International shipping regulator urges industry to reduce carbon pollution

For years, the international shipping industry has been criticized for making little progress in reducing the carbon-belching pollution released by the vessels that move most of the cargo that people use every day, such as food, cars, clothes and many other things.

Now, the new head of the International Martime Organization, charged with regulating international shipping, is subtly calling out inaction and nudging companies to work harder.

“What I’m finding is that there is more that can be done,” said Arsenio Dominguez, who gave a wide-ranging interview on the sidelines of Germany’s Hamburg Sustainability Conference this week. “The low hanging fruit is there.”

Dominguez, who took over as secretary general at the beginning of this year, said such measures include using satellites to chart routes according to weather, in order to waste less fuel, cleaning the hulls of ships to reduce friction in the water and what is often referred to as slow steaming, or having a ship go slower than its capacity, which also uses less fuel and thus pollutes less.

Dominguez was careful to also note that many companies are doing a lot to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which cause climate change. But getting to the IMO’s goal of a 30% reduction of emissions by 2030 will require immediate implementation of every possibility.

Ultimately, major decarbonizing of the sector will take an overhaul of shipping fuel, said Dominguez, a point that industry leaders agree on.

Today, most ships run on heavy fuel oil, which releases carbon dioxide along with sulfur, nitrogen and other pollutants.

Much cleaner fuels already exist, and many more are being developed, such as hydrogen, ammonia and biofuels. But they are more expensive, not yet available at scale and only better for the planet when made in clean ways.

Currently, the shipping industry is responsible for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Their total emissions are expected to go up sharply in future decades unless major changes are made.

Other parts of the world economy have made strides at decarbonizing, such as the power and ground transportation sectors, thanks to electrification. Comparatively, little has happened in shipping.

Last year, the IMO set a target to reach net zero by or around 2050, a goal that is a potential catalyst while also putting a spotlight on just how far the industry has to go.

The IMO is being pushed to move toward a carbon tax in part to be in line with what is already happening in some places, like the European Union.

Starting this year, large ships coming in and out of European ports pay taxes on their carbon dioxide emissions.

Starting in 2026, they will also pay for methane and nitrous oxide emissions, also greenhouse gases.

Some industry leaders hope that a carbon levy from the IMO, which would effectively be the world’s first global carbon tax, could allow shipping companies to simply pay one carbon tax, instead of taxes in multiple jurisdictions.

Still, there is wide disagreement, both among countries and shipping companies, over a tax, how much it should be and what would revenue be used for.

“I don’t call it a tax. I know that is a way of referring to it,” said Dominguez, framing that underscored how sensitive the issue is.

Dominguez said there were multiple scenarios on the table as delegates, member countries of the IMO, considered rating the carbon efficiency of ships, setting fuel standards and gathering revenue for emissions.

The committee next meets in April, when it’s expected to approve the measures, which will need to be defined by then. Formal adoption would take place in the fall, and whatever is decided wouldn’t take effect until 2027, giving countries and companies time to adjust.

In the meantime, Dominguez said that shipping companies needed to do all they could to cut emissions, which for some included using liquid natural gas as a fuel.

Dominguez said ship engine manufacturers had been able to increase the efficiency of engines in big ways with LNG, which would lead to lower emissions.

“If we stop LNG right now without an alternative, then we go back to Square 1,” he said, adding that he knew it “was a divisive point.”

Scientific studies have shown that leaks of LNG, which is mostly methane, itself a potent greenhouse gas, can cancel out any advantage gained from burning more cleanly compared to other fossil fuels.

Environmentalists have long argued that using LNG is simply a way for major oil and gas producers to continue business as usual, thus postponing a major transition to renewable energies.