

Cope, Martin E. ;

Goldsworthy, Brett ;

Goldsworthy, Laurie ;

Emmerson, Kathryn ;

Jegasothy, Edward ;

Morgan, Geoffrey G. .

ENVIRONMENT INTERNATIONAL, 2016, 87 :85-93

← 1 2 3 →