世界最大的赌博app|欢迎您

<p id="fcf6z"><tbody id="fcf6z"></tbody></p><p id="fcf6z"><form id="fcf6z"></form></p>

  • <table id="fcf6z"></table>
      <p id="fcf6z"></p>

          Clear The Air Ships Air Pollution Blog Rotating Header Image

          March, 2013:

          Marine diesel must be 10 times cleaner by 2014

          Saturday, 23 March, 2013, 12:00am

          News?Hong Kong

          ENVIRONMENT

          Cheung Chi-fai chifai.cheung@scmp.com

          Around 15,000 vessels would switch to diesel with 10 times less sulphur under proposed rules

          Over 15,000 diesel-powered vessels could be forced to use fuel with 90 per cent less sulphur, after a trial found the cleaner alternative had no impact on vessels’ mechanics or consumption, under a government proposal.

          However, some operators fear that the cleaner diesel will push up their running costs – despite government assurances to the contrary.

          The proposal will be tabled to the legislature this year and will force operators of vessels, including ferries, high speed boats, barges, tug boats and cross border vessels, to use diesel containing no more than 0.05 per cent sulphur from 2014.

          The cap is 10 times stricter than the current 0.5 per cent limit on sulphur in marine diesel.

          However, the upgraded fuel still has 50 times more sulphur than the Euro V diesel being used for road transport. That diesel only has 0.001 per cent sulphur.

          In a paper submitted to lawmakers yesterday, environment officials said a trial completed in January this year found the cleaner fuel would not damage older engines.

          The trial, conducted by University of Hong Kong specialists, also confirmed there was no significant change in fuel consumption or power output after the switch.

          Officials said there would not be a substantial difference in costs, as their most updated figures showed the low sulphur diesel was just seven cents per litre more expensive.

          They quoted oil companies’ forecasts that the price differential could be even narrower in the future.

          Johnny Leung Tak-hing, general manager of Star Ferry, however, remained sceptical over the fuel costs. “The industry is worried whether the seven cents difference is true or not … we hope the government can give us more guarantees and data to support their claims,” he said.

          Leung said the government had also tested local vessels on ultra low sulphur diesel, which had a sulphur content of 0.005 per cent in 2001 but concluded that it was too expensive. The government at that time pledged the ultra-low-sulphur diesel would cost just 20 cents more per litre, but the difference rose to around HK$1 eventually, he said.

          Officials said the fuel market was a free one and there was nothing the government could do to control price setting.

          Leung also said some diesel vessel operators also wanted the government to subsidise them replacing old engines.

          “The road transport operators are given subsidies to replace their vehicles. But we have got not even a single cent,” he said.

          The Environmental Protection Department estimated that the switch could reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by 3,219 tonnes a year, representing a 19 per cent reduction of the marine sector’s total emissions in 2011.

          The marine sector, including ocean-going vessels, has overtaken power plants as the largest source of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and respirable suspended particles.

          Topics:

          Marine diesel

          sulphur


          Source URL (retrieved on Mar 23rd 2013, 6:46am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1197457/marine-diesel-must-be-10-times-cleaner-2014

          Switch to cleaner fuel to much cleaner air: think tank

          Submitted by admin on Mar 6th 2013, 12:00am

          News?Hong Kong

          MARINE POLLUTION

          Keith Wallis keith.wallis@scmp.com

          Noxious exhaust emissions from cruise ships calling at the city will be cut significantly if the vessels switch to using low-sulphur fuel or shore power, local think tank Civic Exchange says.

          Simon Ng Ka-wing, the centre’s head of transport and sustainable research, said there would have been a 71 per cent cut in sulphur dioxide emissions last year if the 2,185 cruise ships that called at Hong Kong had used low-sulphur fuel instead of the dirtier marine bunker fuel. Particulate matter emissions would have fallen by 60 per cent, he said.

          Low-sulphur fuel has a sulphur content of 0.5 to 1 per cent, compared with bunker fuel’s 4.5 per cent.

          Based on the 16 cruise ships booked to berth at the Kai Tak cruise terminal between June and April 2014, Ng said, sulphur dioxide emissions would be reduced by 83 per cent and particulate matter by 78 per cent if the vessels used cleaner diesel.

          But if they did not, they would emit 43 tonnes of sulphur, 44 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide and 5 tonnes of particulate matter in just this year alone, he said.

          Industry sources, however, argue that the vessels calling at Kai Tak in the first year will account for less than 0.4 per cent of the city’s total marine emissions. This included pollution caused by container ships, tankers, river trade vessels, ferries and pleasure craft, they said.

          “There would be a very substantial improvement by switching to low-sulphur diesel at berth,” Ng said. This would benefit residents in the pollution hotspots of Tsim Sha Tsui, Hung Hom and Kowloon Bay, where most cruise ships currently moor.

          Another option, Ng said, was to use shore power, which was more suitable at Kai Tak where there was space to install the equipment rather than at Ocean Terminal. But more research had to be done to see if shore power was cheaper and environmentally beneficial than low-sulphur diesel, he said.

          Civic Exchange hosted a workshop yesterday that attracted about 20 cruise and shipping industry representatives to brief the sector about its cruise ship emissions report.

          Ng said the paper was “a first step to engage the cruise industry in Hong Kong”. “By speaking directly to the cruise industry, we shall learn more about … what their major concerns are about government control and regulation,” he said.

          Topics:

          Marine pollution

          Civic Exchange

          Cruise Ships


          Source URL (retrieved on Mar 6th 2013, 5:51am): http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1180397/switch-cleaner-fuel-much-cleaner-air-think-tank

          Ship emissions an afterthought at Hong Kong cruise terminal

          http://www.maritimeprofessional.com/Blogs/Far-East-Maritime/March-2013/Ship-emissions-an-afterthought-at-Hong-Kong-cruise.aspx

          Ship emissions an afterthought at Hong Kong cruise terminal

          by Greg Knowler

          Mar 06, 2013, 9:54PM EST

          It hardly comes as a surprise to learn that curbing ship emissions at Hong Kong’s new cruise terminal is not regarded as a priority by the Tourism Board.

          When it comes to infrastructure projects in Hong Kong, environmental concerns are rarely allowed to stand in the way. The grossly wasteful and pointless Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau bridge is a case in point, and we do not have the slightest doubt that the airport’s third runway will go ahead regardless of the cost to taxpayers or the cacophony of protest from green groups.

          But we were astounded to see a report by local think tank Civic Exchange that warned of significant ship emissions in the six months after the terminal opens. Cruise ships using its two berths will emit 43 tonnes of sulphur, 44 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide and five tonnes of particulate matter.

          Okay, in terms of the marine emissions by container ships and the enormous volume of Pearl River delta traffic in Hong Kong waters such as river trade vessels, tankers and pleasure craft, the cruise terminal’s contribution to the total will be relatively minor.

          However, the Civic Exchange report goes on to say the emissions from ships using the cruise terminal can be cut by more than 80 percent if the vessels switch to low sulphur fuel while in port, or even plug in to berth-based electrical power while alongside.

          That sounds reasonable and a good idea. Our question is why wasn’t that covered in the environmental impact process before the project was given the go ahead? Why is it that only now, three months before the terminal’s two berths are scheduled to open, these emissions-curbing “options” are being mentioned?

          Newspapers reported that the cruise industry is “mulling the feasibility” of introducing low sulphur fuel or onshore power. They are understandably concerned over the costs of adopting a low emissions strategy, and in the absence of legislation forcing shipping to use low sulphur fuel while in port, you can bet the cruise operators will do nothing about it.

          The cruise terminal was approved by the former administration of Donald Tsang, a disastrous five-year period in the territory’s history that will be remembered for its profligate infrastructure projects plugged into the public purse.

          Still, if the current bunch of clowns running Hong Kong had any testicular fortitude they would ram through mandatory regulation that all vessels switch to low sulphur fuel while at berth, regardless of the cost to shipping.

          So far about 570 ships have registered for the Fair Winds Charter, a voluntary scheme to use low sulphur fuel to reduce ship emissions while alongside in Hong Kong. But they have warned that if there is no regulation in place by the end of the year, they will go back to burning the dirty stuff.

          Voluntary doesn’t work in business, at least not for long when it is costing shipping companies US$1.5 million a year to use the low emission fuel in port. Make it compulsory or laugh it off.

          There are signs that the government is paying more than lip service to environmental protection, but it remains to be seen if this administration puts a higher priority on public health than the previous one.

          Ship Pollution Patterns Tracked From Space

          http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=80375

          http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/80000/80375/globalno2_omi_2012_lrg.jpg

          For more than a decade, scientists have observed “ship tracks”in natural-color satellite imagery of the ocean. These bright, linear trails amidst the cloud layers are created by particles and gases from ships. They are a visible manifestation of pollution from ship exhaust, and scientists can now see that ships have a more subtle, almost invisible, signature as well.

          Data from the Dutch and Finnish-built Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s Aura satellite show long tracks of elevated nitrogen dioxide (NO2) levels along certain shipping routes. NO2, is among a group of highly-reactive oxides of nitrogen, known as NOx, that can lead to the production of fine particles and ozone that damage the human cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Combustion engines, such as those that propel ships and motor vehicles, are a major source of NO2 pollution.

          The map above is based on OMI measurements acquired between 2005 and 2012. The NO2 signal is most prominent in an Indian Ocean shipping lane between Sri Lanka and Singapore, appearing as a distinct orange line against (lighter) background levels of NO2. Other shipping lanes that run through the Gulf of Aden, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea also show elevated NO2 levels, as do routes from Singapore to points in China. These aren’t the only busy shipping lanes in the world, but they are the most apparent because ship traffic is concentrated along narrow, well-established lanes.

          The Atlantic and Pacific Oceans also have heavy ship traffic, but OMI doesn’t pick up NO2 pollution tracks because the shipping routes are less consistent. The shapes of landmasses force ships into narrow paths in the Indian Ocean, while ships in the Atlantic and Pacific tend to spread out over a broad areas as they navigate around storms.

          In addition, the air over the northeastern Indian Ocean is relatively pristine. Heavy NO2 pollution (dark red in the map) from cities and off-shore drilling activity along the coasts of China, Europe, and the United States obscures the ship tracks that might otherwise be visible to OMI. In the map, the Arctic is gray because the lack of light during the winter and frequent cloudiness during the summer prevented OMI from collecting usable data in the area.

          Urban areas and industrialization aren’t the only source of NO2 in the map. Agricultural burning in southern Africa and persistent westerly winds make an elevated band of NO2 that stretches from southern Africa to Australia. (In central Africa, easterly winds push pollutants from fires toward the Atlantic, keeping NO2 levels comparatively low over the northern Indian Ocean.) Lightning, which produces NOx, also contributes to background NO2 levels.

          Just how much shipping contributes to overall NOx emissions remains an open question for scientists. Research suggests that shipping accounts for 15 to 30 percent of global NOx emissions; scientists are using satellite observations to reduce the uncertainty in such estimates.

          OMI is not the only satellite instrument observing NO2 levels in the atmosphere. The Global Ozone Monitoring Experiment (GOME) instruments on the European Space Agency’s ERS-2 and MetOp-A satellites, as well as the SCIAMACHY instrument on the Envisat satellite, have made similar measurements. In 2012, Dutch scientists published a study combining data from all four instruments to show that the NO2 signal over major shipping increased steadily between 2003 and 2008, then dropped sharply due to the global recession and reduction in ship traffic.

          NASA Earth Observatory image by Jesse Allen, using OMI NO2 data provided courtesy of Lok Lamsal, Aura Project Science Office. Caption by Adam Voiland, with information from Nickolay Krotkov, Anne Thompson, Geert Vinken, and Folkert Boersma.

          Instrument:

          Aura – OMI

          Ship Pollution Patterns Tracked From Space

          Feb 14, 2013 11:39 AM ET // by Christina Reed http://news.discovery.com/earth/oceans/ship-pollution-patterns-tracked-from-space-130214.htm

          City pollution from cars smogging your view? Have a look at the coastal pollution in the map shown above. It’s not an atmospheric pollutant that you can see with your naked eye, but its presence can lead to cardiovascular and respiratory problems in humans.

          What is it? Nitrogen dioxide (NO2), which in elevated amounts lead to unhealthy levels of nitrogen oxides (NOx), fine particles, and ozone in the air we breath.

          Just what is causing this red alert pattern along the coasts? That’s the rub, it’s a combination of city pollution, off-shore drilling, and ship traffic.

          Ships and airplanes can both leave whispy cloud tracks called “contrails” in the air that are easily seen from space.

          Shaving Cream Prank or Ship Tracks?

          But the specific amount of NO2 that ships release near the coasts gets lost among the other emissions of nitrogen oxides from other pollution sources.

          Shipping is estimated to contribute 15 to 30 percent to the global NOx pollution. To test this, several satellites are monitoring atmospheric NO2 levels. This map shows the ocean and sea-based contribution of NO2 into the atmosphere from 2005 to 2012 as measured by a Dutch and Finnish-built Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) on NASA’s Aura satellite.

          Take a look at the difference between the hazy NO2 level drifting between southern Africa and Australia, the result of westerly winds blowing soot from fires in Africa across the Indian Ocean, and the distinct red line along the transoceanic shipping route between Sri Lanka and Singapore.

          Eight Unbelievable Cruise Ship Disasters

          Other areas of the ocean such as in the Pacific and the Atlantic have just as much shipping traffic, but the routes do not leave such a precise NO2 trail for the satellite to detect, because in those waters ships are often forced to skirt around storms.

          Earth and climate scientists work with maps like this one to help better evaluate the human contribution to atmospheric pollution.

          Slaughter of the seabirds: Polluting ship feared responsible for killing thousands of birds in Channel

          http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/english-channel-bird-deaths-polluting-1569607

          It is feared several thousand birds, mainly Guillemots, have become virtually paralysed after swimming into the ‘waxy’ substance in the Channel

          One of the injured seabirds

          One of the injured seabirds

          RSPCA/PA

          A rogue cargo ship is the likely cause of an environmental disaster that has left hundreds of birds dead after it flushed a glue-like pollutant into the sea, it was claimed today.

          Officials from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency are awaiting the results of urgent tests to establish what the mystery substance is before launching a hunt for an offending vessel.

          The MCA meanwhile launched a pollution surveillance aircraft to survey the English Channel while the Royal Navy and RAF were on standby to help.

          Experts said the leading theory for the cause of the pollution is that an oil residue was illegally flushed from a ship’s cargo tanks out at sea to save the time or costs of emptying it in port.

          It was feared several thousand birds, mainly Guillemots, have become virtually paralysed after swimming into the ‘waxy’ substance in the Channel.

          The substance, believed to be palm oil, has glued the birds’ feathers and wings together, preventing them from flying.

          There are also mounting fears that a 25,000-strong population of Auks off the Dorset coast may perish in the ‘ecocide’.

          Over the last 48 hours hundreds of seabirds have been washed ashore on beaches in West Sussex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Dorset, Devon and Cornwall.

          Wildlife experts have so far rescued more than 250 birds alive but as time goes by it is feared the majority of birds now found will be dead.

          Because they are unable to take off or preen themselves, the creatures are at grave risk of freezing to death as they are washed onto the windswept beaches.

          One of the injured seabirds

          One of the injured seabirds

          RSPCA/PA

          Chris Packham, presenter of BBC’s Springwatch and Autumnwatch, said: “What’s particularly frightening is that hundreds have been picked up on the beach, there could be very many more which have died and been lost at sea.

          “The birds that have been found up until now are probably the tip if the iceberg. There could be thousands out there that have died in this.”

          Dr Simon Boxall, an oceanographer at the University of Southampton, said: “The substance has the right characteristics to be palm oil.

          “We move a lot of it around the world and transport it in tens of thousands of tonnes at a time.

          “The fact this has affected such a wide area implies there is a reasonably large amount in the sea which is moving up the Channel and implies there has been a spill.

          “It is likely a ship has delivered some palm oil but needed to deposit residue from the tanks.

          “It takes time to do so and costs money so a few rogue ships have been known to flush out its tanks in the open sea, which can be several hundred tonnes.

          “Each ship has identification saying where it is has come from, going to, and what cargo it is carrying, so the authorities could narrow this down to half a dozen ships.”

          Although the majority of the birds affected are guillemots as they spend most of their life on the surface of the sea, other species that have been coated in the substance have been razorbills, kittiwakes, egrets and a baby puffin.

          Most of the rescued birds have been recovered along a 25 mile section of coast at Chesil Beach and the Isle of Portland in Dorset.

          More than 120 of them have been taken to an RSPCA centre to be cleaned using a mixture of water and margarine but at least 50 were found dead.

          Nearly 100 birds have been rescued from beaches in Torquay, Brixham, Teignmouth and Salcombe in Devon.

          Mark Smith, of the Dorset Wildlife Trust, has been leading an army of 18 staff in the search for birds along Chesil Beach.

          He said: “There are 25,000 auks off Dorset so the potential number of birds involved in this could be huge.

          “This is potentially quite a big environmental disaster.

          “Unfortunately as time goes by the proportion of birds that we are find are dead than alive.

          “Whatever the substance is, it feels like a very sticky glue that has clumped the feathers together.

          “The birds are left almost paralysed. They can’t fly or preen themselves and just go along with the tide and winds until they hit the shore.

          “We have found many birds stuck to the pebbles on the beach while others have pebbles stuck to their feathers.

          “Most of the dead ones have frozen to death from where they have been unable to dry their feathers and then exposed to cold winds while stranded on the beach.”

          The Environment Agency is currently testing a sample of the substance in order to confirm exactly what it is and, potentially, where it came from.

          Fred Caygill, spokesman for the MCA, said: ”Ships do clean their tanks at sea.

          “In some cases it can be done legitimately and in other cases it can breach the maritime pollution regulations.

          “We will continue to monitor this situation and await the results of the analysis of the product before we respond.”

          How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world | Mail Online

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

          How 16 ships create as much pollution as all the cars in the world

          By Fred Pearce
          UPDATED:22:13 GMT, 21 November 2009

          Fred Pearce

          Eco expert: Fred Pearce is an environmental consultant to New Scientist magazine

          Last week it was revealed that 54 oil tankers are anchored off the coast of Britain, refusing to unload their fuel until prices have risen.

          But that is not the only scandal in the shipping world. Today award-winning science writer Fred Pearce – environmental consultant to New Scientist and author of Confessions Of An Eco Sinner – reveals that the super-ships that keep the West in everything from Christmas gifts to computers pump out killer chemicals linked to thousands of deaths because of the filthy fuel they use.

          We’ve all noticed it. The filthy black smoke kicked out by funnels on cross-Channel ferries, cruise liners, container ships, oil tankers and even tugboats.

          It looks foul, and leaves a brown haze across ports and shipping lanes. But what hasn’t been clear until now is that it is also a major killer, probably causing thousands of deaths in Britain alone.

          As ships get bigger, the pollution is getting worse. The most staggering statistic of all is that just 16 of the world’s largest ships can produce as much lung-clogging sulphur pollution as all the world’s cars.

          Because of their colossal engines, each as heavy as a small ship, these super-vessels use as much fuel as small power stations.

          But, unlike power stations or cars, they can burn the cheapest, filthiest, high-sulphur fuel: the thick residues left behind in refineries after the lighter liquids have been taken. The stuff nobody on land is allowed to use.

          Thanks to decisions taken in London by the body that polices world shipping, this pollution could kill as many as a million more people in the coming decade – even though a simple change in the rules could stop it.

          There are now an estimated 100,000 ships on the seas, and the fleet is growing fast as goods are ferried in vast quantities from Asian industrial powerhouses to consumers in Europe and North America.

          The recession has barely dented the trade. This Christmas, most of our presents will have come by super-ship from the Far East; ships such as the Emma Maersk and her seven sisters Evelyn, Eugen, Estelle, Ebba, Eleonora, Elly and Edith Maersk.

          Each is a quarter of a mile long and can carry up to 14,000 full-size containers on their regular routes from China to Europe.

          Tankers moored at Lyme Bay, Devon

          Waiting game: Tankers moored off Devon waiting for oil prices to rise even further

          Emma – dubbed SS Santa by the media – brought Christmas presents to Europe in October and is now en route from Algeciras in Spain to Yantian in southern China, carrying containers full of our waste paper, plastic and electronics for recycling.

          But it burns marine heavy fuel, or ‘bunker fuel’, which leaves behind a trail of potentially lethal chemicals: sulphur and smoke that have been linked to breathing problems, inflammation, cancer and heart disease.

          James Corbett, of the University of Delaware, is an authority on ship emissions. He calculates a worldwide death toll of about 64,000 a year, of which 27,000 are in Europe. Britain is one of the worst-hit countries, with about 2,000 deaths from funnel fumes. Corbett predicts the global figure will rise to 87,000 deaths a year by 2012.

          Part of the blame for this international scandal lies close to home.

          In London, on the south bank of the Thames looking across at the Houses of Parliament, is the International Maritime Organisation, the UN body that polices the world’s shipping.

          For decades, the IMO has rebuffed calls to clean up ship pollution. As a result, while it has long since been illegal to belch black, sulphur-laden smoke from power-station chimneys or lorry exhausts, shipping has kept its licence to pollute.

          For 31 years, the IMO has operated a policy agreed by the 169 governments that make up the organisation which allows most ships to burn bunker fuel.

          Christian Eyde Moller, boss of the DK shipping company in Rotterdam, recently described this as ‘just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It’s tar, the same as asphalt. It’s the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world’.

          Bunker fuel is also thick with sulphur. IMO rules allow ships to burn fuel containing up to 4.5 per cent sulphur. That is 4,500 times more than is allowed in car fuel in
          the European Union. The sulphur comes out of ship funnels as tiny particles, and it is these that get deep into lungs.

          Thanks to the IMO’s rules, the largest ships can each emit as much as 5,000 tons of sulphur in a year – the same as 50million typical cars, each emitting an average of 100 grams of sulphur a year.

          With an estimated 800million cars driving around the planet, that means 16 super-ships can emit as much sulphur as the world fleet of cars.

          Enlarge

          Fleet Routes

          A year ago, the IMO belatedly decided to clean up its act. It said shipping fuel should not contain more than 3.5 per cent sulphur by 2012 and eventually must come down to 0.5 per cent. This lower figure could halve the deaths, says Corbett.

          It should not be hard to do. There is no reason ship engines cannot run on clean fuel, like cars. But, away from a handful of low-sulphur zones, including the English Channel and North Sea, the IMO gave shipping lines a staggering 12 years to make the switch. And, even then, it will depend on a final ‘feasibility review’ in 2018.

          In the meantime, according to Corbett’s figures, nearly one million more people will die.

          Smoke and sulphur are not the only threats from ships’ funnels. Every year they are also belching out almost one billion tons of carbon dioxide. Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft – but have had much less attention from environmentalists.

          Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol rules on cutting carbon emissions. But green pressure is having its effect on airlines. Ahead of next month’s Copenhagen climate talks, airlines have promised to cut emissions by 50 per cent by 2050.

          But shipping companies are keeping their heads down. A meeting of the IMO in July threw out proposals from the British Chamber of Shipping, among others, to set up a
          carbon-trading scheme to encourage emissions reductions.

          Amazingly, they pleaded poverty. Two-thirds of the world’s ships are registered in developing countries such as Panama. These are just flags of convenience, to evade tougher rules on safety and pay for sailors.

          But at the IMO, governments successfully argued that ships from developing countries should not have to cut carbon emissions. IMO secretary-general Efthimios Mitropoulos insisted: ‘We are heavily and consistently engaged in the fight to protect and preserve our environment.’ Yet without limits, carbon emissions from shipping could triple by 2050.

          The failure brought calls for the IMO to be stripped of its powers to control the world’s ships. Colin Whybrow, of Greenwave, a British charity set up to campaign for cleaner shipping, says: ‘The IMO is drinking in the last-chance saloon.’

          Burning low-sulphur fuel won’t cut carbon emissions from ships. But there are other ways. More efficient engines could reduce emissions by 30 per cent, according to British marine consultant Robin Meech.

          Cutting speed could reduce emissions by as much again. And there are even wackier ways, such as putting up giant kites to harness the wind as in the days of sailing ships.

          However you look at it, the super-ships are rogues on the high seas, operating under pollution standards long since banished on land; warming the planet and killing its inhabitants. Santa’s sleigh, they are not.

          • Robert Pedersen, of Maersk, said: ‘The sulphur content varies according to where you get your fuel. Our average sulphur content is, I believe, 2.5 per cent. It’s rather rare you get anything close to 4.5 per cent.’ He added that ‘the sulphur issue is one for the whole industry’ and that there would be a ‘huge cost implication’ to switch to cleaner fuel.

          Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html#ixzz2MfeqpweH
          Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

          Ship pollution

          Ship pollution links

          1. Air pollution from ships

          Ships pour out large quantities of pollutants into the air, principally in the … oxides and particulate matter (PM). The emissions from ships engaged in international trade in the seas surrounding Europe – the … in October 2008 For details see Air Pollution from Ships (pdf, 980 kB). Control measures There are however available …

          Basic page – kajsa – Wed, 2013-02-06 11:04

          2. Ships pollute half as much as world’s cars

          … a significant health concern. Globally, commercial ships emit almost half as much particulate pollution into the air as the … measurements of emissions, it is estimated that worldwide, ships emit 900,000 tonnes of particulate matter (PM) pollution each year. …

          Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-02-28 10:50

          3. Make ships pay for their NOx emissions

          … (NOx) are a cause of major environmental problems, and ships account for a large and growing share of these emissions. In spite of the somewhat strengthened emission standards for new ships adopted in 2008 by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), NOx …

          Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-02-28 09:56

          4. Energy efficiency standards for new ships

          … an Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) regulation for new ships. The EEDI will require new ships to meet a minimum level of energy efficiency: ships built between 2015 …

          Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-07-10 14:54

          5. Particle filters on inland ships

          … 2010, particle filters have been mandatory for all new ships and, wherever feasible and economically viable for the existing fleet. ZSG reports that the material costs for the equipment of its ships amounted to around CHF1.3 million, and that installation takes up to 20 …

          Acid news – kajsa – Tue, 2012-07-10 14:52

          6. No IMO deal on fuel efficiency for ships

          … IMO to implement an Energy Efficient Design Index (EEDI) for ships was blocked by several developing countries at a meeting of the IMO’s … will benefit just as m uch as developed countries from ships that use less fuel.” Source: T&E press release 4 October 2010. …

          Acid news – kajsa – Mon, 2012-03-05 13:31

          7. Several options for cutting ships’ emissions

          … and methodologies available to estimate air emissions from ships, the JRC concludes that limited availability of data on shipping … ?gren The report “Regulating air emissions from ships: the state of the art on methodologies, technologies and policy options”, …

          Acid news – kajsa – Thu, 2012-03-08 17:07

          8. Air pollution from ships

          Publications – kajsa – Thu, 2012-02-09 11:15

          9. Air pollution from ships

          … environmental NGOs. Air pollution from ships_Nov_2011.pdf …

          Publications – kajsa – Mon, 2012-02-20 17:29

          10.Appropriate standards to reduce air pollution from ships

          … IMO_Appropriate_standards_to_reduce_air_pollution_from_ships.pdf …

          Publications – kajsa – Thu, 2012-04-26 11:36

          Japan preparing for ECA application | Airclim

          http://www.airclim.org/acidnews/2010/AN4-10/japan-preparing-eca-applicat
          ion

          Japan preparing for ECA application

          Japan is planning to submit an application to the International Maritime
          Organization (IMO) for an emission control area (ECA). Currently three
          different options are being considered, ranging from localised
          “micro-ECAs” to a comprehensive ECA similar to that adopted for North
          America.

          The “micro-ECAs” would introduce strict emission limits in waters around
          some of the most densely populated areas with a high volume of shipping
          traffic, such as Tokyo and Osaka Bay. The two other options are a 200
          nautical mile (nm) or a 50 nm ECA zone in the coastal waters around
          Japan. An assessment of costs and benefits is currently underway for the
          different options.

          世界最大的赌博app