Global Trade Ports Impact

Let’s be real — shipping has been getting away with free emissions for a long time. No carbon tax. No real targets. Just slow-moving vessels burning bunker fuel while the rest of us scramble for net zero. But that’s about to change. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) just did something historic — it approved a global carbon price for shipping. And this isn’t just industry talk. This could shake up the way we move goods, fuel vessels, and price carbon… globally. Here’s the gist: From 2028, ships will need to comply with a new two-tier system. Tier 1: Fuel standard – Ships must switch to cleaner fuels over time. Tier 2: Credit trading – Emit more? You buy credits. Emit less? You might get paid. The goal: Cut carbon intensity by 65% by 2040 (compared to 2008 levels). Yes, that’s a big target. But… it’s still not aligned with the 1.5°C ambition of the Paris Agreement. So we’re moving, but not fast enough. Why does this matter (even if you're not in shipping)? Because shipping moves 90% of global trade. What this means: the cost of shipping a banana, a sofa, or even a solar panel could change. And the carbon price on ships could spill over into other sectors—aviation, logistics, manufacturing. It also gives us a template for how a global carbon market might work. That’s huge. So what’s next? 2025: Final rules adopted. 2028: The system kicks in. Details like the actual carbon price and how funds will be used? Still being worked out. This might sound technical, but it’s a signal. The age of “business as usual” is running out of runway… or ocean. If a global agreement on shipping emissions is possible — what else might we finally get serious about? #sustainability #climatechange #carbonpricing #shipping #IMO #decarbonisation Picture of ships from Tanah Merah Beach

🌊 Shared Waters, Shared Responsibility Shipping is the backbone of global trade, moving over 80% of goods worldwide. Yet for decades, the carbon cost of global shipping quietly sailed under the radar—until now. Last week, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) approved the first global carbon pricing framework for the shipping industry. It’s a landmark step—and a powerful sign of what’s to come. Starting in 2028, vessels over 5,000 gross tons will face new climate rules: 🚢 Cleaner fuels – Ships must cut the greenhouse gas intensity of their fuel mix by 30% by 2035, starting with a 4% reduction in 2028. 💰 Carbon fees • Ships that fall slightly below will pay $100/tonne of CO₂ • Those that fall far short face a steeper fee of $380/tonne of CO₂ • Outperformers can earn credits to offset future emissions or trade. 🌱 Climate fund – All fees will support a new IMO Net-Zero Fund, backing green fuel innovation, infrastructure, and a just transition across the sector. In a globally competitive industry like shipping, no single player can absorb the cost of decarbonization alone, as it might put them at a cost disadvantage. This collective agreement ensures shared responsibility and a level playing field. This also reinforces a bigger truth: Sustainability and ESG considerations are no longer peripheral—they’re reshaping strategy, operations, and capital allocation. Businesses and investors who understand these shifts early will be better positioned for long-term resilience. 💬 How do you see this affecting your industry or supply chain? Let’s discuss! ************** 🔔 I share weekly insights on investing, sustainability, and career development. Follow my profile for updates. #Sustainability #Investing #CarbonMarkets #Maritime #IMO

Next week, I will be heading to the International Maritime Organization MEPC 83, where Member States are expected to take a major step forward.   Here is what is on the table:   🔹 Two key measures and their commercial impacts   📍1. Goal-Based GHG Fuel Standard (GFS) – technical measure: A phased reduction of the GHG intensity of marine fuels, designed to accelerate the shift to zero- or near-zero (ZNZ) emission fuels and technologies. Ships that fail to meet their annual GHG fuel intensity targets will face financial penalties, including the purchase of remedial units (RUs).   A new "two-tier" proposal has been tabled to introduce a two-tier compliance structure, though it is still uncertain whether this will gain enough support to be adopted. Under this system: a) "direct compliance target (DCT)" a higher GFI threshold. Ships meeting this level would be considered fully compliant and eligible to earn surplus units; b) "base target" (BT) a lower GFI threshold. Ships below the DCT but above the BT would fall into a "provisional compliance" category.   Two pricing tiers for RUs are suggested:   - Tier 1 RUs: Lower-cost RUs, applicable to ships with a compliance balance between the DCT and BT. - Tier 2 RUs: Higher-cost RUs, applicable to ships with a compliance balance below the BT.   Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping analysis recommends RU cost ≥ 450 USD/tCO2eq (WTW); RU cost ≥ 550 USD/tCO2eq (TTW-adjusted) to avoid a “pay-to-pollute” loophole.   Other key aspects:   - Surplus units will be awarded to ships on or above the DCT. - Banking may be limited to one year.   📍 2. Global Carbon Levy – economic measure: A direct levy on total GHG emissions, which would increase the financial cost of emitting CO2. Three main proposals are in play: $18.75/tCO2e; $100/tCO2e; $150/tCO2e.   However, concerns remain about double-charging, as the technical measure already embeds economic element through RUs. The core difference though is that the technical measure addresses GHG intensity of the fuel used, while the economic measure targets absolute emissions.   🔹 The way forward   By 11 April, IMO is expected to confirm which measures will proceed and how the two will work (or not).   If both measures are agreed, details such as: definitions, flexibility mechanisms (banking, pooling, borrowing) must be finalised by October 2025 (MEPC 84).   If only the technical measure advances, there is potential for regional actions. For example, the EU ETS already covers 50% of emissions for voyages between EU and non-EU ports. But if no global measure is adopted by 2028, the European Commission may take further steps and may extend its application beyond 50%.   At Siglar Carbon we are closely following this critical discussion that will have a huge commercial impact for our industry. We aim to ensure that the industry remains both informed and prepared.

🚨 JUST HOURS AGO, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) adopted a landmark carbon pricing measure for international shipping. Starting in 2028, ships will be financially accountable for missing decarbonisation targets – a crucial development for a sector that was not included in the Paris Agreement, which focused solely on domestic emissions. 🔹 Ships will be measured against two decarbonisation targets: • Missing the main target triggers a fee of $100 per tonne of CO₂e above the limit. • Falling below the weaker threshold leads to a higher cost—up to $380 per tonne, unless offset by credits from cleaner ships. 🛳️ Shipping is responsible for nearly 3% of global CO₂ emissions (which is about as much as Russia)—and as highlighted in the IPCC AR6 WGIII Figure 10.16 (second slide), current policy trajectories are misaligned with the 1.5°C and 2°C pathways. Without stronger action, shipping emissions are projected to double by 2100. 🔬 Moreover, with over 40% of maritime freight used for carrying fossil fuels (AR6 WGIII Ch 10.6), decarbonising energy systems could also lead to a reduction in shipping volumes. 🌍 This levy represents a crucial addition to existing IMO measures (EEXI, CII, SEEMP) and signals that even the most challenging sectors are finally entering the climate policy fold. 🔗 : IPCC AR6, WGIII, 2023, (Chapter 10.6: https://lnkd.in/dRwqFYCs ), FT, 2025 (https://lnkd.in/dZGggfn7) #IMO #ShippingEmissions #CarbonPricing #ParisAgreement #IPCC #ClimateAction #AR6 #Decarbonisation

The world’s 1st binding global carbon price for international shipping is about to become reality, and it will rewrite the economics of global trade. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is expected to formally adopt its Net Zero Framework, including a global carbon pricing mechanism that will cover the world’s entire shipping sector, a system responsible for roughly 3% of global emissions. This is historic. It marks the first time a global industry will be regulated by a carbon price under international law. Ship owners and operators will face emissions intensity limits and pay penalties for exceeding them or invest in low-carbon fuels such as green methanol and ammonia to comply. Either way, the cost of carbon will be embedded into the cost of moving goods across oceans. The implications reach far beyond shipping. Expect ripple effects across logistics, manufacturing, retail, and commodities, as freight costs climb and decarbonization becomes an operational and financial necessity. Fuel producers, ports, and energy firms will see a surge in demand for low-carbon fuels and infrastructure, while investors will redirect capital toward maritime innovation and clean-energy technologies. This isn’t just about compliance. It’s a forcing function for transformation: one that will reward companies that move early to optimize routes, redesign supply chains, and build resilience into the flow of global trade. The IMO’s framework may prove to be one of the most consequential climate policies of the decade. It signals a future where carbon cost is no longer externalized; it’s priced, enforced, and global. Carbon has always had a cost — in climate, equity, and resilience. Now that it’s being priced, who will adapt fastest? Who will lag behind?

🚢 IMO 2028: Pay the Carbon Fee or Switch Fuels? With the International Maritime Organization’s $380/ton CO₂ fee approaching in 2028, shipowners face a defining decision: Do you keep burning VLSFO and absorb the penalty—or switch to alternative fuels? I just released a publication that answers this using real operational data from a 60 MW vessel model. We evaluated the total daily cost of VLSFO (with carbon tax) against green fuels like methanol, ammonia, hydrogen, biodiesel blends, and LNG—including fuel prices, CapEx amortization, retrofit penalties, and carbon fee exposure. 🔍 Key Findings: ✅ LNG is the only green fuel cheaper than VLSFO + tax in 2028 ❌ RD20, B30, and Green Methanol avoid the tax, but still cost ~$28,000–$30,000/day more 💰 The IMO carbon fee could generate over $100B/year in the early 2030s ⏳ The revenue generated by the fuel fees could help scaling green fuels faster. ⚠️ The carbon fee isn’t permanent—it’s a front-loaded financial lever. If we don't reinvest that money quickly into port infrastructure and CapEx support, we risk “greening” marine margins without ever fully decarbonizing. 📘 Read the full publication here on Ship&Bunker: https://lnkd.in/ew9ney5q