Shipping companies invest in new vessels despite trade uncertainty, driven by climate rules and tariffs.

Global shipping giants call for climate action 🌍 Nearly 200 shipping companies have come together to support a worldwide greenhouse gas levy, aiming to accelerate the maritime industry’s transition to cleaner fuels. The proposal, brought to the IMO, marks a major shift in industry alignment around carbon pricing. While the EU and Pacific nations back the plan, the United States opposes it, citing concerns about global taxation. 🔗 Read more at https://lnkd.in/dynYYUAB

Nearly 200 shipping companies said September 15 they want the world’s largest maritime nations to adopt regulations that include the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases to reduce their sector’s emissions. #GHG #sustainability #supplychain #shipping #logistics https://lnkd.in/gviRFn8w

Making Shipping Greener… at what cost? And who pays? In this article Georgina Suttie and Deborah Cooper consider the effect of the European Union Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) on shipping and upcoming changes to the rules. https://lnkd.in/eA6MejaG

🚢 The €1.3 Billion Wake-Up Call: How Shipping Can Turn FuelEU Penalties Into Profit The maritime industry is facing a financial tsunami. FuelEU Maritime penalties are projected to reach €1.345 billion in 2025, with container ships accounting for 29% of gross penalties and passenger vessels facing average penalties of €520,000 annually. But here's what most don't realize: This isn't just a compliance problem—it's a competitive opportunity. The maritime sector stands at a crossroads. While some companies will pay hefty penalties for maintaining the status quo, forward-thinking operators are discovering how to: ✅ Transform regulatory compliance into competitive advantage ✅ Reduce operational costs through strategic CO₂ emission management ✅ Generate actual profit from sustainable fuel strategies ✅ Secure long-term coverage with emission-based competitive pricing The difference? Having the right strategy. At HHXblue, we've developed a comprehensive whitepaper that doesn't just explain how to achieve net-zero emissions—it shows you how to profit from the transition. Our research reveals proven strategies for: - Minimizing FuelEU penalties while competitors struggle - Capitalizing on compliance surplus opportunities - Building sustainable competitive moats through smart fuel strategies The clock is ticking. FuelEU Maritime is already in effect, and penalties will only increase—from 2% reduction targets in 2025 to 80% by 2050. Don't let regulatory compliance drain your bottom line. Turn it into your competitive edge. Download our whitepaper by registering on the website of our MCC Maritime Capital Compass for free, to discover how leading shipping companies are transforming CO₂ challenges into profitable opportunities. https://lnkd.in/gAZHRanP #MaritimeDecarbonization #FuelEUMaritime #ShippingStrategy #NetZero #MaritimeSustainability #CO2Strategy #ShippingCompliance #GreenShipping

I think forward thinking ship operators can really benefit from EU-ETS regulations when they prepare a proper strategy. This is even somenthing that can be sold to potential partners e.g. as a differenting add-on to charterers.

Opinion: Stop Taxing the Air – Start Cutting Pollution The US has warned countries to reject the IMO’s new shipping emissions deal or face tariffs. On the face of it, that looks like protectionism dressed up as climate policy. But dig deeper and there is a valid point: this isn’t really about cutting emissions. It is about who controls the money and the levers of power. The IMO plan claims to drive the industry toward net zero. In practice, it is more about taxing the air than changing the fuel mix. It creates carbon levies, subsidies, and a “net zero fund” that looks progressive on paper but is really a revenue engine. The proceeds don’t go into actual, proven emissions reduction. They are more likely to be pumped into carbon capture experiments, offset markets, and technology schemes that have yet to show results at scale. That means shipping companies and fuel suppliers end up with a new way to game the system. Instead of burning less fuel, they buy credits. Instead of cutting emissions, they bank subsidies. Instead of changing operations, they wait for some miracle technology to be proven. The pollution keeps flowing, but the money moves differently. The US pushback is aggressive, even crude, but it is calling out the obvious. The IMO framework would hand advantages to certain fuels, technologies, and companies while leaving others exposed. That is not climate leadership. It is a reshuffling of who wins and who loses. Washington’s tariff threats are its way of saying: you are not going to fix the climate by tipping the financial scales in someone else’s favour. But let’s not pretend the US stance is any purer. Its rejection of the IMO deal is not about pushing for faster or deeper emissions cuts. It is about resisting rules that don’t suit its own interests. One side wants control of the cash flow. The other does not want to pay into it. Neither is prioritising the simple, brutal fact: shipping pollution has to come down. And that is the real problem. We are stuck in a debate about financial politics while the fundamentals get ignored. The focus has drifted away from straightforward solutions: burning less fuel, running more efficient ships, investing in operational changes that cut emissions today. None of that is glamorous, and it does not create billion-dollar trading schemes. But it is real, and it works. So when you strip away the spin, this US-IMO standoff is not about climate. It is about cash and control. Both sides are playing the game while the atmosphere gets no relief. The longer we chase credits, levies, and subsidies instead of practical cuts, the longer shipping will stay part of the problem. It is time to stop taxing the air and start cutting pollution ... because you cannot greenwash your way out of creating more emissions than you cut! International Maritime Organization Reuters TradeWinds Bunkerspot Ship & Bunker London International Shipping Week 2025 Seatrade Maritime #Shipping #CarbonEmissions #ClimatePolicy

🌍 𝑼𝑺 𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒍𝒍𝒆𝒏𝒈𝒆𝒔 𝑰𝑴𝑶’𝒔 𝑵𝒆𝒕-𝒁𝒆𝒓𝒐 𝑭𝒖𝒆𝒍 𝑭𝒓𝒂𝒎𝒆𝒘𝒐𝒓𝒌 — 𝑻𝒉𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒕𝒔 𝑶𝒇 𝑹𝒆𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒊𝒂𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 • The United States has voiced strong resistance to the IMO’s upcoming maritime fuel decarbonization agreement, warning of potential retaliatory measures including tariffs, port surcharges, and visa restrictions. • This position puts the US in direct conflict with the EU and Asia-Pacific countries, which support the proposal aimed at meeting the 2050 net-zero target. • The plan would introduce fuel standards and an emissions trading scheme, requiring approval by two-thirds of IMO members (108 out of 176) at the upcoming MEPC meeting in October. 🔍 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗿𝗻𝘀 • Analysts note that US opposition is unlikely to block adoption outright. • However, it could heighten uncertainty in investment decisions for alternative fuels such as LNG, methanol, and ammonia. • The standoff may delay newbuilding orders and slow the industry’s energy transition efforts. ✨ 𝗢𝘂𝘁𝗹𝗼𝗼𝗸 • The October MEPC session is expected to be pivotal, with a formal ballot increasingly likely. • US opposition may not prevent adoption but could add long-term uncertainty to fuel choices and cost structures. • Shipowners are likely to remain cautious on fleet investments until enforceable rules are clarified. • Diverging regional approaches to decarbonization could also emerge, potentially complicating global compliance in the longer term. #IMO #Decarbonization #MaritimeRegulation #GreenShipping #GlobalTrade #OceanFreight

On September 10, the European Parliament approved a simplification package for the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). The new simplifications are part of the "Omnibus I" amendment package of February 26, 2025, to streamline legislation on sustainability and investment. The main changes are as follows: - Default values have been introduced for calculating emissions embodied in imported goods in the absence of specific data; - Replacing the exemption threshold, currently set at €150 per shipment, with a parameter based on the net weight of imported goods: 50 tonnes per year for each operator. The European Commission estimates that this criterion will exempt over 90% of importers from compliance, without sacrificing environmental coverage, which will continue to cover 99% of total emissions from iron, steel, aluminum, cement, fertilizers, electricity, and hydrogen; - The obligation to purchase CBAM certificates has been postponed to December 31, 2027, while maintaining the start of the final phase of the mechanism on January 1, 2026. - New penalty system: the previous regime provided for a fixed penalty of €100 for each certificate not returned by May 31. With the changes under consideration, the Authorities will be able to adjust the amount of penalties based on the amount of information omitted, the degree of cooperation of the declarant, the timeliness of communications, and the possible absence of previous violations; - Regarding accreditation, the "consultation procedure" prior to certification has been made optional, and the role of a CBAM representative has been introduced, who can submit the annual declaration on behalf of the declarant. These changes aim to reduce waiting times and enhance the role of specialized freight forwarders and customs consultants. Operators will now be required to adapt their internal procedures and update their software to apply the new default values and the new exemption threshold. https://lnkd.in/dTyhpVdB

Europe’s 2025 logistics playbook is being rewritten by three forces: CO2-based road tolls spreading under the revised Eurovignette rules, the EU ETS adding carbon costs onto ocean legs, and rail/inland waterway capacity and reliability that vary by corridor and season. Shippers weighing modal shift need a decision framework that translates these moving parts into total-landed-cost and service outcomes. Below is a practical guide grounded in current EU measures and network realities. https://lnkd.in/dCGy4BgQ

EU Parliament Eases Carbon Border Rules for Small Importers While Preserving Climate Ambition: The European Parliament has approved changes to the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), exempting 90% of importers from its rules while ensuring 99% of emissions from key sectors remain covered. Parliament gave its final green light to amendments simplifying the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM). The reform, part of the “Omnibus I” simplification package, introduces a new de minimis threshold: imports of up to 50 tonnes per year per importer will no longer be subject to CBAM obligations. The move is expected to relieve small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and occasional importers from administrative burdens, while maintaining the mechanism’s climate ambition. Despite the exemptions, 99% of CO2 emissions from iron, steel, aluminium, cement and fertiliser imports will still be covered. Safeguards and anti-abuse measures will also be reinforced to prevent loopholes. For importers still subject to CBAM, procedures will be streamlined in areas such as authorisation, emissions calculation, verification and financial liability. The Council must now formally endorse the text before it enters into force three days after publication in the EU’s Official Journal. CBAM, designed to align carbon costs between EU producers and foreign competitors, is considered a cornerstone of the EU’s climate policy. The Commission is due to review its scope in 2026, with potential extensions to other sectors and measures to protect EU exporters from carbon leakage.