The economics of maritime decarbonisation remain stubbornly challenging — and a viewpoint published by Ship & Bunker argues that regulation alone may not be sufficient to drive the transition at the pace the industry requires.
The Fuel Cost Gap Remains a Critical Barrier
Writing for Ship & Bunker, Chris Chatteron, Paul Cruickshank, and Ijla Nevolin of Carbon3 highlight the persistent price disparity between conventional and alternative marine fuels. Prior to the recent escalation of tensions in the Middle East, conventional bunker fuel was trading at approximately US$600 per tonne. Following the disruption, prices at several major bunkering hubs moved sharply higher — reaching above US$1,000 per tonne in some cases, depending on port, grade, and availability.
Alternative fuels such as green methanol and ammonia, however, continue to trade in the range of US$1,200 to US$2,000 per tonne or more. With the global shipping industry consuming roughly 300 million tonnes of fuel annually, the Carbon3 authors note that this cost gap represents one of the most significant barriers to decarbonisation at scale.
A Value Chain Problem, Not Just a Technology Problem
The viewpoint reframes the industry’s green transition as a value chain coordination challenge. According to the authors, shipowners carry the immediate financial burden of adopting lower-carbon fuels, yet the bulk of emissions pressure — classified as Scope 3 — originates with cargo owners, charterers, and end users who do not directly shoulder those costs. This structural misalignment, the authors argue, becomes more pronounced as fuel supply constraints and price volatility intensify.
Market-Based Mechanisms as a Complement to Regulation
The Carbon3 team explores whether market-based tools — particularly insetting models and book-and-claim systems — could help bridge this divide. Such frameworks would enable verified emissions reductions, whether from fuel switching or efficiency gains, to be allocated and shared among supply chain participants. In principle, this would allow cargo owners to address Scope 3 liabilities while providing shipowners with a mechanism to offset some of the higher costs associated with greener fuels.
Open Questions
The authors acknowledge a number of unresolved challenges, including:
- Verification and standardisation — Ensuring robust accounting and preventing double-counting of emissions reductions
- Regulatory alignment — Clarifying how such mechanisms interact with FuelEU Maritime, the EU ETS, and future IMO frameworks
- Market maturity — Markets for fractionalised emissions reductions and efficiency gains are still in early stages of development
- Market acceptance — Cargo owners and corporate reporters will need confidence in the credibility and auditability of allocated reductions
Regulation, Technology, and Markets — Together
According to the Ship & Bunker viewpoint, few expect market mechanisms alone to deliver the maritime energy transition. Regulation will remain essential in establishing direction and minimum standards. However, the Carbon3 authors argue that markets could accelerate action by enabling earlier adoption and distributing transition costs more efficiently across the value chain — particularly as fuel supply becomes an increasingly constrained variable alongside price and compliance.
Gulf Bunkering does not provide operational or security guidance. This article is for informational purposes only. Operators should consult flag state authorities, P&I clubs, and relevant advisories for decisions relating to transit planning.
Sources: Ship & Bunker
