Shipping’s Carbon Reckoning: A New Sun Dawning or Just Drizzle?
On 11th April 2025, a landmark step was taken by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) — a global carbon levy on shipping emissions was approved, setting binding targets for the sector to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
The new regulation places financial penalties on vessels emitting high levels of GHG per unit of fuel. Specifically, ships over 5,000 gross tons must reduce their GHG intensity by 30% by 2035 and by a striking 65% by 2040 — all compared to 2008 levels.
It’s an important move. But is it enough?
An Industry Finally in the Frame
Shipping’s Key Stats:
- 90% of world trade is carried by sea (UNCTAD)
- Shipping emissions could grow by 50% by 2050 without intervention (IMO)
- 3% of global emissions come from shipping — more than Germany’s total emissions
Until now, shipping has largely sailed under the radar of environmental regulation. The 2028 launch of a new carbon market will finally change that, allowing cleaner vessels to earn credits and penalising laggards.
Yet, serious questions remain:
- Are the targets ambitious enough for a 1.5°C climate pathway?
- Will the slower adoption of port-side infrastructure for e-methanol and ammonia refuelling delay real impact?
- And critically, will economic mechanisms alone push the necessary behavioural shift?
A Glaring Absence from the Table
It’s hard to ignore the conspicuous withdrawal of the USA — along with certain Gulf oil exporters — from this global agreement. Not only did they decline to support the measures, but there are whispers of retaliatory action against nations enforcing the fines.
This leaves shipowners in a bind. Will they invest in greener vessels, knowing their ships might still be penalised outside the “USA bubble”? Or will they gamble that international enforcement is too fragmented to matter?
Economic Tailwinds May Shift the Tide
For years, shipowners have claimed that green investment is unjustifiable without charterers paying a premium. That narrative may soon be outdated.
With binding emissions caps, market signals are beginning to favour innovation. Shipowners sitting on the fence may now find that delays come with real costs — not just to the planet, but to the bottom line.
Consumer Pressure Is Real — Even in the US
Even in regions slow to legislate, brand reputation may become a powerful lever. If leading companies like Nike or Adidas begin disclosing the carbon footprint of their supply chains — including how their products are shipped — consumer preferences could become a force for change.
Imagine a world where your sneakers/ trainers come with a “shipped sustainably” label. Could your next purchase be driven by shipping transparency? Consumers increasingly say “yes”.
Conclusion: Change Is Underway, but Is It Enough?
The IMO’s decision is a meaningful milestone, but it risks being more symbolic than transformative unless followed by rapid, ambitious action. Climate science is clear: we cannot afford to coast.
For shipping to truly clean up its wake, we need:
- Faster investment in green fuels and refuelling infrastructure
- International alignment and enforcement, even beyond IMO waters
- Transparency across supply chains to empower consumer choice
Call to Action:
To Shipowners: Now is the moment to lead, not lag. Carbon regulation is here, and consumer pressure is rising. Delay is risk.
To Brands: Start demanding greener logistics. Make shipping part of your sustainability reporting and procurement standards.
To Consumers: Ask questions. How did your goods get to you? Would you pay a little more to know they arrived cleanly?
Let us know your thoughts. Does this go far enough — or is it just a drop in the (warming) ocean?
