by Lloyd's List
28 March 2025 (Lloyd's List) - THE International Maritime Organization should price carbon emissions at no less than $600 per tonne, according to Maersk’s head of regulatory affairs.
Sanne Frias Henriksen said Maersk’s analysis showed that any climate measure agreed next month at the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee should start at that level to avoid a pay to pollute scenario.
The $600/tCO2e figure could come from a $100 carbon levy and a $500 penalty price under a global fuel standard, or a different mix.
Maersk has said the carbon levy should be set around $150-$200/tCO2e in recent years. The highest levy price suggested so far at IMO is $150/tCO2e; the lowest is just $18.75/tCO2e.
Henriksen said while different policy combinations could work, a levy would provide “certainty in terms of revenue generated”.
“It’s certainly my impression that all of industry wants this regulation,” she said. “The certainty that everyone is waiting for is super critical.”
Henriksen was speaking at the naming of new dual-fuel methanol containership Adrian Maersk (IMO: 9948815) in Rotterdam on Thursday.
She said different IMO states and organisations had their own modelling, but “the entire industry is pushing for a firm pricing mechanism”.
That certainty provided by a carbon price mechanism would be the demand signal green fuel suppliers have been calling for, she said.
“For them it’s important to have the bankability of this regulation, so that they can actually go to the bank and say there will be some sort of reward for the green fuels”.
But Henriksen warned the IMO regulation should not give outsize rewards for LNG-fuelled vessels compared with heavy fuel oil, referring to the IMO proposals that favour credit trading instead of a levy to raise revenue.
Earlier this month, Maersk told Lloyd’s List an emissions trading system would fail to raise enough money for the green transition and would not make green fuel production viable since its future stringency and projected revenue intake were too uncertain.
It would over-commit the industry to fossil LNG by handing it an outsize financial benefit (48% by one calculation) for an environment benefit of just 19% compared with conventional fuel.
Henriksen said the industry “would have to go with the lower risk solution”, which in this case would be LNG.
A majority of IMO states back a levy paired with a greenhouse gas fuel standard (GFS). But China, Brazil and several other states want the economic measure to take the form of a
GFS alone, with a “flexibility mechanism” to make compliance easier.
In recent weeks, an industry chorus spanning the UCL Energy Institute’s shipping research group to commodity traders Cargill and Vitol have warned the IMO not to go down that path, arguing it would add needless complexity, fail in its green goals and be too easily gamed by traders.
Henriksen said under some proposals LNG-fuelled vessels could be in line for rewards of around $8m a year, despite a reduction in emissions of around 20%.
Despite its anti-LNG comments, Maersk ordered dual-fuel LNG newbuildings last year, on the grounds of diversifying its green fuel options, and the availability of biomethane in Europe.
Maersk chief commercial officer Karsten Kildahl said Maersk did not consider LNG a green option. “That’s a black fossil fuel,” he said, but should a vessel use bio-LNG it could become green.
Henriksen said she thought there was “a lot of political will from member states” to get a measure decided in 2025, despite the uncertainty.
“I think all stakeholders are very adamant on getting an agreement,” she said.
Kildahl said setting the carbon price too low would fail to force a switch to green fuels.
“And if that is the end result, then we’re not going to get any help from legislation to do the green transition. And then it will be a long, long process,” he said.
Kildahl said the “best possible outcome” would be a proposal that “evens the cost between black and green”.
