Shipping is behaving as if decarbonisation cannot begin until the fuel question is settled. That is a convenient position, because the fuel question may remain unsettled for years. The vessels being ordered now will still be operating in the 2040s and 2050s, with some large crude carriers expected to remain in service for up to 35 years. That makes it even harder to justify the operational waste we continue to accept today: ships sailing too fast, waiting at anchor and burning fuel because port calls are still poorly coordinated.
The latest industry signals are difficult to ignore. Confidence in ammonia and hydrogen has weakened, while conventional vessels continue to be ordered. That makes operational efficiency more important, not less.
Fuel uncertainty cannot become an excuse
This hesitation is rational. Ordering a vessel today is a bet on what the energy system will look like in the 2040s and 2050s, and nobody can give shipowners a reliable answer. But uncertainty over future fuels cannot become an excuse for ignoring avoidable emissions now.
That was one of the clearest conclusions I took from the Net Zero Maritime conference in Gothenburg. While the industry debated the IMO Net Zero Framework, carbon pricing and alternative fuels, news emerged that twelve new very large crude carriers had been ordered at Posidonia. Those vessels could still be sailing in the 2050s.
The easy response is to say shipping is failing. The more useful response is to understand what those orders tell us. The market still does not believe alternative fuels will be available, affordable and supported at the scale required. Until that changes, conventional vessels will remain part of the fleet for decades, making operational efficiency more important, not less.
The wider newbuilding picture bears this out. Industry data for the first seven months of 2026 shows owners contracting around 1,480 vessels, representing close to 43 million compensated gross tons, one of the strongest shipbuilding years of the past decade. Confidence in methanol has cooled as production volumes and bunkering infrastructure lag behind earlier expectations, while LNG dual-fuel propulsion has strengthened its position as the pragmatic bridge choice across container, bulk and tanker orders alike. This is not a retreat from decarbonisation, but it is a retreat from committing to a single fuel before the infrastructure exists to support it. (Source: The Commercial Reality of Maritime Decarbonization: Why Commercial Resilience Not Alternative Fuels, Will Decide the Future of Global Shipping)
The containership market shows the same tension. More than 1,100 vessels, representing almost 9 million TEU, are reportedly due for delivery in 2027 and 2028. That should make carriers cautious about adding more tonnage. Yet second-hand prices remain firm because relatively few owners are willing to sell while charter returns remain attractive. The future fleet may be large, but the ships available today are still scarce.
Ports can help reduce emissions now
Most vessel emissions are produced during the sea passage, but the biggest immediate reduction opportunity is often in the approach to port, at anchor and during the port call. When vessels have reliable information about berth readiness, they can adjust speed and arrive when they are needed. When that information is missing, they often arrive early and wait.
We have known this for years, yet the same inefficiencies remain. Ships, terminals, pilots, agents and service providers still work from different timelines and incomplete information. Each party may be making a reasonable decision, but the combined result is wasted fuel, avoidable carbon emissions and unnecessary local air pollution.
The barrier is not technology alone
This is not mainly a technology problem. Standards exist. Data exists. Systems exist. The real barriers are trust, commercial sensitivity and governance.
Why does this persist when the technology is ready? Because data sharing in shipping has long been treated as a commercial risk rather than an operational tool. Ships, terminals and agents have historically guarded schedule and cargo information as competitive intelligence rather than pooling it for mutual benefit, and nobody wants to be the party that gives away more than they gain in return.
The industry often treats data sharing as an all-or-nothing decision. It should not. A port does not need access to every commercial detail held by a shipping line or terminal. It needs answers to specific operational questions: is the vessel on schedule, is the berth ready, has cargo handling been completed, and what is the realistic arrival window? Those answers improve coordination without requiring every party to expose sensitive information.
Better coordination also depends on incentives. If one party carries the cost of changing its operation while another captures the benefit, collaboration will remain voluntary and patchy. Measures such as priority berthing, green port dues or shore-power discounts can help turn shared data into action.
From emissions accounting to emissions management
The same applies to emissions data. Reporting after the event may satisfy a regulatory requirement, but it does not help operators make better decisions in real time. Ports need to know where emissions are being created, what operational activity caused them and which action could reduce them.
That is the difference between emissions accounting and emissions management.
Digital tools will not create more berths, cranes, pilots or drivers, and they will not eliminate every delay. What they can do is stop ports operating blind by showing where congestion is building, where emissions are rising and where operational decisions can improve both performance and environmental impact. Operational teams will not act on emissions data in isolation. They act on commercial, operational and environmental information together. The opportunity is to bring those three into the same decision-making process.
EU ETS funding must support operational efficiency
None of this removes the need for cleaner fuels. Shipping will not reach net zero through efficiency alone. New infrastructure, stronger regulation and investment across the energy system are all essential. But efficiency is one of the few levers available today, and it would be a mistake to wait for certainty before using it.
As Europe considers how shipping’s EU ETS revenues should be reinvested, operational efficiency should not be treated as a secondary measure. It is one of the few ways to reduce emissions from today’s fleet immediately.
Ports may not control the vessel, the cargo or the fuel choice, but they can create the visibility and incentives needed to make port calls more efficient and emissions more manageable. The industry can continue waiting for certainty over fuels, regulation and infrastructure, or it can start removing the waste it can already see. Ports do not need permission from the IMO to make that choice.
Ports don’t need permission from the IMO to act, and they don’t need to wait for it. See what emissions management looks like for your port: book a 30-minute demo with our team, and we’ll show you where your operation is burning fuel and time it doesn’t have to.
