Japan has taken a major step in clean shipping. A consortium led by Japan Engine Corporation and Kawasaki Heavy Industries has successfully tested the world’s first hydrogen-fueled main engine for a large commercial vessel.
This engine is designed for deep-sea cargo ships, not just small vessels. That makes it a key milestone. Most earlier hydrogen ship projects focused on ferries or short routes.
The 3% Problem: Shipping’s Emissions Challenge
The engine is a low-speed, two-stroke design. This is the standard for large ocean-going ships. It can run mainly on hydrogen fuel. In tests, it achieved about 95% hydrogen use at full load, showing stable performance.
The engine will be installed on a 17,500-deadweight-ton multipurpose vessel. The ship is expected to be delivered in 2027. It will then undergo a three-year demonstration period starting in 2028.
Shipping is a major source of global emissions. The sector produces about 2–3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, based on data from the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Most ships today use heavy fuel oil or marine diesel. These fuels produce high emissions. As global trade grows, shipping emissions could increase without new solutions.
Hydrogen is one option. When used as a fuel, it produces no carbon dioxide at the point of use. This makes it attractive for long-term decarbonization.
However, scaling hydrogen for large ships has been difficult. Key challenges include fuel storage, engine design, and safety. Japan’s latest engine test shows that progress is being made.
How Hydrogen Engines Work in Large Vessels
Hydrogen-powered ships can use fuel cells or combustion engines. Japan’s new system uses combustion. This means hydrogen burns inside the engine, similar to diesel. This approach allows easier integration with existing ship systems. It also reduces the need for full redesigns of vessels.
The engine uses liquid hydrogen fuel and advanced injection systems. Engineers have focused on stable combustion and material strength. Hydrogen burns faster than traditional fuels, so precision is critical.
The project includes partners such as Mitsui O.S.K. Lines (MOL), Onomichi Dockyard, and ClassNK. These groups support design, safety checks, and future operations.
The move is part of Japan’s Green Innovation Fund. The Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry has funded the program with about 2 trillion yen to help the country reach carbon neutrality by 2050.
Japan’s Net Zero Strategy and Hydrogen Push
This hydrogen engine project fits into Japan’s broader climate strategy. The country has pledged to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. This goal was announced by former Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga in 2020.
Japan sees hydrogen as a key part of its energy transition. Under its Basic Hydrogen Strategy, the government aims to expand hydrogen use across power, transport, and industry.
Japan plans to increase its hydrogen supply to 20 million tonnes per year by 2050, up from much lower current levels. The country is also investing in hydrogen imports, storage, and infrastructure.
Shipping plays a major role in this plan. Japan depends heavily on imports of energy and raw materials. Decarbonizing shipping is important for both climate and energy security.
- RELATED: Maritime Decarbonization: Japanese Shipping Giant NYK Partners with 1PointFive for DAC Credits
Projects like the hydrogen engine help link domestic policy with global action. They support Japan’s goal to build a full hydrogen value chain, from production to transport and end use.
Current Hydrogen Ferries in Operation
Japan has already started using hydrogen-powered ferries on real routes. One example is the Hanaria. This hybrid ship uses hydrogen fuel cells, lithium-ion batteries, and biodiesel. It began service in Kitakyushu in April 2024.
The ship can cut carbon dioxide emissions by 53% to 100% compared to regular vessels. It was built for a unit of Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and uses fuel cell technology developed with parts from Toyota.
Another example is the Mahoroba, built by Iwatani Corporation. This is a zero-emission hydrogen catamaran that can carry up to 150 passengers. It started commercial service in April 2025, transporting visitors to the Osaka-Kansai Expo.
In October 2025, the Tokyo Metropolitan Government agreed to bring the vessel to Tokyo Bay. It is expected to start operating there in fiscal year 2026. It will support environmental education and international events.
Japan has also invested in hydrogen transport systems. One example is the Suiso Frontier, which was launched to carry liquefied hydrogen across long distances. These efforts show that Japan is not only testing technology but also building the systems needed to scale hydrogen use globally.
From Ferries to Freighters: Scaling Hydrogen at Sea
Japan is part of a wider global shift. Many countries are testing hydrogen and other clean fuels for shipping.
For example, Norway launched the MF Hydra in 2023. Belgium introduced the Hydrotug 1 in 2024.
However, most of these vessels are small or operate on short routes. Japan’s project targets large cargo ships, which are more complex and more impactful for emissions.
Governments are also exploring hydrogen shipping corridors. These are planned routes where hydrogen-powered vessels can operate with proper fueling infrastructure. This global activity shows that hydrogen is moving from early testing to larger applications.
A $300B Hydrogen Market Meets Maritime Demand
The hydrogen economy is expanding quickly. Global demand is rising as industries look for low-carbon solutions.
Industry estimates suggest the global hydrogen market could exceed US$300 billion by 2030. Growth is driven by energy, transport, and industrial use.
In shipping, hydrogen competes with other fuels like ammonia and methanol. Each has strengths and challenges. Hydrogen stands out for its zero carbon emissions at the point of use.
Cost, Storage, and Infrastructure Barriers
Still, hydrogen has limits. Several barriers remain before hydrogen ships become common:
- High costs compared to traditional fuels,
- Limited supply of green hydrogen,
- Lack of port infrastructure, and
- Strict safety requirements.
Despite these issues, investment is growing. Governments and companies are funding research, pilot projects, and infrastructure.
Japan’s demonstration project will help address those gaps. The planned three-year trial will provide real-world data on performance, safety, and costs. If successful, hydrogen engines could become a practical option for large vessels. This would help reduce emissions from global shipping.
Can Hydrogen Power the Future of Global Trade?
Japan’s hydrogen engine test marks a key moment for the shipping industry. It shows that hydrogen can power not only small vessels but also large commercial ships.
The link to Japan’s net-zero strategy makes this development even more important. It connects national policy with global climate goals.
The coming years will shape how fast hydrogen shipping grows. With strong policy support and continued innovation, hydrogen could play a major role in building a low-carbon maritime sector.
The post Japan Unveils First Hydrogen Engine for Large Ships appeared first on Carbon Credits.
What auditors actually test, where projects actually fail, and the contract clauses that protect you before signature.
The meeting happens about fourteen months after the contract was signed. Your assurance provider has reached the nature-based investment line in your Scope 3 file, and the partner across the table has exactly two questions. How do you know the reductions happened? And how do you know they would not have happened anyway?
The first question is MRV: measurement, reporting, and verification. The second is additionality. Between them, they decide whether your nature-based investment counts, in your inventory, in your disclosure, and in front of your board. Everything else in the project documentation is supporting material for these two answers.
This article walks through what each question actually tests, where projects most commonly fail, what digital MRV has changed (and what it has not), and the contract clauses that protect you. The goal is to give you the diligence framework before you sign, because after the credit issues is the wrong time to discover the answers were weak.
What MRV actually verifies
MRV is the machinery that turns a field intervention into a defensible number. Measurement covers the data: biomass surveys, soil sampling, remote sensing, activity records from participating farms. Reporting covers the translation of that data into claimed reductions under a recognised methodology. Verification covers the independent check: an accredited third party tests the reporting against the methodology and the evidence.
The methodologies live in registries. Verra’s Verified Carbon Standard and the Gold Standard are the two largest for nature-based projects, and each publishes the methodology documents, monitoring requirements, and verification protocols that a project must follow. The ICVCM Assessment Framework now sits above the registries, assessing whole methodologies against the Core Carbon Principles and granting the CCP label to those that pass.
For a buyer, the practical questions are concrete. What is the monitoring frequency, and is it specified in the project design document or left vague? Who is the verifier, how were they selected, and how often do they rotate? What raw data do you, the buyer, get access to, and in what format? A project that answers these in writing is a different procurement than one that answers them in a sales call.
What additionality actually proves
Additionality asks whether the intervention caused the reduction, or whether the reduction would have happened anyway. The test is a counterfactual: what would this landscape, this farm, this forest have done without the project’s money?
Three forms matter in practice. Financial additionality asks whether the project needed the carbon revenue to proceed. Regulatory additionality asks whether the activity was already required by law. Common-practice additionality asks whether the activity is already standard in the region, in which case paying for it buys you nothing the world was not getting for free.
The reason additionality dominates audit conversations is recent history. Research published in 2023, including the Science paper examined at length in our piece on conventional offsets and boardroom credibility, found that a large share of REDD+ credits failed the counterfactual test because baselines were inflated. The market response was a wave of methodology revisions at Verra and the arrival of independent ratings agencies whose entire business is re-testing additionality claims. The Carbon Credit Quality Initiative publishes transparent scoring of methodologies on exactly this dimension, and it is free to consult before you sign anything.
Where projects most commonly fail the test
Five failure modes account for most of the wreckage.
- Inflated baselines. The counterfactual assumes more deforestation, more degradation, or lower yields than the evidence supports. The claimed reduction is the gap between reality and the baseline, so an inflated baseline manufactures reductions from nothing.
- Unaccounted leakage. The project protects one forest and the logging moves to the next valley. The methodology is supposed to net this out; weak projects estimate it optimistically.
- Thin permanence protection. Nature-based carbon can reverse: fire, pest, drought, or a change of landowner. Buffer pools and insurance mechanisms exist for this, but their adequacy varies enormously between projects.
- Attribution and double counting. In supply chain settings, the same reduction can be claimed by the supplier, the buyer, and a credit purchaser unless contracts prevent it. Our Insetting vs Offsetting piece covers the inventory rules; the point here is that the auditor will ask who else is counting this tonne.
- Stale monitoring. Data collected at validation and never refreshed. The IPCC AR6 Working Group III land-sector chapter documents how quickly carbon stocks respond to disturbance; a three-year-old measurement is a historical artifact, not a current claim.
What digital MRV changes, and what it does not
Digital MRV is the genuine improvement in the field. Satellite remote sensing, including the free archives at NASA Earthdata, allows biomass and land-cover change to be monitored continuously rather than at multi-year verification intervals. Soil carbon models calibrated with physical sampling reduce the cost of agricultural measurement. The practical effect is more frequent data at lower cost, which compresses the window in which a problem can hide.
What digital MRV does not change is judgment. Baselines are still human decisions about counterfactuals. Additionality is still an argument, not a measurement. Research groups such as the Oxford Smith School have been clear on this point: better sensors improve the M in MRV, but the integrity questions live in the assumptions, and assumptions need governance, not gadgets.
For a buyer, the test is simple. Ask the provider what is measured by instrument, what is estimated by model, and what is assumed by methodology. A provider who can answer that question crisply understands their own evidence chain. A provider who cannot is selling you their confidence rather than their data.
What to require in your contract
The diligence above converts into five contract clauses.
- Monitoring cadence and buyer data access, specified by dataset and frequency.
- Verifier independence, named accreditation, and rotation terms.
- Baseline revision triggers, so the counterfactual updates when the methodology or the evidence changes.
- Reversal liability and buffer adequacy, with the mechanism named and sized.
- Documentation handover in audit-ready form, so the evidence file your assurance provider needs already exists.
None of these clauses is exotic. All of them are absent from weak contracts, and their absence is the most reliable early signal that the MRV and additionality answers will be weak too.
If you are evaluating a nature-based investment and want the MRV and additionality stress-tested before signature rather than after, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can run that review against any project on your shortlist, and design nature-based supply chain investments where the evidence chain is built audit-first. Schedule a consultation.
Sources and further reading
- ICVCM: Core Carbon Principles Assessment Framework
- Verra: Verified Carbon Standard
- Gold Standard for the Global Goals
- Carbon Credit Quality Initiative: Methodology quality scores
- University of Oxford Smith School: Sustainable finance research
- IPCC AR6 Working Group III, Chapter 7: AFOLU
- NASA Earthdata satellite remote sensing archive
EU Directive: Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT)
The EU Directive, Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition (ECGT), takes effect on September 27, 2026.(1) The goal of ECGT is to protect consumers by ensuring that environmental claims are fair, understandable, and reliable. This regulation does create a new compliance requirement for businesses, but it also provides sustainability and marketing teams with important guidance that helps create consistency in sustainability communications.
Key takeaways
- ECGT takes effect September 27, 2026, and prohibits claims that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive environmental impact based on offsetting alone.
- Named example phrases the regulation prohibits include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint.
- ECGT does not want to deter investment in carbon credits. It wants companies to communicate the real benefits of the projects they support instead.
- SBTi’s guidance recommends framing carbon credits as taking responsibility for ongoing emissions, not as making a product or company neutral.
- Voluntary carbon projects deliver real climate progress: reducing super-pollutants, protecting and restoring ecosystems, and supporting communities.
Regarding carbon credits specifically, voluntary carbon projects deliver important climate progress and environmental benefits that provide many talking points for companies. They reduce climate super-pollutants by removing industrial emissions like methane, N2O, HFCs and others. They protect and restore valuable ecosystems and carbon sinks like forests, mangroves and grasslands. They help communities by reducing local pollution, creating employment opportunities, improving access to healthcare, and more.
The Science Based Targets Initiative (SBTi), a global leader in business climate action, concludes that alongside aggressive decarbonization, we should also use high quality carbon credits to take responsibility for our ongoing emissions. SBTi recognizes that carbon credits are important “to help limit temperature overshoot, mitigate transition risks, and support climate solutions.”(2)
ECGT language on carbon offsetting says that they do not want to deter investment in carbon credits. They just want companies to focus on communicating the benefits of the projects they support and avoid claims beyond the scope of carbon credits, which is good for everyone, companies and consumers alike.
The regulation reinforces that carbon credits do not change the sustainability of your products, so carbon credit buyers should not suggest that their products are more sustainable because of carbon credits. Instead, companies need to promote their climate contributions as a way to compensate or take responsibility for their carbon emissions by supporting projects that do great things like reducing global carbon emissions, reducing pollution, preventing deforestation, restoring forests, and more.
ECGT language related to carbon offsetting
The regulation is particularly focused on prohibiting claims, based on offsetting greenhouse gas emissions, that a product or service has a neutral, reduced, or positive impact on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. These claims are prohibited in all circumstances because they mislead consumers into believing the claim relates to the product itself, or to how it was made and supplied, or into thinking that using the product carries no environmental impact at all.
Named examples of prohibited claims include:
- climate neutral
- CO2 neutral certified
- carbon positive
- climate net zero
- climate compensated
- reduced climate impact
- limited CO2 footprint
These claims are only allowed when they rest on a product’s actual lifecycle impact, not on offsetting emissions outside that product’s value chain, since the two are not equivalent. This prohibition does not stop companies from advertising their investments in environmental initiatives, including carbon credit projects, as long as they present that information in a way that is not misleading and that meets the other requirements of Union law.(1)
SBTi also provides guidance on climate contribution language in its Corporate Net Zero Standard Version 2.0 Draft for Second Public Consultation, November 2025. While the SBTi language is fairly technical, it has a good framework for crafting a climate contribution message.
SBTi Language for Carbon Credits(3)
- Take responsibility for ongoing emissions by delivering mitigation impact contributions
- Carbon credits certify the mitigation outcomes of projects that reduce, avoid, or remove carbon emissions
- Activities that reduce emissions from emission sources not located within the company’s value chain
- Activities that conserve, protect, and enhance natural carbon sinks
- Activities that capture and store carbon in storage pools
SBTi’s draft standard also walks through sample claim language for this kind of contribution. In general, the samples move from a simple percentage statement, to naming a specific verified tonnage tied to that percentage, to a fuller statement that breaks the tonnage into reductions versus removals. Across all three, the framing stays consistent: a company took responsibility for a defined share of its ongoing emissions over a set period, by funding a specific, verified amount of mitigation, achieved through emission reductions or removals.(3)
FAQ: ECGT and Carbon Credit Claims
When does the ECGT directive take effect?
The rules apply across the EU from September 27, 2026, after member states transposed the directive into national law by March 27, 2026.
Does ECGT ban carbon offsetting?
No. It bans specific marketing claims that a product or service is environmentally neutral, reduced impact, or positive based on offsetting. Advertising investment in carbon credit projects themselves is still allowed if it is not misleading.
What phrases does ECGT specifically prohibit?
Named examples include climate neutral, CO2 neutral certified, carbon positive, climate net zero, climate compensated, reduced climate impact, and limited CO2 footprint, when those claims are based on offsetting rather than a product’s actual lifecycle impact.
How should a company describe its carbon credit purchases instead?
SBTi’s guidance recommends stating the specific verified tonnage of emissions reductions or removals funded and describing that as taking responsibility for a defined share of ongoing emissions, rather than claiming the company or product is neutral.
Does this rule apply to company level sustainability claims too?
ECGT is focused on claims about specific products and services in consumer marketing. Broader company level sustainability communication is a separate matter still governed by other existing rules.
While ECGT does add a new compliance burden for businesses, it helps create consistency in sustainability messaging that is important to building confidence in voluntary carbon projects and scaling the industry to help us achieve progress on global carbon emissions.
Disclaimer: Terrapass does not provide legal or regulatory advice. Any interpretation of regulation must be approved by your legal representative.
References:
(1) https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2024/825/oj
(2) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/Corporate-Net-Zero-Standard-version-2.pdf
(3) https://files.sciencebasedtargets.org/production/files/CNZS-V2-Second-Consultation-Draft.pdf
The post The EU’s New Green Claims Rules and Carbon Credits appeared first on Terrapass.
Most businesses that decide to act on their net-zero targets reach the same point of friction. Buying carbon credits has meant tracking down brokers, sitting through sales calls, and requesting a quote just to learn a price, sometimes with limited proof of what you are buying.
-
Climate Change1 year 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”
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
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”
-
Renewable Energy11 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits