Seems to me, sulfur from shipping may have other consequences beyond the health effects:
Shipping contributes to ocean acidification (Open source) 1. Ida-Maja Hassellöv et al. Abstract [1] The potential effect on surface water pH of emissions of SO*X* and NO*X* from global ship routes is assessed. The results indicate that regional pH reductions of the same order of magnitude as the CO2-driven acidification can occur in heavily trafficked waters. These findings have important consequences for ocean chemistry, since the sulfuric and nitric acids formed are strong acids in contrast to the weak carbonic acid formed by dissolution of CO2. Our results also provide background for discussion of expanded controls to mitigate acidification due to these shipping emissions. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50521/full On Tuesday, February 11, 2014 9:50:12 PM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: > > http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/13/12059/2013/acp-13-12059-2013.html > > Climate and air quality trade-offs in altering ship fuel sulfur content > > Abstract. Aerosol particles from shipping emissions both cool the climate > and cause adverse health effects. The cooling effect is, however, declining > because of shipping emission controls aiming to improve air quality. We > used an aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAMMOZ to test whether by altering ship > fuel sulfur content, the present-day aerosol-induced cooling effect from > shipping could be preserved, while at the same time reducing premature > mortality rates related to shipping emissions. We compared the climate and > health effects of a present-day shipping emission scenario (ship fuel > sulfur content of 2.7%) with (1) a simulation with strict emission controls > in the coastal waters (ship fuel sulfur content of 0.1%) and twofold the > present-day fuel sulfur content (i.e. 5.4%) elsewhere; and (2) a scenario > with global strict shipping emission controls (ship fuel sulfur content of > 0.1% in coastal waters and 0.5% elsewhere) roughly corresponding to > international agreements to be enforced by the year 2020. Scenario 1 had a > slightly stronger aerosol-induced effective radiative forcing (ERF) from > shipping than the present-day scenario (−0.43 W m−2 vs. −0.39 W m−2) while > reducing premature mortality from shipping by 69% (globally 34 900 deaths > avoided per year). Scenario 2 decreased the ERF to −0.06 W m−2 and annual > deaths by 96% (globally 48 200 deaths avoided per year) compared to > present-day. Our results show that the cooling effect of present-day > emissions could be retained with simultaneous notable improvements in air > quality, even though the shipping emissions from the open ocean clearly > have a significant effect on continental air quality. However, increasing > ship fuel sulfur content in the open ocean would violate existing > international treaties, could cause detrimental side-effects, and could be > classified as geoengineering. > > Citation: Partanen, A. I., Laakso, A., Schmidt, A., Kokkola, H., > Kuokkanen, T., Pietikäinen, J.-P., Kerminen, V.-M., Lehtinen, K. E. J., > Laakso, L., and Korhonen, H.: Climate and air quality trade-offs in > altering ship fuel sulfur content, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 12059-12071, > doi:10.5194/acp-13-12059-2013, 2013. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
