Second IMO GHG study 2009

By Ø. Buhaug, Corbett, Ø. Endresen, Veronika Eyring, J. Faber, S. Hanayama, David S. Lee, D. Lee, H. Lindstad, A. Markowska and 7 more. 2009

321 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Market-based measures for greenhouse gas emissions from ships: a review (2012, methodology): “The IMO GHG study of 2000 used a coefficient of 3.17 (tonnes of CO2 per tonne of fuel) independent of fuel type, but its 2009 update (Buhaug et al. 2009) used slightly lower coefficients, which ranged from 3.021 for heavy fuel oil to 3.082 for marine diesel oil.”
All adrift: aviation, shipping, and climate change policy (2015, methodology): “Aviation and shipping CO2 data taken from the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2013), supplemented with newer IMO analysis (Buhaug et al., 2009) between 1990 and 2010, are presented CLIMATE POLICY in Figure 1.”
Economic savings linked to future Arctic shipping trade are at odds with climate change mitigation (2016, methodology): “Table 2 shows the emission factors, 𝐾𝑒𝑝, in grams per kWh used in this study for each of the fuels and the values used by previous studies of shipping emissions (Buhaug et al. 2009; Corbett et al. 2010; Peters et al. 2011).”
LCA of local and imported tomato: an energy and water trade-off (2015, methodology): “The fuel consumption for ship propulsion and for container cooling was based on reports from the International Maritime Organisation (Buhaug et al., 2009) and Wild et al. (1999, 2005).”