Shipping risks missing its 2030 target for scalable zero-emission fuels as uncertainty over global emissions rules weighs on demand and financing, gCaptain reported, citing an assessment by the UCL Energy Institute and Getting to Zero Coalition. Growth in alternative-fuel infrastructure and vessel capability has not been matched by the commercial signals needed to support wider adoption.
The International Maritime Organization’s Net-Zero Framework, agreed in principle last year, still awaits formal adoption. It would progressively tighten limits on the greenhouse gas intensity of marine fuels, charge higher-emitting ships and reward cleaner energy use. The delay leaves shipowners, producers and lenders without clarity on the rules underpinning long-term investment decisions.
According to figures reported by gCaptain, vessels capable of using scalable zero-emission fuels accounted for 5.7% of global orderbook tonnage, down from 9.5% over the past year. Shipping-specific sustainable debt issuance fell to $3 billion in 2025 from $3.4 billion in 2024. Meanwhile, the number of ports providing methanol bunkering rose from 19 to 29, methanol-capable tonnage in service tripled, and the sector completed its first ammonia bunkering operations and sea trials.
The 2030 ambition is for scalable zero-emission fuels to supply at least 5%, and preferably 10%, of international shipping’s fuel use, supporting the IMO’s goal of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by or around 2050. The assessment found technology and zero-emission fuel supply partially on track, but rated demand, finance and policy off track. Thousands of vessels ordered in the coming years could remain operational well into the 2040s, making current fuel and engine choices consequential.
Governments remain divided over the framework’s economic mechanism, which is expected to raise about $10 billion-$15 billion annually. At the latest technical talks, 38 countries explicitly backed retaining carbon pricing and the revenue mechanism, while 17, mainly oil-producing states, opposed it on cost grounds, gCaptain reported. The United States is also a strong opponent; European countries and Pacific Island states argue that weakening the mechanism would damage alternative-fuel investment.
Further technical negotiations are scheduled for 23-27 November, ahead of the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s MEPC 85 meeting from 30 November to 3 December. The framework is expected to be considered for possible adoption at an extraordinary session on 4 December.