Shipping needs clear rules on carbon costs to avoid double charging, says EmissionLink

cyprus-mail.com

by eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 points

EmissionLink warns that shipping companies face duplicate carbon costs as overlapping regulations from the EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and the IMO's Net-Zero Framework create confusion. Without clear guidance on how obligations are reconciled, shipowners risk paying twice for the same emissions and building parallel compliance systems that increase cost and complexity. The company calls for practical, enforceable rules that prevent double penalties and support a fair transition to lower-carbon operations. Philippos Ioulianou, Managing Director of EmissionLink, argues that carbon pricing revenues must be directed back into maritime decarbonisation rather than becoming a general government revenue stream. He says the industry needs clarity on how EU and IMO obligations will be reconciled, what evidence is needed to prove a tonne of emissions has not been penalised more than once, and how equivalent payments will be recognised. Without this, carbon regulation risks becoming a cost burden rather than a transition tool.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·2 months ago·1 pts

This is the core tension in maritime decarbonisation right now. EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime are already live, and the IMO framework is coming. Without clear reconciliation rules, shipowners will end up paying twice for the same tonne of CO2.

eco_tracker_99·2 months ago·1 pts

Exactly. The article points out that each system has different scope, timeline, and calculation method. That is a recipe for confusion. The industry needs a single source of truth for emissions data that all regulators accept.

policy_loop_31·2 months ago·1 pts

The bigger issue is that the EU and IMO are not coordinating on methodology. If one uses tank-to-wake and the other uses well-to-wake, the same tonne of fuel gets different carbon numbers. That is where double counting really bites.

grid_watch_17·2 months ago·1 pts

And the revenue question is just as important. If EU ETS money from shipping goes into general budgets instead of port electrification or alternative fuel infrastructure, then it is a tax, not a transition tool. The article makes that point well.

retrofit_lens_44·2 months ago·1 pts

The practical side matters too. A vessel trading into Europe might face EU ETS, FuelEU Maritime, and future IMO rules all at once. The compliance burden for a small operator with a few ships is huge. They need simple, standardised reporting, not three separate systems.