The shipping industry is an integral part of international trade. Over the past 40 years, global maritime trade has increased 10X in value. Just like other transportation sectors aviation and auto, shipping also has some level of carbon emissions.
In the Announced Pledges Scenario (APS), shipping emissions could fall significantly. IEA predicts by 2035, emissions from international shipping may drop by nearly 60%, and by 2050, they could fall by more than 90%.
This shift is expected as the shipping industry adopts cleaner fuels like biofuels, ammonia, and methanol. By 2050, low-carbon fuels may power over 80% of global shipping.

The Two-Way Approach to Decarbonizing Shipping
Decarbonizing the shipping industry is crucial for meeting global emissions targets. Currently, two primary strategies are in place which are enhancing energy efficiency and transitioning to low-emissions fuels. These approaches offer complementary benefits and can significantly reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Boosting Energy Efficiency in Shipping
One of the simplest operational measures is “slow steaming,” which involves reducing the average speed of ships. This practice doesn’t require modifications to the vessels but can indirectly affect costs. While slow steaming can lower overall fuel consumption, it may also increase operational expenses due to a need for more ships to maintain the same shipping capacity. This is particularly significant for sectors relying on just-in-time delivery systems.
Many technologies to improve energy efficiency are already available. New regulations like the Carbon Intensity Index (CII) require ships to lower their emissions over time, encouraging both new ships and retrofits to adopt energy-saving features.
There are a variety of technical measures that can be implemented to improve a ship’s fuel efficiency. Some examples are:
- Rigid Sails and Rotor Sails: Using wind for propulsion can reduce fuel usage.
- Waste Heat Recovery: Capturing and reusing heat from the engine improves overall efficiency.
- Anti-Fouling Hull Coatings: These prevent the growth of marine organisms on hulls, enhancing performance.
- Hull Optimization: Streamlining hull shapes minimizes water resistance, boosting speed and efficiency.
- Air Lubrication Systems: Generating microbubbles under the hull reduces friction.
Since 2010, the energy efficiency design of new ships has improved by 30-50%, driven by initiatives such as the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI). While current energy efficiency technologies are commercially available, they are not adopted very easily.
IEA predicts that efficiency gains of 5-10% or more by 2030 are feasible with highly advanced energy-efficient methods.
Now speaking about costs; the investment required for energy-efficient upgrades varies widely, but they often pay off through fuel savings. For instance, hull form optimization costs about $250,000 and can boost energy efficiency by 7.5%. More extensive retrofits, such as kite sails, can cost up to $1.2 million but offer smaller gains.
On the other hand, a new bulk carrier built with cutting-edge technology could be 40% more efficient than one built in 2023, while a retrofitted container ship could achieve about 30% in energy savings.
Transitioning to low-emission fuels
While improving energy efficiency is vital, it cannot completely eliminate emissions. This is why the shipping industry must also shift to low-emissions fuels to reach its net zero target.
Promising options for low-emission fuels are:
- Biodiesel: Can be used in existing diesel engines with little modification.
- Biomethane: A renewable alternative compatible with LNG engines.
These drop-in fuels have limitations based on the availability of sustainable biomass and high production costs. Despite being cheaper to implement, their overall costs may be higher due to market competition, particularly from aviation.
Advanced Alternatives: Methanol, Ammonia, and Hydrogen
- Methanol: Gaining popularity, methanol-fueled vessels are on the rise. In 2023, the first methanol-fueled container ship with a dual-fuel engine began operation. However, methanol requires modifications to ship engines and tanks.
- Ammonia: Although at a lower technology readiness level, ammonia offers a promising future due to its lack of carbon sourcing requirements. Approximately 20 ammonia-powered vessels are on order, with deliveries expected by 2026.
- Hydrogen: Over 20 hydrogen-fueled vessels are currently operational or planned. Safety guidelines for hydrogen usage in shipping are being developed, aligned with those for ammonia.
Shipping companies will need to consider the total cost of ownership, including fuel costs over a vessel’s lifespan when deciding which fuel technology to adopt. While methanol may be cost-effective for smaller vessels, ammonia tends to be more economical for larger ships.

Future Emissions Trajectories
International maritime shipping emissions have risen sharply in recent years, with a peak of 0.67 Gt CO2 in 2023, accounting for around 2% of global energy-related CO2 emissions. Emissions reductions will heavily depend on policies that promote faster efficiency gains and the switch to low-emission fuels.
In a scenario aligned with the latest IMO GHG Strategy, emissions could be reduced by more than 90% by 2050 compared to 2023 levels, primarily through low-emissions fuels like ammonia.
As shipping activity is projected to increase significantly, implementing low-emission strategies becomes imperative. By 2040, fossil fuel use in shipping could drop from nearly 100% to less than 30%.
However, the transition to low-emission shipping technologies will require substantial investment and regulatory support. Nonetheless, the potential for significant emissions reductions makes it significant for the industry.
Maersk Seals Long-Term Bio-Methanol Deal to Achieve Zero-Emission in Shipping
Danish shipping giant A.P. Moller–Maersk has entered a long-term agreement with China’s LONGi Green Energy Technology Co Ltd to purchase bio-methanol. This partnership strengthens Maersk’s commitment to zero-emission shipping. The press release revealed that,
It will meet Maersk’s methanol sustainability requirements including at least 65% reductions in GHG emissions on a lifecycle basis compared to fossil fuels of 94 g CO2e/MJ. The bio-methanol supply is set to begin in 2026.
Bio-fuels and e-methanol are emerging as go-to alternatives for major fossil fuel users, such as the shipping industry, due to their scalability and potential for sustainable production.
However, Maersk highlighted that the substantial cost difference between fossil fuels and greener options remains a significant barrier, challenging the shipping industry’s progress toward adopting alternative fuels and achieving net-zero targets.
Disclaimer: Source of all data and images from IEA Energy Technology Perspective 2024
MUST READ: Can Nuclear Power Propel Maritime into a Zero-Emission Era? Maersk to Explore Nuclear for Ships
The post IEA Predicts 90% Drop in Shipping Emissions by 2050. Can Maersk’s Bio-Methanol Deal be a Game-Changer? appeared first on Carbon Credits.
Carbon Footprint
Finding Nature Based Solutions in Your Supply Chain
Carbon Footprint
How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living
Americans are paying more for insurance, electricity, taxes, and home repairs every year. What many people may not realize is that climate change is already one of the drivers behind those rising costs.
For many households, climate change is no longer just an environmental issue. It is becoming a cost-of-living issue. While climate impacts like melting glaciers and shrinking polar ice can feel distant from everyday life, the financial effects are already showing up in monthly budgets across the country.
Today, a larger share of household income is consumed by fixed costs such as housing, insurance, utilities, and healthcare. (3) Climate change and climate inaction are adding pressure to many of those expenses through higher disaster recovery costs, rising energy demand, infrastructure repairs, and increased insurance risk.
The goal of this article is to help connect climate change to the everyday financial realities people already experience. Regardless of where someone stands on climate policy, it is important to recognize that climate change is already increasing costs for households, businesses, and taxpayers across the United States.
More conservative estimates indicate that the average household has experienced an increase of about $400 per year from observed climate change, while less conservative estimates suggest an increase of $900.(1) Those in more disaster-prone regions of the country face disproportionate costs, with some households experiencing climate-related costs averaging $1,300 per year.(1) Another study found that climate adaptation costs driven by climate change have already consumed over 3% of personal income in the U.S. since 2015.(9) By the end of the century, housing units could spend an additional $5,600 on adaptation costs.(1)
Whether we realize it or not, Americans are already paying for climate change through higher insurance premiums, energy costs, taxes, and infrastructure repairs. These growing expenses are often referred to as climate adaptation costs.
Without meaningful climate action, these costs are expected to continue rising. Choosing not to invest in climate action is also choosing to spend more on climate adaptation.
Here are a few ways climate change is already increasing the cost of living:
- Higher insurance costs from more frequent and severe storms
- Higher energy use during longer and hotter summers
- Higher electricity rates tied to storm recovery and grid upgrades
- Higher government spending and taxpayer-funded disaster recovery costs
The real debate is not whether climate change costs money. Americans are already paying for it. The question is where we want those costs to go. Should we invest more in climate action to help reduce future climate adaptation costs, or continue paying growing recovery and adaptation expenses in everyday life?
How Climate Change Is Increasing Insurance Costs
There is one industry that closely tracks the financial impact of natural disasters: insurance. Insurance companies are focused on assessing risk, estimating damages, and collecting enough revenue to cover losses and remain financially stable.
Comparing the 20-year periods 1980–1999 and 2000–2019, climate-related disasters increased 83% globally from 3,656 events to 6,681 events. The average time between billion-dollar disasters dropped from 82 days during the 1980s to 16 days during the last 10 years, and in 2025 the average time between disasters fell to just 10 days. (6)
According to the reinsurance firm Munich Re, total economic losses from natural disasters in 2024 exceeded $320 billion globally, nearly 40% higher than the decade-long annual average. Average annual inflation-adjusted costs more than quadrupled from $22.6 billion per year in the 1980s to $102 billion per year in the 2010s. Costs increased further to an average of $153.2 billion annually during 2020–2024, representing another 50% increase over the 2010s. (6)
In the United States, billion-dollar weather and climate disasters have also increased significantly. The average number of billion-dollar disasters per year has grown from roughly three annually during the 1980s to 19 annually over the last decade. In 2023 and 2024, the U.S. recorded 28 and 27 billion-dollar disasters respectively, both setting new records. (6)
The growing impact of climate change is one reason insurance costs continue to rise. “There are two things that drive insurance loss costs, which is the frequency of events and how much they cost,” said Robert Passmore, assistant vice president of personal lines at the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America. “So, as these events become more frequent, that’s definitely going to have an impact.” (8)
After adjusting for inflation, insurance costs have steadily increased over time. From 2000 to 2020, insurance costs consistently grew faster than the Consumer Price Index due to rising rebuilding costs and weather-related losses.(3) Between 2020 and 2023 alone, the average home insurance premium increased from $75 to $360 due to climate change impacts, with disaster-prone regions experiencing especially steep increases.(1) Since 2015, homeowners in some regions affected by more extreme weather have seen home insurance costs increased by nearly 57%.(1) Some insurers have also limited or stopped offering coverage in high-risk areas.(7)
For many families, rising insurance costs are no longer occasional financial burdens. They are becoming recurring monthly expenses tied directly to growing climate risk.
How Rising Temperatures Increase Household Energy Costs

The financial impacts of climate change extend beyond insurance. Rising temperatures are also changing how much energy Americans use and how utilities plan for future electricity demand.
Between 1950 and 2010, per capita electricity use increased 10-fold, though usage has flattened or slightly declined since 2012 due to more efficient appliances and LED lighting. (3) A significant share of increased energy demand comes from cooling needs associated with higher temperatures.
Over the last 20 years, the United States has experienced increasing Cooling Degree Days (CDD) and decreasing Heating Degree Days (HDD). Nearly all counties have become warmer over the past three decades, with some areas experiencing several hundred additional cooling degree days, equivalent to roughly one additional degree of warmth on most days. (1) This trend reflects a warming climate where air conditioning demand is increasing while heating demand generally declines. (4)
As temperatures continue rising, households are expected to spend more on cooling than they save on heating. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) projects that by 2050, national Heating Degree Days will be 11% lower while Cooling Degree Days will be 28% higher than 2021 levels. Cooling demand is projected to rise 2.5 times faster than heating demand declines. (5)
These projections come from energy and infrastructure experts planning for future electricity demand and grid capacity needs. Utilities and grid operators are already preparing for higher peak summer electricity loads caused by rising temperatures. (5)
Longer and hotter summers also affect how homes and buildings are designed. Buildings constructed for past climate conditions may require upgrades such as larger air conditioning systems, stronger insulation, and improved ventilation to remain comfortable and energy efficient in the future. (10)
For many households, this means higher monthly utility bills and potentially higher long-term home improvement costs as temperatures continue to rise.
How Climate Change Affects Electricity Rates
On an inflation-adjusted basis, average U.S. residential electricity rates are slightly lower today than they were 50 years ago. (2) However, climate-related damage to utility infrastructure is creating new upward pressure on electricity costs.
Electric utilities rely heavily on above-ground poles, wires, transformers, and substations that can be damaged by hurricanes, storms, floods, and wildfires. Repairing and upgrading this infrastructure often requires substantial investment.
As a result, utilities are increasing electricity rates in response to wildfire and hurricane events to fund infrastructure repairs and future mitigation efforts. (1) The average cumulative increase in per-household electricity expenditures due to climate-related price changes is approximately $30. (1)
While this increase may appear modest today, utility costs are expected to rise further as climate-related infrastructure damage becomes more frequent and severe.
How Climate Disasters Increase Government Spending and Taxes
Extreme weather events also damage public infrastructure, including roads, schools, bridges, airports, water systems, and emergency services infrastructure. Recovery and rebuilding costs are often funded through taxpayer dollars at the federal, state, and local levels.
The average annual government cost tied to climate-related disaster recovery is estimated at nearly $142 per household. (1) States that frequently experience hurricanes, wildfires, tornadoes, or flooding can face even higher public recovery costs.
These expenses affect taxpayers whether they personally experience a disaster or not. Climate-related recovery spending can increase pressure on public budgets, emergency management systems, and infrastructure funding nationwide.
Reducing Climate Costs Through Climate Action
While this article focuses on the growing financial costs associated with climate change, the issue is not only about money for many people. It is also about recognizing our environmental impact and taking responsibility for reducing it in order to help preserve a healthy planet for future generations.
While individuals alone cannot solve climate change, collective action can help reduce future climate adaptation costs over time.
For those interested in taking action, there are three important steps:
- Estimate your carbon footprint to better understand the emissions connected to your lifestyle and activities.
- Create a plan to gradually reduce emissions through energy efficiency, cleaner technologies, and more sustainable choices.
- Address remaining emissions by supporting verified carbon reduction projects through carbon credits.
Carbon credits are one of the most cost-effective tools available for climate action because they help fund projects that generate verified emission reductions at scale. Supporting global emission reduction efforts can help reduce the long-term impacts and costs associated with climate change.
Visit Terrapass to learn more about carbon footprints, carbon credits, and climate action solutions.
The post How Climate Change Is Raising the Cost of Living appeared first on Terrapass.
Carbon Footprint
Carbon credit project stewardship: what happens after credit issuance
A carbon credit purchase is not a transaction that closes at issuance. The credit may be retired, the certificate filed, and the reporting box ticked. But on the ground, in the forest, in the field, and in the community, the work continues. It endures for years. In many cases, for decades.
![]()
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change10 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy7 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases10 months ago
嘉宾来稿:探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测

