Suchergebnisse

International initiatives have successfully brought down the emissions, and hence also the related negative impacts on environment and human health, from shipping in Emission Control Areas (ECAs). However, the question remains as to whether increased shipping in the future will counteract these emission reductions. The overall goal of this study is to provide an up-to-date view on future ship emissions and provide a holistic view on atmospheric pollutants and their contribution to air quality in the Nordic (and Arctic) area. The first step has been to set up new and detailed scenarios for the potential developments in global shipping emissions, including different regulations and new routes in the Arctic. The scenarios include a Baseline scenario and two additional SOx Emission Control Areas (SE-CAs) and heavy fuel oil (HFO) ban scenarios. All three scenarios are calculated in two variants involving Business-As-Usual (BAU) and High-Growth (HiG) traffic scenarios. Additionally a Polar route scenario is included with new ship traffic routes in the future Arctic with less sea ice. This has been combined with existing Current Legislation scenarios for the land-based emissions (ECLIPSE V5a) and used as input for two Nordic chemistry transport models (DEHM and MATCH). Thereby, the current (2015) and future (2030, 2050) air pollution levels and the contribution from shipping have been simulated for the Nordic and Arctic areas. Population exposure and the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution in the Nordic area have thereafter been assessed by using the health assessment model EVA (Economic Valuation of Air pollution). It is estimated that within the Nordic region approximately 9900 persons died prematurely due to air pollution in 2015 (corresponding to approximately 37 premature deaths for every 100 000 inhabitants). When including the projected development in both shipping and land-based emissions, this number is estimated to decrease to approximately 7900 in 2050. Shipping alone is associated with about 850 premature deaths during present day conditions (as a mean over the two models), decreasing to approximately 600 cases in the 2050 BAU scenario. Introducing a HFO ban has the potential to lower the number of cases associated with emissions from shipping to approximately 550 in 2050, while the SECA scenario has a smaller impact. The "worst-case" scenario of no additional regulation of shipping emissions combined with a high growth in the shipping traffic will, on the other hand, lead to a small increase in the relative impact of shipping, and the number of premature deaths related to shipping is in that scenario projected to be around 900 in 2050. This scenario also leads to increased deposition of nitrogen and black carbon in the Arctic, with potential impacts on environment and climate.

International initiatives have successfully brought down the emissions, and hence also the related negative impacts on environment and human health, from shipping in Emission Control Areas (ECAs). However, the question remains as to whether increased shipping in the future will counteract these emission reductions. The overall goal of this study is to provide an up-to-date view on future ship emissions and provide a holistic view on atmospheric pollutants and their contribution to air quality in the Nordic (and Arctic) area. The first step has been to set up new and detailed scenarios for the potential developments in global shipping emissions, including different regulations and new routes in the Arctic. The scenarios include a Baseline scenario and two additional SOx Emission Control Areas (SE-CAs) and heavy fuel oil (HFO) ban scenarios. All three scenarios are calculated in two variants involving Business-AsUsual (BAU) and High-Growth (HiG) traffic scenarios. Additionally a Polar route scenario is included with new ship traffic routes in the future Arctic with less sea ice. This has been combined with existing Current Legislation scenarios for the land-based emissions (ECLIPSE V5a) and used as input for two Nordic chemistry transport models (DEHM and MATCH). Thereby, the current (2015) and future (2030, 2050) air pollution levels and the contribution from shipping have been simulated for the Nordic and Arctic areas. Population exposure and the number of premature deaths attributable to air pollution in the Nordic area have thereafter been assessed by using the health assessment model EVA (Economic Valuation of Air pollution). It is estimated that within the Nordic region approximately 9900 persons died prematurely due to air pollution in 2015 (corresponding to approximately 37 premature deaths for every 100 000 inhabitants). When including the projected development in both shipping and land-based emissions, this number is estimated to decrease to approximately 7900 in 2050. Shipping alone is associated with about 850 premature deaths during presentday conditions (as a mean over the two models), decreasing to approximately 600 cases in the 2050 BAU scenario. Introducing a HFO ban has the potential to lower the number of cases associated with emissions from shipping to approximately 550 in 2050, while the SECA scenario has a smaller impact. The "worst-case" scenario of no additional regulation of shipping emissions combined with a high growth in the shipping traffic will, on the other hand, lead to a small increase in the relative impact of shipping, and the number of premature deaths related to shipping is in that scenario projected to be around 900 in 2050. This scenario also leads to increased deposition of nitrogen and black carbon in the Arctic, with potential impacts on environment and climate.

Ozone air pollution is identified as one of the main threats bearing upon human health and ecosystems, with 25 000 deaths in 2005 attributed to surface ozone in Europe (IIASA 2013 TSAP Report #10). In addition, there is a concern that climate change could negate ozone pollution mitigation strategies, making them insufficient over the long run and jeopardising chances to meet the long term objective set by the European Union Directive of 2008 (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008) (60 ppbv, daily maximum). This effect has been termed the ozone climate penalty. One way of assessing this climate penalty is by driving chemistry-transport models with future climate projections while holding the ozone precursor emissions constant (although the climate penalty may also be influenced by changes in emission of precursors). Here we present an analysis of the robustness of the climate penalty in Europe across time periods and scenarios by analysing the databases underlying 11 articles published on the topic since 2007, i.e. a total of 25 model projections. This substantial body of literature has never been explored to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the climate ozone penalty because of the use of different scenarios, time periods and ozone metrics. Despite the variability of model design and setup in this database of 25 model projection, the present meta-analysis demonstrates the significance and robustness of the impact of climate change on European surface ozone with a latitudinal gradient from a penalty bearing upon large parts of continental Europe and a benefit over the North Atlantic region of the domain. Future climate scenarios present a penalty for summertime (JJA) surface ozone by the end of the century (2071-2100) of at most 5 ppbv. Over European land surfaces, the 95% confidence interval of JJA ozone change is [0.44; 0.64] and [0.99; 1.50] ppbv for the 2041-2070 and 2071-2100 time windows, respectively.

Ozone air pollution is identified as one of the main threats bearing upon human health and ecosystems, with 25 000 deaths in 2005 attributed to surface ozone in Europe (IIASA 2013 TSAP Report #10). In addition, there is a concern that climate change could negate ozone pollution mitigation strategies, making them insufficient over the long run and jeopardising chances to meet the long term objective set by the European Union Directive of 2008 (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008) (60 ppbv, daily maximum). This effect has been termed the ozone climate penalty. One way of assessing this climate penalty is by driving chemistry-transport models with future climate projections while holding the ozone precursor emissions constant (although the climate penalty may also be influenced by changes in emission of precursors). Here we present an analysis of the robustness of the climate penalty in Europe across time periods and scenarios by analysing the databases underlying 11 articles published on the topic since 2007, i.e. a total of 25 model projections. This substantial body of literature has never been explored to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the climate ozone penalty because of the use of different scenarios, time periods and ozone metrics. Despite the variability of model design and setup in this database of 25 model projection, the present meta-analysis demonstrates the significance and robustness of the impact of climate change on European surface ozone with a latitudinal gradient from a penalty bearing upon large parts of continental Europe and a benefit over the North Atlantic region of the domain. Future climate scenarios present a penalty for summertime (JJA) surface ozone by the end of the century (2071-2100) of at most 5 ppbv. Over European land surfaces, the 95% confidence interval of JJA ozone change is [0.44; 0.64] and [0.99; 1.50] ppbv for the 2041-2070 and 2071-2100 time windows, respectively.

Ozone air pollution is identified as one of the main threats bearing upon human health and ecosystems, with 25 000 deaths in 2005 attributed to surface ozone in Europe (IIASA 2013 TSAP Report #10). In addition, there is a concern that climate change could negate ozone pollution mitigation strategies, making them insufficient over the long run and jeopardising chances to meet the long term objective set by the European Union Directive of 2008 (Directive 2008/50/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2008) (60 ppbv, daily maximum). This effect has been termed the ozone climate penalty. One way of assessing this climate penalty is by driving chemistry-transport models with future climate projections while holding the ozone precursor emissions constant (although the climate penalty may also be influenced by changes in emission of precursors). Here we present an analysis of the robustness of the climate penalty in Europe across time periods and scenarios by analysing the databases underlying 11 articles published on the topic since 2007, i.e. a total of 25 model projections. This substantial body of literature has never been explored to assess the uncertainty and robustness of the climate ozone penalty because of the use of different scenarios, time periods and ozone metrics. Despite the variability of model design and setup in this database of 25 model projection, the present meta-analysis demonstrates the significance and robustness of the impact of climate change on European surface ozone with a latitudinal gradient from a penalty bearing upon large parts of continental Europe and a benefit over the North Atlantic region of the domain. Future climate scenarios present a penalty for summertime (JJA) surface ozone by the end of the century (2071-2100) of at most 5 ppbv. Over European land surfaces, the 95% confidence interval of JJA ozone change is [0.44; 0.64] and [0.99; 1.50] ppbv for the 2041-2070 and 2071-2100 time windows, respectively.

OBJECTIVE To investigate the associations between air pollution and mortality, focusing on associations below current European Union, United States, and World Health Organization standards and guidelines. DESIGN Pooled analysis of eight cohorts. SETTING Multicentre project Effects of Low-Level Air Pollution: A Study in Europe (ELAPSE) in six European countries. PARTICIPANTS 325 367 adults from the general population recruited mostly in the 1990s or 2000s with detailed lifestyle data. Stratified Cox proportional hazard models were used to analyse the associations between air pollution and mortality. Western Europe-wide land use regression models were used to characterise residential air pollution concentrations of ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and black carbon. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Deaths due to natural causes and cause specific mortality. RESULTS Of 325 367 adults followed-up for an average of 19.5 years, 47 131 deaths were observed. Higher exposure to PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide, and black carbon was associated with significantly increased risk of almost all outcomes. An increase of 5 mu g/m(3) in PM2.5 was associated with 13% (95% confidence interval 10.6% to 15.5%) increase in natural deaths; the corresponding figure for a 10 mu g/m(3) increase in nitrogen dioxide was 8.6% (7% to 10.2%). Associations with PM2.5, nitrogen dioxide, and black carbon remained significant at low concentrations. For participants with exposures below the US standard of 12 mu g/m(3) an increase of 5 mu g/m(3) in PM2.5 was associated with 29.6% (14% to 47.4%) increase in natural deaths. CONCLUSIONS Our study contributes to the evidence that outdoor air pollution is associated with mortality even at low pollution levels below the current European and North American standards and WHO guideline values. These findings are therefore an important contribution to the debate about revision of air quality limits, guidelines, and standards, and future assessments by the Global Burden of Disease.