ClimateWorks Foundation is a global nonprofit focused on advancing climate solutions and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In this Q&A, Jason Anderson, Senior Program Director at ClimateWorks Foundation, discusses how the organization’s Maritime Shipping program is working to accelerate the decarbonization of the global maritime sector.
Q: In your article on reducing emissions from maritime shipping, you mention potential actions for the sector to reach its net-zero by 2050 goal, including a Global Fuel Standard, a carbon levy, and improved efficiency standards. Can you discuss how each of these may play a role, whether any strike you as particularly promising, and whether the IMO can expect significant industry backlash?
A: Since my 2024 article on net-zero commitments came out, a lot has happened. In April 2025, negotiators at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) settled on a Net Zero Framework (NZF) that combines a fuel standard with a carbon pricing mechanism, this is distinct from a universal levy, yet would still raise significant revenue. Efficiency standards continue to be discussed in a separate track.
Although the NZF was agreed to at that meeting, formal adoption in the fall of 2025 was delayed by a year due to political wrangling. That delay has both stranded green transition investments that were awaiting the IMO decision and made the regulatory path forward harder to anticipate. The maritime industry is among the most disappointed in the current situation, as they would like to see an IMO deal.
Q: In the past, you led the Just Transition Program, and you mention the role that carbon levy revenue could have on financing a just transition. What are the possible uses of carbon levy revenue in both promoting a just transition and negating previous impacts of maritime shipping emissions? Do you see this revenue as offsetting potential losses for lower-income countries whose shipping industries are affected?
A: Having sufficient revenue from a global system for a just transition is a vital goal for many countries, particularly Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Less Developed Countries (LDCs).
On the one hand, they depend on the shipment of goods that provide essential inputs to agriculture and industry, and serve as the primary route for exports. These nations will likely see some effects of any price rises due to the costs of the transition. Over time, they could be subject to the dumping of older ships that continue to use polluting fossil fuels.
On the other hand, these nations also have a much lower footprint in the industry as shipbuilders, owners, and operators. That means they don’t see the same opportunity for industrial innovation that the transition represents. With funding assistance, these countries with little impact on global warming could protect themselves and even find opportunities in the new global shipping system.
Q: What are the biggest bottlenecks in maritime decarbonization? Who is currently leading the push for maritime decarbonization and how have political developments under the Trump Administration affected the US approach?
A: At the moment, the biggest barrier in maritime decarbonization is a clear demand signal for new technology. Suppliers of new ships, engines and fuels aren’t going to scale their output if there aren’t enough buyers demanding their products. Without policy like the NZF, the direction of travel is less clear, and that leaves unsustainable options like marine diesel, liquefied natural gas (LNG) and biofuels in a stronger position.
The European Union’s set of complementary approaches, such as the EU Emissions Trading System and Fuel EU Maritime Directive, are de facto global standards, but only affect ships in and out of Europe and so do not have enough reach to shift the whole industry.
A few similar policies in other major countries, like Asia and North America, could tip the balance. There are several proposals in the US Congress that would allow the country to play that role, but insufficient political support has halted policy for now.
Q: Could decarbonisation of shipping lead to shifts in global trade routes or port competitiveness, especially around emerging green fuel hubs?
A: In principle, decarbonisation shouldn’t impact that dynamic, as ships serve an underlying demand for trade that is dictated by the supply and demand for goods and services. But companies have to make choices about where ships refuel, and where goods are transferred from ocean-going vessels to local feeder ships or land transport.
With renewable energy available everywhere in the world, it’s possible that we could see fuel supplies available at ports that aren’t currently major hubs. To some degree, it may depend on who makes an early effort to prepare for that shift. Potentially, some early movers could get an important toe-hold that they expand in the future.
It’s not easy to compete at scale, as current hubs have decades of major investment and massive infrastructure. For an African port to scale up, for example, the effort takes a lot more than simply being adjacent to a good renewable energy resource. But we see these examples as real opportunities if attention is given to involving various forms of international finance.
Q: How do geopolitical chokepoints like the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz factor into planning for a low-carbon shipping transition, particularly in terms of fuel security and infrastructure resilience?
A: The current fuel crisis in the Gulf has definitely added to concerns about reliance on fossil fuels. The industry has had to absorb fuel price rises, not to mention the stranded seafarers whose lives have been at risk.
Since renewable energy is more widely available globally, a net-zero shipping industry could become more resilient and diversified. Trade chokepoints still exist, but many countries are trying to offer competition through expanded ports or alternative routes.
Yet there’s a lot to consider when looking at a resilient transition for the future. One concern is that infrastructure developments can have negative impacts on the environment and local communities. A truly just transition will take all of these factors into account, as well as others like skill training and other benefits to communities.
