A.P. Møller-Mærsk's consumption of biofuel and green methanol fell almost 50% to 1,524 GWh in 2025, from 3,034 GWh in 2024, as cargo owners pulled back from voluntary decarbonization — the clearest signal yet that shipping's low-carbon transition is losing commercial momentum.

The decline at the world's largest listed shipping company reverses a multi-year upward trend and lands at a moment when the industry's emissions performance is moving in two directions at once. The world's top 10 maritime companies by market capitalization — all of which carry net-zero targets for 2050 or earlier — reported continued long-term declines in greenhouse gases per unit of transport work in their latest annual reports. Yet absolute emissions rose in 2025, driven largely by longer voyage distances as geopolitical conflicts forced ships off optimal routings and fuel consumption climbed.

Why efficiency gains aren't cutting total emissions

The arithmetic is unforgiving. Longer distances dilute emissions per ton-mile while inflating the total. Tore Longva, decarbonization director at classification society DNV, told Platts: "With longer distances, the emissions per ton-mile goes down, but the total emissions of course go up."

Longva sees remaining room for operational improvement, but a hard ceiling without new fuels. "A lot of the low-hanging energy efficiency measures are implemented … but a 25% further energy efficiency improvement is [still] possible towards 2050," he said. "Ultimately, however, low-GHG fuels will be needed to reach net-zero."

Those fuels remain expensive. Singapore delivered bunker prices in July, per the Platts Global Bunker Cost Calculator, illustrate the gap:

• 0.5%-sulfur fuel oil (VLSFO): $18.66/GJ
• LNG: $20.05/GJ
• B24 bioblend: $22.72/GJ
• 100% sustainable methanol: $48.69/GJ

Sustainable methanol carries a price roughly 2.6 times that of conventional fuel oil — a spread no carrier can absorb at scale without either regulation or customer willingness to pay.

What happened to regulation?

The European Union has moved: it extended its emissions trading system to shipping in 2024 and introduced FuelEU Maritime rules in 2025 to cap GHG bunker fuel intensity. The International Maritime Organization approved its Net-Zero Framework, designed to put a global price on shipping's GHG emissions from 2028. But implementation is slipping, with fierce US opposition prompting member states to discuss revisions.

Tristan Smith, professor at UCL Energy Institute in London, said the IMO framework is decisive: "Regional policy lacks the stringency to make a significant impact on shipping's energy transition. … It is hard to see how it will enable any mass market participation in energy transition for the foreseeable future."

Carriers agree. Wolfram Guntermann, director for regulatory affairs at Hapag-Lloyd, said shipping's cross-border nature demands globally aligned rules: "A common international fuel standard and emissions-pricing mechanism would provide greater investment certainty, support the scaling of low- and zero-emission fuels and reduce regulatory fragmentation."

Simon Bergulf, vice president for environment and climate at the World Shipping Council, said the liner industry has invested $180 billion in ships capable of running on sustainable fuels such as bio-LNG and low-carbon methanol. But he cautioned that "global regulations for a global industry are necessary to make it possible for carriers to operate on green fuels at scale, and to incentivize fuel and energy providers to invest in new production capacity."

How much will shippers actually pay?

Not much, and less each year. Boston Consulting Group's latest Shipping Decarbonization Survey, covering 125 logistics executives, found cargo owners willing to pay an average 3% premium for green-fuel transport in 2025 — down from 4.5% in 2024 and the lowest since 2022. The share of cargo owners refusing any premium rose 4 percentage points, while those prepared to pay premiums above 20% fell to zero from 3% a year earlier.

"Cost management has moved to the top of the agenda, while other priorities include energy security and resilience," BCG said. "Low-carbon shipping is increasingly deprioritized."

What are carriers doing in the meantime?

Japanese majors Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) and Mitsui O.S.K. Lines are betting on interim measures rather than waiting for regulation or breakthrough fuels. "We believe meaningful emissions reductions remain achievable through measures within our direct control, including energy-efficiency improvements, fleet modernization, retrofits and operational optimization," NYK said. MOL said it aims to cut emissions without relying "excessively" on uncertain regulatory developments, decarbonizing "primarily through the use of LNG, while working toward a future transition to zero-emission fuels such as ammonia."

Fotios Katsoulas, research director for alternative fuels at S&P Global Energy Horizons, expects regulators' difficulties to push carriers toward tools already in hand. "The most likely outcome is not a reversal of decarbonization targets but rather a slower transition pathway," he said.

With the IMO's Net-Zero Framework delayed and cargo-owner premiums shrinking, the sector's near-term trajectory points toward incremental efficiency gains and LNG bridging — not the mass adoption of green fuels the 2050 targets assume.