1.
CLEANER SHIPPING
– focus on air pollution, technology
and regulation

2.
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: www.ecocouncil.dk
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
info@ecocouncil.dk
www.ecocouncil.dk

3.
About 90 percent of the global cargo is transported
by ships and shipping is thereby the platform of the
increasing global trade. However, shipping emits
about 3 percent of the global CO2-emission and is
thereby contributing significantly to global warm-
ing.
The majority of shipping uses bunker oil (heavy fuel
oil) as fuel. The sulphur content in bunker oil can be
as high as 4.5 percent. In special SECA-areas
(Sulphur Emission Control Areas), including the Baltic
Sea and Danish inland waters, a maximum of 1 per-
cent sulphur content is allowed. For comparison, the
sulphur content of diesel oil is 0.001 percent.
Consequently, the bunker oil used by these ships
can contain 1,000 times more sulphur than cars
crossing the bridge between Denmark and Sweden.
When burned, carbon and sulphur in the bunker oil
is oxidised to CO2 and sulphur oxides (mainly sul-
phur dioxide, SO2). At the same time, the content of
nitrogen (N2) in the combustion air is oxidized to
nitrogen oxides (NOX) in the engine of the ship.
However, a complete combustion does not occur.
Consequently, flue gas from ships contains carbon
monoxide as well as vapours and particles consist-
ing of unburned oil composites. High sulphur con-
tent also increases the amount of particles in the
flue gas. The most significant pollution composite
in regards to air pollution from shipping is CO2, SO2,
NOX and fine particles (PM2.5)
Combustion of bunker oil in ships thereby generates
the same pollution components as emitted from
vehicles, power plants, waste incineration etc.
However, most of the sulphur is removed from
diesel for land based transport and both SO2, NOX
and particles are effectively cleaned from the flue
gas from all larger power plants in Denmark. For
comparison, only a very weak pollution control is
implemented in regards to the flue gas from ships.
On top of the above mentioned air pollution, ultra-
fine particles (PM0.1) and carbon monoxide from
the flue gas could pose a risk for dock workers and
be a local air pollution problem for areas with many
cruise ships.
3
LUFTFORURENING FRA SKIBSFART
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 com-
busted at sea without any means of flue gas cleaning.

4.
Since SO2, NOX and particles can be transported
over large distances air pollution from shipping has
significant impact on environment and health.
According to Centre of Energy, Environment and
Health (CEEH) about 50,000 premature deaths and
socio-economic health costs of approx. 60 billion
euros per year are caused by air pollution from ship-
ping. On top of this is nature destruction.
Yearly around 100,000 ship passages occur in the
waters surrounding Denmark. Large container ships
only move 8-12 meters per litre bunker oil.
Consequently, huge amounts of bunker oil are
burned in Danish waters resulting in serious air pol-
lution. Air pollution with SO2 and NOX from ship-
ping in waters surrounding Denmark is larger than
pollution from Danish land based sources.
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
days of decreased activity due to illness in Denmark.
In Denmark the socio-economic costs are estimated
to about 0.5 million euros each year.
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.
Shipping also causes other serious environmental
challenges e.g. fauna pollution with invasive
species, the risk of oil spills, environmental issues
due to uncontrolled ship dumping in third world
countries etc. However, these issues are not includ-
ed below since the focus is air pollution.
4
Kilde: Danmarks Rederiforening

5.
The significant pollution from shipping is mainly
due to the fact that shipping is international and
often occurs in international waters and is thereby
regulated by international legislation. The easy
reflagging of ships provides the opportunity to
freely choose under which flag ships are sailing. If
one nation tries to regulate shipping through
national environmental legislation shipowners can
just reflag their ships to nations with less strict
environmental legislation.
International shipping legislation is decided by the
shipping organisation of the UN: International
Maritime Organization (IMO). Theoretically, EU could
decide environmental regulation for ships using
ports in EU no matter which flag the ships have.
However, EU has not yet used this type of action.
Consequently, the member states of EU have to rely
on decisions in the IMO to enforce further regula-
tion (see page 25).
Only recently, the IMO have decided to reduce air
pollution from shipping. However, the decided regu-
lation (see page 20) is far from optimal from an
environmental point of view. The regulation can be
considered the best possible compromise between
the conflicting interests in the member nations of
the IMO.
Table 1 provides an overview of the most significant
air pollutants, adverse effects and externality health
costs in Europe from shipping in international
waters on the northern hemisphere.
5
ADVERSE EFFECTS
Table 1
Primary
CO2 SO2 NOX particles
Direct health effects X X X
Global warming X (X) 1)
Acidification of the oceans X (X) 2) (X) 2)
Acid rain in terrestrial ecosystems X X
Eutrophication X
Harmful secondary particles X X
Damage cost (Euro/kg pollutant) 3) – 4) 11.33 8.53 18.27
Damage costs (Euro/ton bunker oil) 5) – 680 597 27
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.

6.
Table 1 shows externality costs (based solely upon
health costs) from pollution with SO2, NOX and pri-
mary particles. Estimating an externality cost from
CO2 is far more complicated and seems impossible
for the time being since the direct, and especially
the indirect, consequences of global warming are
impossible to predict in details. One possible way is
only to focus upon the predicted direct conse-
quences of global warming i.e. reduced harvest, dis-
eases, climate refugees, building and reinforcement
of dikes, sewage systems etc. However, the indirect
consequences (massive changes of society as we
know it today) will probably dominate the costs of
global warming. Thereby it does not make much
sense to estimate a cost based upon the predicted
direct consequences.
Consequently, it is not possible to conclude whether
green house gasses or health effects caused by air
pollution from shipping is most important. Action
has to be taken to reduce all pollutants. The main
problem is that shipping does not pay the externali-
ty costs related to damage on health and nature
from air pollution. As seen from table 1, the overall
health externality costs related to combustion of 1
ton of bunker oil are approx. 1,300 euros. On top of
this comes nature damage and costs related to CO2
pollution. For comparison, the price of bunker oil is
approx. 450 euros per ton for shipping companies -
they only pay for the bunker oil and not for dam-
ages caused by pollution.
Figure 1 shows the emission of CO2 and SO2 in 2011
from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark dis-
tributed on different types of ships. It is clear that
the emission of SO2 from different types of ships
generally follows the trend of the CO2-emission. The
same trend is observed for NOX and particles since
all pollutants can be directly related to combustion
of bunker oil.
6
Figure 1
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
Cargo (Ro-Ro) 13 %
Container 26 %
Passenger (Ro-Ro) 32 %
Tanker 20 %
Other 3 %
Dry cargo 6 %
Cargo (Ro-Ro) 16 %
Container 20 %
Passenger (Ro-Ro) 33 %
Tanker 22 %
Other 2 %
Dry cargo 7 %

7.
Carbon dioxide
The global emission of CO2 from shipping is yearly
about 1 billion tons, contributing about 3 percent of
global emissions. But at the same time shipping
accounts for approx. 90 percent of global cargo trans-
port. However, CO2 emission from shipping is not
included in the Kyoto-protocol or any other interna-
tional regulation. Consequently, CO2 emission from
shipping is still not accounted or included in any
global agreements to reduce global warming. Danish
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
Danish climate accounting. On the other hand, the
emission of CO2 from international shipping to and
from Danish harbours would only add an emission of
2.5 million tons CO2 per year to the Danish emissions
and thereby increase the national CO2 emission by
approx. 5 percent.The CO2 emission from shipping in
the waters surrounding Denmark is about 7.8 million
tons CO2 per year and would thereby increase the
Danish CO2 emission by approx. 15 percent if included
in the national CO2 accounting. It is not obvious how
the emission of CO2 should be accounted but it is
important to include the shipping in international
agreements.Thereby the emission of CO2 will be
accounted which makes regulation of CO2 from ship-
ping possible. Besides global warming, the increasing
atmospheric concentration of CO2 increases acidifica-
tion of the oceans (carbonic acid, H2CO3) which has
lethal consequences for marine ecosystems e.g. the
unique and extremely species rich coral reefs.
Sulphur dioxide
The emission of SO2 from shipping in waters sur-
rounding Denmark is approx. 41,000 tons pr. year.
The emission is thereby four times larger than the
overall emission from land based Danish sources.
In the atmosphere most SO2 from the flue gas is
converted to sulphate (SO4
2-) e.g. by creation of sul-
phuric acid (H2SO4) which could create acid rain
and damage sensitive ecosystems. In addition, SO2
is a health hazardous gas. However, the primary
health effect related to SO2 from shipping is haz-
ardous secondary particles formed by atmospheric
reactions between SO2 and other pollutants (mainly
ammonia and organic compounds). The sulphur
content in bunker oil is included in an IMO agree-
ment. This will significantly decrease the sulphur
content towards 2020 (see page 20).
Figure 2 shows the estimated emissions of SO2 from
shipping in waters surrounding Denmark. The ships
routes are clearly pictured. The emissions of CO2,
NOX and particles follow the same pattern.
7
Figur 2: The emission of SO2 in 2011 from
shipping through waters surrounding
Denmark.
Reference: National Environmental Research
Institute of Denmark
Tonnes SO2

8.
Nitrogen oxides
Nitrogen oxides (NOX) from the flue gas mainly
consist of nitrogen monoxide (NO) and to lesser
extent of nitrogen dioxide (NO2). The emission of
NOX from shipping in water surrounding Denmark
is approx. 173,000 tons pr. year thus significantly
larger than the overall emission from Danish land
based sources. In the atmosphere NOX can be con-
verted to nitric acid (HNO3) which could create acid
rain and damage sensitive ecosystems.
Furthermore, NOX increases the formation of health
damaging ozone and a significant part of NO is con-
verted to health damaging NO2. However, NOX
from shipping mainly contributes to health effects
through hazardous secondary particles formed
through chemical reactions in the atmosphere
between NOX and other pollutants (primarily
ammonia and organic compounds). Finally, NOX can
be deposited in ecosystems and act as fertiliser thus
destroying the unique nature of the oligotrophic
ecosystems which are habitat for series of rare ani-
mals and plants. The emission of NOX from ship-
ping is regulated by an IMO agreement which limits
the emission of NOX from new ships (see page 20).
Particles
Primary particles (PM2.5) are emitted as particles
directly from the engine of the ships as unburned
bunker oil. This differ the primary particles from the
secondary particles, which is formed from e.g. SO2
and NOX through chemical reactions in the atmos-
phere after emission of the gasses.
The primary particles are health hazardous.
Furthermore, the particles can be transported to
Polar Regions, where black carbon particles deposit
on the inland ice. Consequently, the ice becomes
grey thus increasing the absorption of sunlight and
hereby accelerating the melting of the ice which
further increases the absorption of sunlight. Hence,
this is a self-perpetuating process. According to new
research it has been documented that black carbon
particles significantly facilitate the melting of ice
and temperature increases in Polar Regions.
Table 2 shows estimated emissions of SO2, NOX and
particles from the total international shipping in
the northern hemisphere and shipping in the North
Sea and the Baltic Sea in 2011. For comparison is
shown the emissions from shipping in waters sur-
rounding Denmark and emissions from Danish land
based sources of pollution.
8
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.
Table 2
Primary
SO2 NOX particles
The northern hemisphere (ton) 1,870,000 3,355,000 250,000
The North Sea and the Baltic Sea (ton) 205,000 955,000 20,000
Waters surrounding Denmark (ton) 41,000 173,000 4,000
Land based Danish sources (ton) 10,000 130,000 25,000

9.
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
hemisphere and in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
Table 3 shows that air pollution from shipping on
the northern hemisphere is causing approx. 3.3
times as many health damages in Europe as the
pollution in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
Furthermore, the table shows that air pollution
from shipping causes several hundred thousands
years of lost living and many millions of illness days
in Europe. Finally it is seen that air pollution from
shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea causes
around 75-80 percent of the total health damages
in Denmark from shipping.
9
Table 3
Shipping on/in: The northern hemisphere The North Sea and the Baltic Sea
Effects in: Denmark Europe Denmark Europe
Years of lost living 5,300 490,000 4,000 150,000
Cases of lung cancer 75 6,500 60 2,000
Number of respiratory illness 1) 327,500 27,500,000 257,600 8,425,000
Number of heart failure 35 2,750 25 870
Number of heart diseases 60 5,500 50 1,680
Illness days 2) 500,000 43,700,000 400,000 13,400,000
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.

10.
Table 4 shows the total socio-economic costs in
Europe due to health effects caused by air pollution
from shipping on the northern hemisphere and in
the North Sea and the Baltic Sea.
From table 4 it is clear that air pollution from ship-
ping yearly has gigantic socio-economic costs in
Europe. NOX pollution causes the greatest socio-
economic costs in relation to air pollution from
shipping. Furthermore, it is seen that pollution with
NOX constitute a relatively large part of the costs
from shipping in the North Sea and the Baltic Sea
compared to shipping in the northern hemisphere.
This is partly due to the lower sulphur content in
bunker oil in the Baltic Sea (and inner Danish
waters) which is regulated as a SECA-area (see page
20)
For comparison the socio-economic costs in
Denmark due to air pollution from shipping are
around 0.4 billion euros per year from shipping in
the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and 0.6 billion
euros per year from shipping in the northern
hemisphere. The health costs are (as expected)
dominated by shipping in the surrounding waters.
The overall cost from air pollution from land based
pollution sources in Denmark is 0.65 billion Euro per
year. Consequently, air pollution from shipping cau-
ses about the same damage in Denmark as the
total land based air pollution sources. However, in
this comparison the serious health
effects from ultrafine diesel particles
are not taken into account. The com-
parison should therefore be used
with care.
10
Table 4
Europe (billion euros) Total
SO2 NOX Primary particles (billion euros)
The northern hemisphere 21 28 4.6 53.6
The North Sea and the Baltic Sea 3.5 10 0.7 14.2
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.

11.
Climate winner but environmental loser
Compared to shipping, the emission from cargo
transport by train has 2-5 times higher CO2 emis-
sion per ton while cargo transport by truck has 5-15
times higher CO2 emission. Consequently, shipping
is a favourable transport in regards to global warm-
ing. However, shipping emits above hundred times
more SO2 and particles compared to modern trucks
per ton cargo and above 10 times more NOX per ton
cargo. Therefore shipping is a serious environmental
problem in regards to health and nature.
From a clear-cut air pollution perspective shipping is
therefore not a favourable transport for the time
being. But shipping contains a series of advantages
in terms of less noise pollution, less traffic acci-
dents, less tearing of roads etc.
A significant part of global cargo transport would
never take place if cheap shipping was not avail-
able. Therefore it does not make sense just to com-
pare ship emissions with emissions from other
transport options.“No transport” is in any case to
prefer from a narrow environmental point of view.
However, global transport does have a number of
advantages and as long as ship transport is as
cheap as today it will continue to grow. The last 25
years global cargo transport has doubled and it is
still rising fast.
Since shipping constitutes far the largest part of
global cargo transport a quick solution would be to
lower the environmental and climate impact of
shipping. This could make shipping the “green”
transport of the future. Luckily, many technical solu-
tions can minimise air pollution from shipping and
most technical solutions have low reduction cost
compared to further reduction from land based pol-
lution sources. This is due to the fact that signifi-
cant efforts to reduce land based air pollution have
already been taken, while almost no effort to reduce
air pollution from shipping.
11

12.
Many efficient technical solutions have been devel-
oped to minimise the emission of CO2, SO2, NOX
and particles from shipping. As shown in this chap-
ter, CO2 emissions from shipping can be lowered by
25-50 percent by combining existing technical solu-
tions and the emission of SO2, NOX and particles
can be reduced more than 80 percent per ton of
cargo.
The reduction costs for most technical solutions are
estimated to be more than 10 times lower than the
health costs of the air pollution. Hence, the invest-
ments are profitable from a socio-economic point of
view since society save (earn) more than 100 euros
every time 10 euros are invested in technical solu-
tions. As an example, it will cost 0.5-0.8 euros to
reduce one kg NOX from ships with SCR-systems
according to AirClim (Marked-based instruments for
NOX abatement in the Baltic Sea, 2009). For compa-
rison, the health costs are 8.53 euros per kg NOX
(table 1). Society thereby earns around 8 euros per
kg NOX removed from ships by SCR.
However, today shipowners have no incentives to
implement technical solutions since the costs of
health and nature damage is paid by society and
not by the shipowners. Thus, it is urgent to create
clear economic incentives to reduce pollution from
shipping. This can be done by further regulation
(see page 24). Only thereby the health and nature
benefits can be realised.
There are four technical solutions:
1) Fuel consumption can be reduced.
2) Ships can use cleaner fuel.
3) The pollution from the engine can be
reduced.
4) The flue gas can be cleaned.
It is important to stress that not all the described
technical solutions are additive. Thus, the effects
can not just be summed up. Furthermore, it is not
all types of solutions that fit all type of ships. The
largest reductions can be achieved on new ships.
12
TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

13.
Reduced fuel consumption
Fuel consumption can be reduced directly through
several operational actions e.g. better use of capaci-
ty 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 con-
sumption. By lowering the speed it is possible to
achieve significant fuel savings. However, lowering
the speed will require more ships since the trans-
port 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 tra-
ditional 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 trans-
port cost over the last 10 years. This has made ship-
ping 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 (sav-
ings).
13
Reference: Maersk

14.
By minimising water, wave and wind resistance of the
hull through design changes, new types of paint and
by releasing air bubbles under the hull (air lubrica-
tion) it is possible to achieve further fuel reductions.
Furthermore, windmills on ships may both produce
electricity and reduce the wind resistance.This can be
combined with optimisation of the engine (e.g. waste
heat recovery) and the propeller/rudder (optimal
design) in relation the actual ship.
According to FORCE Technology, the mentioned
operational improvements can reduce the fuel con-
sumption by 15-30 percent for existing ships while
more than 30 percent reduction is possible for new
ships. Finally, series of more speculative options are
available for shipping e.g. kites, sails, Fletner Rotors,
solar panels etc.
14
Reference: FORCE Technology
Reference: Danmarks Rederiforening

15.
Cleaner fuel
By use of cleaner fuel the pollution can be signifi-
cantly reduced. The main focus is on liquid natural
gas (LNG) or low-sulphur bunker oil (0.1 percent sul-
phur). 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
methane (CH4) that leak unburned from 2-stroke
and 4-stroke engines (the greenhouse gas potential
of CH4 is 25 times higher than CO2). Likewise, the
reduction of SO2 dependent on how clean the gas is
and how much traditional bunker oil is used as aux-
iliary fuel (usually around 5 percent unless a pure
gas engine is considered). Finally, there is a great dif-
ference between NOX reductions for 2-stroke and 4-
stroke engines. The values for reductions should
therefore be used with caution due to the uncer-
tainties.
LNG has great potential to reduce pollution from
shipping. However, several challenges are attached
to LNG. One is the technical challenge regarding
engine, pressure tank and safety. Another is the
infrastructure (LNG supply in harbours). A project
was initiated by the Danish Maritime Authority in
2011 focusing on safety and infrastructural changes
in regards to use of LNG in the Baltic Sea, the North
Sea and the British Channel. However, LNG is
already today an environmentally friendly alterna-
tive for ferries and LNG tankers. LNG will be even
more favourable when the maximum limit for sul-
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
Biogas (LBG).
15
Table 5
Engine CO2 SO2 NOX Particles
Liquid natural gas (LNG) 2-stroke 20-25 % 90-95 % 20-25 % 35-40 %
4-stroke 0-25 % 1) > 95 % 2) 80-90 % > 40 %
Low-sulphur bunker oil (0.1 % sulphur) 0 % 90 % 3) 5-10 % 50 %
Table 5: Reduction of pollution by the use of cleaner fuels. It should be underlined that uncertainty is atta-
ched 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

16.
Bunker oil with 0.1 percent sulphur (today the con-
tent is 1 percent) will be required in SECA-areas from
2015 but not in the international waters (see page
20). Still, air pollution from international waters will
therefore give rise to serious health and environ-
mental damage. Consequently, a more general regu-
lation regarding low-sulphur bunker oil would in
the long run lower the pollution. However, at the
moment it seems difficult to find the sufficient
refinery capacity to produce enough low-sulphur
bunker oil just to satisfy upcoming demands in the
SECA-areas.
Better engine technology
During the last 40 years the consumption of bunker
oil pr. container pr. sea mile has been reduced
approx. 80 percent through development of larger
engines (for increasingly larger ships) with still
increasing engine efficiency. This development is
expected to continue to a certain degree, although
in more attenuate fashion, as older and smaller
ships are replaced with new and larger ships with
still more efficient engines. Several important inven-
tions can reduce air pollution from engines further
e.g. systems for utilisation of waste heat (waste
heat recovery,WHR) and low-NOX valves for 2-stroke
engines reducing the emission of NOX by 10-20 per-
cent and additionally reducing the particle emis-
sions significantly.
Exhaust Gas Recirculation (EGR) where some of the
flue gas is recirculated through the engine is a well
documented engine improvement to reduce NOX
emission. EGR can reduce the emission of NOX by
80 percent from 2-stroke engines according to MAN
Diesel & Turbo. For comparison the reduction by
EGR on 4-stroke engines is 35-50 percent.
16
Reference: MAN Diesel

17.
17
Reference: Aalborg
Industries
Cleaning the flue gas
SO2 from the flue gas can be efficiently removed in
a scrubber where SO2 is “washed” out of the flue
gas using sea water. SO2 is converted to harmless
sulphate (SO4
2-) in the scrubber, which can be dis-
charged with the scrubber water at sea. However,
the scrubber water can contain several toxic tar
compounds that will cause adverse effects if dis-
charged 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 parti-
cles according to Alfa Laval
Aalborg. Some scrubbers have
even shown removal rates of
70-80 percent of the primary
particles (Venturi scrubber).
Thereby efficient scrubbers can achieve the same
SO2 reduction as low sulphur bunker oil and are
thereby a technical alternative to low sulphur fuels.

18.
NOX from the flue gas can be efficiently removed by
several technologies. The most promising for 4-
stroke engines is SCR (Selective Catalytic Reduction).
The SCR system automatically adds a precise
amount of urea to the flue gas. Ammonia (NH3) is
released from urea and reacts with NOX in a cat-
alytic process converting NOX and NH3 to harmless
free nitrogen (N2) and steam. Up to 90 percent
removal of NOX and 30-35 percent removal of the
primary particles are achievable by SCR systems. In
addition, SCR systems reduce noise significantly.
Today full scale SCR systems on 4-stroke engines
have shown promising results. SCR systems will
probably be efficient for 2-stroke engines as well, if
the technology can compete with EGR systems (see
page 16).
Finally, primary particles in the flue gas can proba-
bly be removed in particle filters as known from
heavy vehicles. Laboratory tests have shown 60-85
percent removal. The particles are continuously
burned in the filter (by addition of an additive) and
thereby transformed to CO2 and steam. It has not
been possible to find detailed results from full scale
tests with particle filters. This is probably due to the
fact that the high sulphur content in real life flue
gas causes serious technical challenges. However, by
combining particle filters with scrubbers an almost
complete removal of sulphur and primary particles
should be possible. Particle filters have, as well, a
potential for reducing the more acute health effects
of primary particles for the crew and dock workers.
18
Reference: DANSK TEKNOLOGI

19.
Combining technical solutions
As mentioned, the effects of the described technolo-
gies are not additive. Thereby it is not possible just
to sum up. Table 6 shows the effects of three differ-
ent combinations of technical solutions.
19
Table 6
LNG LNG + WHR LNG + WHR + EGR
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: Mærsk

20.
Table 7 shows the present IMO-regulation of the
sulphur content in bunker oil.
Ships can choose to clean the flue gas for SO2 as
alternative to using bunker oil with lower sulphur
content. For instance, above 95 percent of the SO2
can be removed in a scrubber. Consequently, the
scrubber enables the same SO2-reduction as low
sulphur bunker oil. Thereby the present loophole in
the 2020 regulation seems meaningless i.e. there is
no reason to postpone the 0.5 percent sulphur regu-
lation five years. Not even if the supply of low sul-
phur bunker oil is insufficient because
the regulation can be achieved with
scrubbers. As an alternative, the regu-
lation can be achieved by using LNG
instead of the low-sulphur bunker oil
(see table 5).
Waters surrounding Denmark are SECA-areas.
Consequently, the SO2 pollution from shipping is
expected to be reduced by 91 percent from 2007 to
2020. The decrease is percentage-wise less than the
reduction in sulphur content (93 %) since an
increase in shipping is expected (increase of 3.5 per-
cent yearly) in the waters around Denmark. The
Danish Centre of Energy, Environment and Health
has estimated that this reduction in SO2 pollution
will only reduce the total health effects from ship-
ping by 10-15 percent in Denmark. This is due to the
fact that most health effects from shipping around
Denmark are caused by pollution with NOX which is
expected to increase slightly towards 2020 due to
an expected increase in shipping.
20
CURRENT REGULATION
Table 7
2007 2010 2012 2015 2020
Sulphur content
Non-SECA (Oceans) 4.5 % – 3.5 – 0.5 1)
SECA (Coastal areas) 1.5 % 1 % – 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
Kilde: Danmarks Rederiforening

21.
2.50 <
2.25 - 2.50
2.00 - 2.25
1.75 - 2.00
1.50 - 1.75
1.25 - 1.50
1.00 - 1.25
0.75 - 1.00
0.50 - 0.75
< 0.50
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
causes large reductions in 2020, where the SO2 pol-
lution is almost invisible.
Figure 4 shows the estimated effect of the regula-
tion on SO2 from shipping in the northern hemi-
sphere compared to the baseline (no regulation on
SO2 from shipping) and the land based emissions in
Europe (EU27). From the figure is seen that shipping
emission on the northern hemisphere would have
exceeded the total land based emissions in Europe
(EU27) in 2020 if no IMO regulation (or other regula-
tion) had been implemented. Furthermore, it is seen
that the 2015 regulation in SECA-areas only has
minor influence on the total SO2 emission on the
northern hemisphere underlining that the SECA-
areas mainly have local effects upon emissions.
21
Figure 3
Figure 3: Concentration of SO2 in Denmark in 2007 and 2020.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute
2007 2020
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1,000 tonnes SO2 emissions 2010 - 2020
2010 2015 2020
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.
Shipping IMO
regulation
Shipping baseline Land based sources
(EU27)

22.
Figure 5 shows the IMO-regulation of NOX emis-
sions. However, the strict 2016 regulation is only
valid for new ships in NECA-areas (NOX Emission
Control Areas).
Note, that it is the age of the ship that determines
the NOX pollution from the engine. A new engine
on a ship build before 1st of January 2011 can there-
by pollute more than a new engine on a ship build
after 1st of January 2011. Thus, the regulation moti-
vates shipowners to use old ships which (other
things being equal) have a higher fuel consumption
and thereby a higher pollution than newer ships.
From an environmental point of view the NOX regu-
lation should be independent of the age of the ship.
Finally, ship engines built between 1990 and 2000
has to be upgraded to fulfil Tier I requirements.
Figure 6 compares the estimated effect of the regu-
lation on NOX from shipping on the northern hemi-
sphere with the baseline (no regulation on NOX
from shipping) and the land based emissions in
Europe (EU27). From the figure is seen that shipping
emission on the northern hemisphere will increase
and be close to the total land based emissions in
Europe (EU27) in 2020 even though the IMO regula-
tion has been implemented. The baseline shows
that the IMO regulation has very limited effects on
the NOX pollution from shipping.
22
Figure 5
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
g/kWh
rpm
Figure 5: : IMO-regulation of the emissions of
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.
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
Secretariat.
TIER I
TIER II
TIER III
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1,000 tonnes NOx emissions 2010 - 2020
2010 2015 2020
Shipping IMO
regulation
Shipping baseline Land based sources
(EU27)

23.
> 10.00
9.00 - 10.00
8.00 - 9.00
7.00 - 8.00
6.00 - 7.00
5.00 - 6.00
4.00 - 5.00
3.00 - 4.00
2.00 - 3.00
< 2.00
From 2007 to 2020 a minor increase (0-5 percent) in
the NOX emission from shipping in waters around
Denmark is expected, even though IMO is expected
to recognise the waters as NECA-areas and thereby
be included in the hardest IMO NOX regulation
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 pollu-
tion 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, regula-
tion of land based NOX sources (through e.g. EU’s
NEC-directive) has a significant effect on the NO2
pollution.
A reduction of primary particles as a direct effect of
the IMO sulphur regulation is expected. As a is
expected that the pollution with primary particles
from shipping will be reduced by approx. 55 percent
in waters surrounding Denmark towards 2020.
23
Figure 7
Figure 7:The concentration of NO2 (indicator for the NOX pollution) in Denmark in 2007 and 2020.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute.
2007 2020
Reference: Danmarks Rederiforening

24.
Table 8 shows emissions of CO2, SO2, NOX and pri-
mary particles from shipping in waters surrounding
Denmark in 2011 and after full implementation of
IMO regulation in 2020 (SECA- and NECA-areas).
As mentioned above, the emission of NOX increases
due to increasing shipping activities in waters sur-
rounding Denmark. This increase exceeds the effect
of IMO’s NECA-areas. Consequently, NOX pollution
will still be a serious health challenge in 2020
unless further regulations are implemented to
reduce NOX emissions from shipping.
The environmental regulation from the IMO is a big
step forward. However, shipping is still subject to a
very weak regulation compared to land based trans-
port. Bunker oil in the hardest regulated SECA-areas
can still contain 100 times more sulphur in 2015
than diesel today. Compared to trucks, new ships in
NECA-areas in 2016 can emit 5-10 times as much
NOX pr. kWh engine performance.
Even the hardest IMO-regulation in SECA- and
NECA-areas will thereby not ensure that shipping
becomes “green” transport. And the general regula-
tion of shipping emissions outside these areas is
much weaker. Consequently, the health effects from
air pollution caused by shipping are expected to be
almost unchanged towards 2020. This is mainly due
to the very weak regulation of NOX from the exist-
ing fleet. Thus, there is an urgent need for further
regulation of air pollution from shipping.
24
Tabel 8
CO2 SO2 NOx Primary particles
2011 (tons) 7,850,000 41,000 173,250 4,000
2020 (tons) 9,250,000 5,800 177,600 2,650
Difference (%) + 18 - 86 + 2.5 - 34
Table 8: Emissionen of CO2, SO2, NOx and primary particles from shipping in waters surrounding Denmark.
Reference: National Environmental Research Institute.

25.
The regulation of shipping (and thus the air pollu-
tion from shipping) is traditionally decided by the
IMO and applies globally. This is justified by the easy
reflagging of ships to other nations and the legal
challenges faced when regulating pollution in inter-
national waters. The IMO has spent very long time
to establish the current environmental regulation.
This is mainly due to the many different interests
represented in the IMO. If IMO-regulation is not
tightened significantly, further regulation outside
the IMO is necessary to reduce the adverse effects
of air pollution from shipping. This could be done by
market based regulation or regional regulation
(through EU/USA). Below, three options for further
regulation are discussed:
1) Further IMO regulations
2) Market-based regulations
3) Regional regulations
Compared to 2011, the existing IMO regulation
reduces the SO2 emissions per tonne transported
goods by approx. 90 percent in 2015 in SECA-areas
and by approx. 90 percent outside SECA-areas from
2020 (possibly 2025 cf. table 7). This significant SO2
reduction will automatically give a significant (but
smaller) reduction in the emission of primary parti-
cles. In the short run it is unlikely that the IMO will
do further regulation in terms of SO2 and particle
emissions from shipping. Instead it is much more
important to ensure that the decided IMO regula-
tions are actually implemented on time. Already, a
significant lobby activity for postponement of the
deadlines is taking place. However, it is necessary to
reduce the SO2 and particle emissions further if
shipping is going to be the “green” transport of the
future. Luckily, the technical solutions are ready as
mentioned above.
In addition, it is of vital importance to get the CO2
emission from shipping included in international
agreements to build a basis for reducing the CO2
emissions from shipping. This can be done by imple-
menting a global tax on conventional bunker fuel
(see below).
Finally, there is an urgent need for a much harder
regulation of NOX pollution from shipping since the
regulation decided in the IMO is too weak. The regu-
lation can not even counterbalance the NOX pollu-
tion from the increasing shipping - not even in the
hardest regulated NECA-areas. Consequently, the
NOX pollution will increase towards 2020 and be
responsible for almost the same number of health
effects in 2020 as all air pollution from shipping
today. Even though, several technical solutions are
ready (LNG, EGR and SCR) which can reduce NOX
pollution more than 80 percent.
On basis of this is only focused on further IMO regu-
lation of CO2 and NOX in this publication. However,
for marked-based and regional regulation is focused
upon regulation of all air pollutants since these two
regulation forms are independent of the IMO regu-
lation.
Further IMO regulation
There are several ways to regulate CO2 emissions
from shipping. First, it is important to regulate the
design of new ships (so they travel further per ton
of fuel). This will reduce the energy consumption
and thereby the pollution with CO2 (as well as SO2,
NOX and particles). In addition, a tax could be
implemented on bunker oil and the yield could be
used for climate projects in developing countries,
reducing the CO2 emission (compared to baseline
i.e. additional reductions). This will, at the same
time, increase the price on bunker oil and thereby
motivate shipowners further to save fuel which
would reduce the CO2 emissions as well.
25
FURTHER REGULATION

26.
Denmark has proposed this (energy efficient design
of new ships and a tax on bunker oil) in the IMO
and in the process up to COP17 in Durban in the end
of 2011. If decided in Durban this could form the
basis of guidelines to a coming IMO agreement.
However, several important developing countries in
IMO are against an agreement since they believe it
would be implementing a binding agreement to
reduce the CO2 emission from developing countries.
The proposal to implement taxes on bunker oil is on
standby so far. Mainly because of disagreement
about how the revenue should be distributed and
which tax model should be used. There is an
increasing support for the Danish tax proposal.
However, important developing countries (e.g.
China, Brazil, India, South Africa and Saudi-Arabia)
make it difficult to find an agreement.
The IMO regulation of the NOX pollution (figure 5)
should as soon as possible be revised to require a
reduction of 80 percent NOX for all Tier III engines
and earlier in NECA-areas from 2016. The 80 percent
NOX reduction should apply to all ships in all waters
from 2020.
Market-based regulation
First step in a market-based regulation of air pollu-
tion is to create transparency in the market leading
to full information about air pollution from ship-
ping. This can be done by labelling ships from A to E.
The labelling should be based on air pollution
reductions compared to a baseline pollution e.g.
determined on basis of how much a similar “aver-
age” ship pollute in 2012. The baseline value and the
reductions must be documented by an independent
and recognised auditing. The label could be issued
by an organisation designated by the IMO and the
World Wildlife Fund.
Table 9 shows suggested air pollution reductions
compared to a baseline for different labels.
Consequently, to achieve a D-labelling a ship would
have to reduce its emission of CO2 by minimum 30
percent, SO2 and NOX emissions by min. 80 percent
and particle emission by min. 50 percent. As seen
from table 6 this can be achieved in 2-stroke
engines by using LNG,WHR and EGR. By further
using a mix of the technical solutions which reduce
the fuel consumption (page 13) or biofuels/biogas a
C-label is achievable. On the other hand, achieving a
B-label would require a combination of biofuel/bio-
gas with a very low content of sulphur combined
with several technical solutions. This is on the edge
of what is possible today. A-labelling would require
new technology.
The labelling should be voluntary, like the FSC-label
and Fairtrade (former “Max Havelaar”). Through
labelling requirements, global companies can create
a demand for cleaner shipping. The management
could then make a CSR policy requiring that the
26
Table 9
A B C D E
CO2
1) > 80 % > 65 % > 50 % > 30 % > 20 %
SO2 > 99 % > 99 % > 95 % > 80 % > 80 %
NOX > 99 % > 99 % > 95 % > 80 % > 30 %
Particles > 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.

27.
company will use e.g. 40 percent D-labelled, 30 per-
cent E-labelled and 30 percent unlabelled ships in
2015. The following years the requirements could be
still more ambitious i.e. increasing the demand for
cleaner shipping.
Furthermore, the labelling makes it possible that the
environmental reports of the companies will provide
a quantitative overview of their shipping deliveries
distributed on labels. Likewise, it becomes possible for
companies to require specific minimum labelling
standards for their suppliers. Consequently, the air
pollution from shipping becomes visible and thereby
the green NGO’s can start pushing the companies to
require still more ambitious labelling.Through the
media, NGO’s can communicate whether companies
are ambitious on their environmental requirements
for shipping and thereby making the pollution from
shipping visible to the consumer.The consumer can
thereby further accelerate more ambitious labelling
by choosing products from companies with ambi-
tious labelling requirements.
Thereby some shipowners will see an economic
potential in having their ships labelled since it will be
a requirement in order to get certain shipping orders.
With an increasing amount of companies setting still
more ambitious requirements for their shipping
deliveries, more shipowners will have their ships
labelled and start implementing technical solutions
to achieve better labelling. Better labelling will then
be a competitive parameter in an ongoing labelling
process reducing air pollution from shipping.
The real technical challenge in the suggested
labelling is that container ships often carry cargo
from many different clients. They will probably have
different environmental requirements for labelling.
Consequently, flexibility may be needed in a transi-
tional period. But implementation is possible. Let us
assume that 10 percent of customers require label
C, 20 percent label D, 40 percent label E and 30 per-
cent do not make any requirements. Then the entire
load could, of course, be transported with a C-label
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 docu-
mentation and control
during the transi-
tion period.
27

28.
Regional regulation
In continuation of the suggested labelling of ships,
large regional areas (e.g. EU and/or USA) could
introduce port fees depending on the label of the
ships (table 9). Consequently, it would be very
expensive for unlabelled ships to use ports in e.g.
EU and/or USA, expensive for E-labelled ships,
cheaper for the D-labelled ships etc. This would give
shipowners (a further) economic incentive to have
their ships labelled and to use technical solutions to
improve the labelling in order to get reduced port
fees. Regional regulation will require all ports in a
large area e.g. EU and/or USA to have similar mini-
mum port fees in relation to labelling. Hence, mini-
mum port fees must be decided and charged at a
supra-national level e.g. by a central authority in EU
and/or USA.
Technical solutions to get the most ambitious labels
will increase the costs of shipping, while costs of
fulfilling labelling D-E are limited. The costs of the
transportation for cargo transported by ships typi-
cally represent less than 2 percent of the final prod-
uct price. Thereby, even retrofitting technical solu-
tions to get the most ambitious labels will have
very little influence on the consumer price. The
supermarket price of a bottle of wine from New
Zealand would in Denmark increase less than 0.15
euros, if it was transported with B-labelled ships in
the future. This would be invisible to consumers
taking the general inflation and special offers of the
supermarkets into account.
Consequently, there is no risk that a much harder
environmental regulation of shipping will reduce
shipping in favour of alternative transport. And no
risk that regional regulation would shift shipping to
ports outside the e.g. EU and/or USA. Shipowners
would just pass on the costs from pollution reduc-
tions (technical solutions) to customers in the usual
manner, and end users will hardly notice a differ-
ence. But society will achieve large gains in terms of
better public health and nature values.
Market-based and regional regulation through
labelling of ships should be seen as a supplement to
IMO-regulations. Thereby the IMO-regulation
becomes the minimum regulation, while labelling
will motivate for faster and further reductions of air
pollution from shipping.
28
Reference: Maersk Line

29.
Rederier
Maersk Line
Clipper Ferries
DFDS
J. Lauritzen
NORDEN
Nordic Tankers
TORM
Danish key stakeholders in
relation to ”green”shipping
The list of stakeholders is not complete
Consultants
Grontmij
FORCE Technology
Clean-tech suppliers
Haldor Topsoe
MAN Diesel & Turbo
DANSK TEKNOLOGI
Alfa Laval Aalborg
DK Group
AAB
APV
DESMI
GreenSteam
Hempel
Research institutions
Technical University of Denmark
Aalborg University
National Environmental Re-
search Institute
Centre for Energy, Environment
and Health
Denmark has a unique position in relation to ship-
ping and technical solutions to reduce air pollution
from shipping, because Denmark is hosting the
largest container shipping company in the world,
the largest supplier of ship engines and several
leading clean-tech companies within flue gas clean-
ing. In this connection, Denmark has developed sev-
eral strong research and consulting communities in
relation to mapping and reduction of air pollution
from shipping.
Danish shipping companies control approx. 10 per-
cent of the global cargo transport and 80 percent of
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.
Shipping is the second largest export industry in
Denmark with an export that has grown from 3.3
billion euros in 1992 to 23.3 billion euros in 2010.
Danish ships are generally larger, newer and thus
more “green” than the average world fleet. But at
the moment most Danish ships would not even be
able to get an “E labelling” according to table 9.
It is possible to implement further regulation of
shipping to limit air pollution without jeopardising
the export earnings and the employment from
shipping. Properly designed environmental regula-
tion of air pollution from shipping is necessary if
shipping should be the “green” transport of the
future.
Important Danish key stakeholders in relation to
“green” shipping are shown in figure 8.
29
Figure 8
Figure 8: Danish key stakeholders in relation to ”green” shipping
DANISH COMPETENCES

30.
The basis for achieving the health and nature
potentials of further regulation of air pollution from
shipping is, of course, that further regulation is
implemented in an anti-competitive form and that
shipping companies and affiliated companies take
the environmental challenges seriously.
Further regulation
Further regulation of air pollution from shipping
should be promoted by:
1) Increasing the pressure in the IMO for environ-
mental regulation in relation to CO2 as well as
an active political effort in the climate negotia-
tions up to COP 17 in Durban in November 2011.
2) Increasing the pressure in IMO for a much more
ambitious environmental regulation of NOX by
informing the nations in IMO about the socio-
economic costs of the weak NOX regulation.
3) Working for further reductions of the sulphur
content in bunker oil after 2020 in the IMO.
4) Making multinational companies (IKEA, Nike,
Wall-Mart etc.) require ambitious ship labelling
(table 9) in their SCR policy (for their own as
well as their suppliers ship transport).
5) Making EU and/or USA implementing minimum
port fees depending on ship labelling.
6) Making harbours in EU and/or USA implement-
ing minimum port fees depending on labelling
of ships (until minimum port fees are decided
and charged at a supranational level, cf. point 5)
7) Support all anti-competitive environmental reg-
ulation of shipping within and outside the IMO.
The pressure for harder environmental regula-
tion in IMO must be done on a pure “political
level” while the other recommendations can be
carried out in collaboration between authorities,
shipping companies and other involved stake-
holders including green NGO’s.
Finally, it is important to make sure that the decided
IMO regulation is fulfilled on time. Progressive
countries can do this e.g. by illustrating how techni-
cal solutions already today can fulfil the IMO regu-
lation coming into force in 2020, without signifi-
cantly affecting the competitiveness of shipping.
30
RECOMMENDATIONS

31.
Homepages
The Danish Ecocouncil: www.ecocouncil.dk
National Environmental Research Institute: www.dmu.dk
Centre for Energy, Environment and Health: www.ceeh.dk
Danish Shipowners’ Association: www.shipowners.dk
Green ships of the future: www.greenship.org
Society for Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering: www.skibstekniskselskab.dk
The Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat: www.airclim.org
International Maritime Organisation: www.imo.org
European Environmental Bureau: www.eeb.org
Transport & Environment: www.transportenvironment.org
Danish Ministry of the Environment: www.mst.dk
Danish Maritime Authority: www.sofartsstyrelsen.dk
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.
www2.mst.dk/udgiv/publikationer/2009/978-87-92548-77-1/pdf/978-87-92548-78-8.pdf
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.
www.ceeh.dk/CEEH_Reports/Report_3/CEEH_Scientific_Report3.pdf
Market-based instrument for NOx abatement in the Baltic Sea.
The Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat, Sweden, 2009.
www.airclim.org/reports/apc24.pdf
31
FURTHER INFORMATION

32.
CLEANER SHIPPING
– focus on air pollution, technology and regulation
Shipping accounts for around 90 percent of global cargo trans-
port and is thereby the basis of the fast increasing global
trade. However, the significant shipping volume causes air pol-
lution 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 ecosys-
tems.
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 signifi-
cantly larger than the air pollution from land based sources –
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 emis-
sions from shipping towards 2020, while the adopted regula-
tion of NOX will lead to far less reductions. Event though tech-
nical 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 solu-
tions, 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.