The costs and benefits of a nitrogen emission control area in the Baltic and North Seas
研究分析了2021年起在波罗的海和北海实施氮排放控制区（NECA）的社会经济影响，通过成本效益比较发现，除波罗的海单独实施外，其他方案收益均超过成本。
• NECA is a coming policy to reduce NO x emissions from Shipping. • We analyse socio-economic impacts of NECA in the Baltic and North Seas. • We use cost-benefit analysis on emission control scenarios for 2030. • NECA in the North Sea and simultaneous in both sea regions are justified. • We present new data on NO x and SO 2 control costs from shipping. The main purpose of this paper is to analyse the socio-economic justification of implementing a Nitrogen Emission Control Area (NECA), starting 2021, for ships in the Baltic Sea and/or the North Sea and English Channel. We analyse the potential for emission reduction, emission control costs, and monetised benefits following the introduction of a NECA. Costs and benefits are compared for 2030. We compile new data on emission control costs for shipping, use the GAINS model for calculations of emission dispersion, and the Alpha-RiskPoll model for estimating monetary values of health impacts. The model results show that costs to conform to the NO X regulations of a NECA in the Baltic Sea, North Sea or both sea regions would be 111 (100–123), 181 (157–209), and 230 (195–273) million € per year, respectively. Corresponding benefits from reduced emissions are estimated to be 139 (56–294), 869 (335–1882), and 1007 (392–2177) million € per year, respectively. Calculated benefits surpass costs for most scenarios, but less convincingly for a Baltic Sea NECA. Conforming to the NECA regulations by using Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) propulsion engines is estimated to give the highest net benefits but also the largest variation (costs: 153 (88–238), benefits: 1556 (49–3795) million €/year). The variations are mainly due to uncertainties in the valuation of avoided fatalities and climate impacts. It is concluded that the NECAs for the Baltic and North Seas can be justified using CBA under all but extreme assumptions.