Despite growing technical confidence in the viability of CO2 shipping, industry stakeholders continue to grapple with significant uncertainties that impede progress. At the CO2 Shipping & Terminals 2025 conference held in London, a clear message emerged: the sector is prepared to act but remains constrained by unclear policy frameworks, insufficient risk-sharing mechanisms, and a lack of certainty over future cargo volumes. Polls conducted throughout the event illustrated a consensus that clarity from policymakers and concrete demand signals are the most critical enablers for the sector’s growth. Yet, fundamental questions about risk allocation between emitters, transport providers, and storage operators persist, alongside concerns regarding the bankability of initial projects and the misalignment between national climate ambitions and infrastructure timelines.

A notable insight from the conference was the willingness among participants to proceed with investments in ship-based CO2 transport even before comprehensive pipeline networks are established. This shift perspectives positions shipping not merely as a transitional or backup solution but as a key component in carbon management strategies. However, scepticism prevails regarding the readiness of commercial models by 2030, with many citing legal ambiguities and fragmented coordination as significant obstacles. Industry leaders from firms like Harbour Energy and ENI highlighted the persistent timing disconnect between storage availability and emitter commitments, underscoring systemic challenges that remain unresolved. Nevertheless, over 60% of conference participants expressed optimism that the first commercial-scale CO2 shipping projects would be operational before 2030, particularly in Norway, Belgium, and the Netherlands. They also showed strong support for the development of standardised contracts and definitions across the value chain, advocating for leadership from classification societies and financial institutions.

These challenges within the CO2 shipping sphere reflect broader tensions in the maritime sector’s decarbonisation efforts. Although the International Maritime Organization (IMO) achieved a milestone agreement in April 2025 establishing global emissions limits and a carbon pricing mechanism for shipping, critics underscore the policy’s shortcomings. The rules, set to take effect in 2028, primarily tackle large vessels responsible for the bulk of sector emissions, yet the carbon levy covers only 10% of emissions and is regarded as insufficient to drive early adoption of zero-carbon fuels. Stakeholders express concern that the funding derived—estimated at around $11-12 billion annually—may fail to be equitably distributed or effectively utilised, particularly with criticisms from Pacific nations regarding neglect of vulnerable countries. This limited scope, combined with legal uncertainties, undermines investor confidence and complicates efforts to scale up sustainable fuel technologies.

The shipping industry’s decarbonisation faces additional practical and technological hurdles. With international shipping responsible for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions—a share projected to rise significantly if unchecked—there is increasing urgency to transition from heavy fuel oil to cleaner energy sources such as hydrogen, ammonia, methanol, and biofuels. Efforts to trial alternatives, like Fortescue’s ammonia-fuelled ship and Maersk’s dual-fuel methanol vessels, reveal promising advances but also expose supply chain and safety challenges. The Brentwood shipping company Maersk, for instance, recently shifted strategy to incorporate LNG-powered ships as a pragmatic interim measure, responding to insufficient availability of sustainable methanol, a fuel with potential green credentials but limited supply. Moody’s analysis noted that the dearth of green methanol and ammonia infrastructure, coupled with the costly need to retrofit vessels, complicates the pathway to net-zero emissions.

Adding to the complexity is the ageing global fleet, with many vessels averaging over 22 years old. This ageing infrastructure pressures shipowners to modernise without clear guidance on emerging fuel technologies or unified regulatory frameworks, raising investment risks. Sector-wide decarbonisation will demand substantial financial commitments—estimates from UNCTAD and Norwegian risk managers suggest annual additional costs could range from $8 billion to as high as $90 billion to support full deployment of carbon-neutral fuels and necessary infrastructure by 2050. Meanwhile, innovative energy efficiency measures such as optimized routing, hull cleaning, and wind-assisted propulsion offer partial solutions but cannot replace the need for cleaner fuels and comprehensive policy support.

This landscape of cautious ambition juxtaposed with operational uncertainty underscores a critical disjunction: the shipping and CO2 transport sectors are not short on technical ideas or willingness to act but lack the cohesive and predictable policy frameworks that can transform intent into large-scale investment. While incremental progress is evident, coherent alignment between regulators, financiers, emitters, and operators remains imperative. Without it, the vital role shipping must play in global decarbonisation risks being delayed by fragmentation and risk-averse behaviour—in effect, the sector is navigating towards a net-zero future without a shared map.

📌 Reference Map:

Source: Noah Wire Services