The movement of people and goods underpins our modern economy. At the heart of this is shipping; the engine transporting 80 percent of world trade according to the UN. Despite its reputation as the most sustainable large-scale mode of transport, this vast network incurs a hidden cost: about 3 percent of global emissions.

Cleaner alternatives to conventional fuels exist, but most carry a punishing price tag. Yet equipment makers continue to innovate: in Finland, Wärtsilä has been supplying multi-fuel engines, hybrid battery systems and onboard carbon capture, and is currently developing hydrogen technology. Samskip is investing in shore power, allowing ships to plug in at port instead of running engines, sharply cutting emissions.

“There’s strong support for unified regulation. Shipowners, engine makers, and fuel producers all want clear rules and a level playing field...Some are waiting for the perfect fuel or regulation, but waiting is the bigger risk,” says Øistein Jensen, CSO of Odfjell Group.

Alas, long-sought clarity may be on the horizon. This autumn, the first-ever mandatory global carbon pricing scheme of any major sector is expected to roll out, a move eight years in the making that could rewrite maritime economics.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) framework proposes a mixture of incentives and penalties: low-emission vessels and early adopters would earn exemptions and credits, while polluters face levies of $380 per extra ton of CO₂ if they emit above a fixed emissions threshold. If implemented, it’s projected to generate up to $10 billion annually, funds earmarked for developing countries, port infrastructure, and support for early adopters.

For many, this represents a watershed moment. Maersk’s Group Representative for Europe Simon Bergulf, believes “It would finally create a global level playing field and could unlock large-scale investments in production. It's historic, and if the vote fails in October, we don’t just try again next year. We’d be delaying progress by 10 years at least, which would be a huge missed opportunity.”

Could the proposal sink before it sails? Support has been strong, with backing from China, India, Brazil, Singapore, and much of Europe. However, in the most recent voting round, the US abstained, and several OPEC nations, including Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, voted against. Still, the IMO’s Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez remains confident a consensus can be reached. “The concerns are real; some fear impacts on fuel costs, food security, and trade, especially for oil-dependent or developing economies… But a vote doesn’t mean division; we’re still working as one organization. I'm very confident it will pass. The conversations haven’t stopped between sessions.”

In the meantime, the pathway is less about a single breakthrough fuel and more about multi-fuel capability. Given that the IMO reported half of last year’s vessel orders were designed for alternative fuels, the momentum looks encouraging.

While the green transition is proving slower, costlier, and more uneven than early champions had envisioned, we’ve arrived at a point of no return. The test now will be whether governments, companies, and consumers can reckon with these hard truths as the conditions of progress. Rather than a stalled experiment, this volatile period could lay the foundation for a more competitive and enduring order.