Shipping groups compete on the regulatory cost of using LNG to supply ships

Unlock the publisher's digest free

Roula Khalaf, editor -in -chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

The Mitsui Osk lines, the second shipowner in the world, covered calls by its Rival AP Møller-Maersk to place a higher regulatory cost on the use of liquefied natural gas to supply ships than zero carbon fuels, highlighting industry divisions on the way of decaranize world trade.

In the midst of the Crunch interviews this week for the United Nations International Maritime Organization, where diplomats should agree on an economic measure to combat expedition emissions, the Japanese company criticized the proposals “differentiating between LNG and other low -emission options”.

The intervention of the Japanese group comes after the Danish owner Maersk warned the OMI member states that certain countries' proposals for a shipping program negotiation program does not sufficiently penalize those who use LNG. The fossil fuel emits up to a fifth carbon less than traditional bunker fuels but is much more polluting than green fuels.

“Until zero or near zero fuels can be adopted on a large scale, LNG is clearly a practical means of shipping of the expedition, given its availability, its economic viability and its security,” said Takeshi Hashimoto, president of Mol.

The confrontation between these industry leaders highlights a broader distribution on how to reduce expedition emissions, a debate which, for years, has divided some of the largest economies in the world during the omi negotiations, which the chiefs of the industry also assist and seek to influence.

With these discussions which should reach a head this week, the delegates could agree on the first world prize for carbon emissions in an industry, in a decision that could have implications for the future orientation of climate regulations.

Participants in London talks said there was a long way to go before a consensus was found among the Member States. Those who are particularly exposed to climate change such as the nations of the Pacific Island have called for a direct debit up to $ 100 to be imposed on each tonne of shipping carbon emissions, what environmentalists have argued is the simplest and most effective way to ensure that low carbon fuels are soon competitive.

Large exporters and nations of ships like China, for their part, supported a trading program that would allow the lower emitter ships to sell credits to more polluting ships.

OMI member states have agreed in 2023 that shipping, which represents around 3% of world emissions according to the OECD, should make a net zero “by or around” 2050. Some shipowners, including Maersk, have invested in ships that can operate in low carbon fuel like green methanol, and therefore concern by the high cost of these fuels rarely.

A large part of the industry has avoided making similar investments, due to the high cost and the availability of green fuels, and Maersk fear that if the OMI does not place a high cost on LNG, there will be no incitement to invest in the development of green fuels.

According to the DNV group, more than two -thirds of the 515 alternative fuel ships ordered in 2024. The ships powered by methanol represented less than a third of the total.

Mol, which had 873 ships last year, is already more than a third of the path to reach its objective of a fleet of 90 ships powered by LNG by 2030.

Hashimoto, who has not directly mentioned Maersk, recognized the risk that shipowners can become dependent on fossil LNG. But he argued that the OMI could “gradually intensify the regulatory standards” to pass a transition to the cleaner biography and the E-LNG.

Maersk, on the other hand, warned the OMI against the definition of measures which would not immediately place a sufficiently high cost on LNG to encourage investments in low carbon fuel, preventing the increase in supply which would in turn reduce the cost of these alternatives.

The shipowner, who himself ordered ships powered by LNG, agreed that fuel “has a role to play”, but added: “We do not consider LNG as a low emission option. It is a fossil fuel.”

He argued that the cleaner versions of LNG cannot provide the whole industry, adding that “if the industry turns to only LNG, other paths such as methanol and ammonia will not be developed to evolve”.