The maritime industry is entering a period of major change as global efforts intensify to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has highlighted the need for clean energy solutions—especially green hydrogen and ammonia—to help shipping cut emissions and reach climate goals.
Ships now emit about 3% of global greenhouse gases (GHG). So, there’s growing pressure to decarbonize fast. The IEA recently stated that we need urgent improvements in storage, safety rules, and policy support. These changes are essential for making these fuels viable for widespread use.
The industry’s goal is to reach zero emissions by 2050. However, the road to decarbonization is complex and demands progress in technology, safety, and policy. This is where green hydrogen and ammonia come in.
The Promise of Green Hydrogen and Ammonia
Green hydrogen is made using renewable energy, like wind or solar, to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. Ammonia, which can be made from green hydrogen, is another low-carbon fuel option.
Both fuels provide a cleaner option than fossil fuels. This is especially true for long-distance shipping, where battery-powered ships aren’t practical yet. These fuels are essential to meeting the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) climate targets.
The IMO aims to reduce shipping’s total annual emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 levels, and to peak emissions as soon as possible. Achieving these targets will require the wide-scale adoption of alternative fuels.
The IEA highlights that green hydrogen and ammonia can support these goals. However, industry players must tackle several key challenges:
-
Storage Challenges: Hydrogen is difficult to store due to its low energy density. It needs high-pressure tanks or must be cooled to cryogenic temperatures. Research is focused on safer and smaller storage methods. This includes metal hydride systems and compressed gas solutions.
-
Safety Concerns: Hydrogen is highly flammable, while ammonia is toxic. To avoid risks, ships need new safety systems, and crew members must receive updated training. The development of international safety standards will help guide proper handling and storage.
-
Cost Barriers: Green hydrogen is currently 2-3 times more expensive than traditional marine fuels. Ammonia is also costly to produce at scale. According to BloombergNEF, costs could drop by 2030 with scaling and technology advances. Reducing these costs will require financial support from governments and private investors.
Bloomberg further estimates that clean ammonia could represent 13% of global ammonia supply by 2030.
DNV, a global maritime classification society, says ammonia and hydrogen could be 60% of shipping fuel by 2050. This depends on policies that support their growth. Yet today, they account for less than 0.1% of total fuel use at sea.
Both clean fuels’ costs would go down by 2050, per IRENA’s projections.
Boosting Maritime Decarbonization Through Policy
Policy support is critical to drive the shift toward cleaner fuels in shipping. Experts and industry groups are calling on governments and international regulators to create favorable conditions for investment in green hydrogen and ammonia.
Proposed policy measures include:
-
Clean Fuel Subsidies. Direct incentives can help shipowners adopt low-emission technologies and offset higher fuel costs.
-
R&D Grants. Public funding can support research into fuel storage, fuel cells, bunkering infrastructure, and vessel designs optimized for alternative fuels.
-
Carbon Pricing. Implementing a carbon tax or emissions trading system in the maritime sector can make green fuels more competitive.
-
International Standards. Harmonized regulations across countries can prevent market fragmentation and ensure global progress.
Some countries are already taking steps. Norway has introduced zero-emission requirements for cruise ships in its fjords by 2026. The EU has included shipping in its Emissions Trading System (ETS) starting in 2024, requiring ships to pay for carbon pollution. The bloc has also launched the “FuelEU Maritime” initiative to promote green fuel adoption.
The IEA and IMO are also working with ports, shipbuilders, and fuel producers to design a shared roadmap for green fuel adoption. In addition to cargo vessels, ferries and cruise ships are being looked at as early candidates for green fuel use.
GHG Emissions and the Urgency to Act
The shipping industry emits over 1 billion tonnes of CO2 annually. Without action, emissions could rise by 50% to 250% by 2050, according to IMO projections. The IEC stresses that if these emissions are not reduced, they can hinder global efforts to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
To stay on track, the shipping industry must embrace low-carbon technologies and provide clear emissions reports. Many digital tools are being created to track emissions in real time. This helps companies stay accountable and make smart choices.
Some shipping companies have already begun testing hydrogen and ammonia-powered vessels. NYK Line and Maersk are testing ammonia-fueled ships. Others are looking into hybrid vessels that mix green fuels and batteries.
The Poseidon Principles, signed by over 30 global banks, require shipping lenders to align their portfolios with climate goals. This initiative puts additional pressure on companies to invest in cleaner ships or risk losing access to finance.
Trends Shaping the Clean Fuel Market
The market for green fuels is expanding rapidly, driven by both regulation and investor interest. IEA forecasts say the global hydrogen demand could reach over 6 Mtpa by 2030.
By 2050, the total demand for green hydrogen will reach 46 million tonnes, according to IRENA. About 74% of this will be used to produce ammonia, 16% for making methanol, and the remaining 10% will be used directly as hydrogen.
Ammonia demand is also expected to rise, especially in sectors like shipping and power generation. It can grow at an annual rate of 70% through 2030.
Key developments include:
-
EU Green Deal Initiatives. New climate laws are allocating billions of euros to fund clean energy, including maritime fuel infrastructure.
-
Private Investments. Companies such as BP, Shell, and TotalEnergies are investing in hydrogen production and supply chains. Maersk, the second-largest shipping company in the world, is investing in vessels powered by methanol and hydrogen. Other firms, like NYK Line and MOL from Japan, are testing ammonia-powered ships.
-
Green Corridors. More than 20 “green shipping corridors” are being planned worldwide. These include routes between Asia and Europe, and across the Atlantic. These corridors will enable ships to refuel with green fuels and test low-emission technologies.
These initiatives show progress. But to fully implement them, we need stronger partnerships. This includes working with governments, industries, and environmental groups.
In January 2024, the Global Maritime Forum announced that over 200 companies had joined efforts to decarbonize shipping, focusing on scalable fuel alternatives and supportive regulations.
Navigating Toward Zero Emissions
Decarbonizing the maritime sector is no longer optional. It’s a needed change due to environmental issues, investor demands, and new rules. The transition needs big investments and teamwork. But it also offers chances for new ideas and long-term savings.
The push for green hydrogen and ammonia is helping to reshape the industry’s future. These fuels offer a path to meet zero-emission targets while supporting cleaner global trade. With ongoing backing from governments, industry players, and the public, the move for maritime decarbonization is speeding up.
The post Shipping Toward Net Zero: Maritime Turns to Green Hydrogen and Ammonia appeared first on Carbon Credits.
For most businesses, the emissions that matter most sit outside their own walls. Scope 3 emissions, everything generated across your value chain, from the suppliers who make your inputs to the customers who use your products, typically make up the majority of a company’s total carbon footprint. Under the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), those value-chain emissions now have to be measured and disclosed with a rigour that spend-based estimates alone struggle to satisfy. This guide sets out how to improve Scope 3 data accuracy for CSRD: the calculation methods open to you, how to move from estimates to verified supplier data, and how to govern that data so it holds up to audit.
A carbon credit is a commitment that extends well into the future. The tonne of CO₂ compensated for today from a nature-based carbon project must remain out of the atmosphere for good, which means the forest behind the credit has to remain standing long after the transaction is complete. For any buyer, this raises a defining question: What ensures that the forest endures?
What replaced the cheap REDD credit on the boardroom slide deck, and why procurement is leading the rewrite.
Three years ago, a corporate slide showing a portfolio of cheap REDD+ credits could carry a board meeting. The number was big, the price was low, and the press release wrote itself. Today, that same slide gets sent back with questions. The questions are uncomfortable, the answers are unclear, and your general counsel is suddenly in the room.
Conventional carbon offsets are not dead. The voluntary carbon market retired 202 million tonnes in 2025, and the Morgan Stanley Institute for Sustainable Investing survey published in January 2026 confirmed that interest from corporate buyers remains substantial. What changed is the credibility threshold. The integrity floor has risen, the disclosure scrutiny has tightened, and the buyer profile has shifted. This article tracks what changed, what sophisticated buyers now ask before signing, and what serious corporates are putting on the board slide instead.
What boards used to buy, and why it stopped working
The 2020 to 2022 model was simple: buy a large tranche of avoidance credits at low single-digit prices, retire them against the company footprint, announce the carbon-neutral claim, and move on. Most of those credits came from REDD+ projects, renewable energy installations in countries where the renewable energy was already economic, or methane projects with thin documentation.
Several things broke that model. Academic research published in 2023, including a widely cited Science paper, found that the majority of REDD+ credits issued under the most common methodologies did not represent additional reductions when tested against rigorous counterfactuals. The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative published its Claims Code of Practice, which sets requirements for what companies can credibly claim from credit use. The European Union finalised its Green Claims Directive, restricting how companies can describe products as climate-neutral. France’s Décret 2022-539 already restricts carbon neutrality advertising. California’s AB 1305 imposes disclosure requirements on any company making net-zero or carbon-neutral claims while doing business in the state.
The collective effect: the cheap credit no longer buys the announcement, and the announcement now carries litigation risk.
The integrity reset: ICVCM, VCMI, and what changed
The Integrity Council for the Voluntary Carbon Market published the Core Carbon Principles in 2023 and began assessing methodologies against them in 2024. The first methodologies received the CCP label later that year. The point of the label is to give corporate buyers a defensible quality screen they can cite in disclosure.
The Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative complements this on the demand side. Its Claims Code of Practice defines what a buyer can say (Silver, Gold, or Platinum claims, with associated requirements) based on the quality of credits used and the underlying decarbonisation strategy. Together, CCP and VCMI build a quality stack: CCP on the supply, VCMI on the claim, with the science-based target sitting underneath both.
The reset is not a ban on offsets. It is a ratchet. Credits that meet the new bar continue to clear; credits that do not, do not. The Morgan Stanley survey found that 61% of current buyers like the CCP label concept but that supply of labelled credits remains limited. That supply constraint is now visible in pricing.
What sophisticated buyers ask before they sign
The questions on the procurement scorecard have changed. A 2022 buyer might have asked about price, vintage, and project type. A 2026 buyer asks five different questions before any of those.
- What does the counterfactual look like, and who validated it.
- What is the permanence regime, and what is the buffer pool exposure.
- What is the leakage risk, and how is it mitigated.
- What rating has the project received from the independent ratings agencies (Sylvera, BeZero, Calyx Global), and what was the rationale.
- What is the documentation discipline that survives an audit four years from now when the procurement team that signed the contract has moved on.
If the vendor cannot answer those five questions on a first call, the conversation ends. Conversely, if the vendor can answer them with documented specificity, the conversation often expands beyond a single transaction toward a multi-year engagement.
Where this leaves your near-term commitments
You probably have near-term commitments that pre-date the integrity reset. Public targets to be carbon neutral by 2025 or 2030. Product-level claims that ran in last year’s marketing. Disclosed reduction trajectories that assumed continued access to cheap credits.
You have three workable paths. The first is to re-baseline your strategy, replacing the most exposed credits with higher-quality alternatives and adjusting the public language to match what you can defend. The second is to shift the underlying spend from offsetting outside your value chain to investing inside your value chain, where reductions count against Scope 3 directly and the audit trail is cleaner. The third is to keep the strategy and absorb the risk, which is increasingly the most expensive option once you price in litigation, restatement, and reputational exposure.
Most serious buyers are choosing the second path. It moves the carbon spend from a compliance cost to a procurement and resilience investment, and it removes the central failure point of the legacy model: the disconnect between where the emissions occurred and where the reductions sat. Nature-based supply chain investments, structured under the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard and aligned to the SBTi FLAG Guidance, are the asset class that fits this brief. They generate inventory-grade reductions, they produce audit-grade documentation, and they survive the new claim restrictions because the carbon math sits inside the value chain that the disclosure already covers.
If you are reassessing a carbon strategy under the new integrity bar, or rebuilding a board narrative that has to survive a more skeptical audience, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help. The Dual-Value Model gives you a defensible alternative to legacy offset purchases, with the documentation and operational integration that survives the procurement scorecard and the audit. Schedule a consultation.
-
Climate Change11 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases11 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 Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测