Critics deem Maersk’s newfound LNG thrill a “dead end”
Maersk has long distinguished itself for setting the bar extra high for the green transition of shipping by determinedly developing the fleet of the future to sail on green methanol that does not emit CO2.
But after yesterday’s announcement that the shipping company will invest in 60 dual-fuel ships, some of which will be able to sail on LNG, the backers now sing to a different tune..
Several international NGOs are now disappointed and cries hypocrisy because Maersk now looks to invest in a fuel it has previously distanced itself from.
Maersk, the critics fume, should work harder to reduce its impact on the global climate because of its powerful position in the shipping industry.
Maersk itself explains that the investment is about competitiveness
”Our fleet renewal program is fundamental to maintaining competitive edge in our ocean business, and it is a cornerstone in decarbonising our operations,” says Maersk COO Rabab Boulos.
Inesa Ulichina is sustainable shipping officer at the European environmental organization Transport & Environment, and she cautions against letting profits hold sway.
”Maersk’s decision is likely driven by the economic attractiveness of fossil LNG in the short term. But even under the most optimistic assumptions about methane leakage, LNG cannot deliver the science-based targets Maersk has committed to,” she says.
A dangerous distraction
Maersk says it has begun work to secure bio-LNG supply agreements to ”ensure that the new dual-fuel gas carriers reduce greenhouse gas emissions this decade.”
In a report, the World Bank has rejected LNG as a viable option to reduce CO2 emissions in shipping and meet IMO climate targets by 2050. At the same time, both customers and environmental organizations have distanced themselves from LNG as it is fossil fuel and can only reduce CO2 emissions by about a fifth.
Maersk has previously rejected LNG for this very reason.
”We will not allow ourselves to burn fossil fuels, such as LNG, and then offset the emissions by buying allowances in, for example, afforestation projects,” the shipping group said in 2019 when it launched its 2050 climate plan.
The shipping group told Børsen that by adding dual fuel ships that can sail on bio-LNG, ”we gain technical and commercial knowledge and experience across several fuels of the future”.
The fact that the shipping group emphasizes bio-LNG in particular is not appreciated by the environmental organization Stand.earth, deeming it a ”dangerous distraction” from climate responsibility, as bio-LNG still emits methane, which is ”an incredibly potent climate-damaging gas.”
Inesa Ulichina from Transport & Environment generally believes that Maersk’s investment in LNG ships is ”a dead end”.
”Therefore, the industry should not be distracted by short-term financial gains and opportunism, but invest in future-proof solutions, especially e-fuels, so they can live up to their commitments.”
An embarrassing failure
The two international NGOs Pacific Environment and Stand.earth, which have been urging container companies to cease investing in fossil fuel powered ships through the ”Ship it Zero” campaign for several years, are joining the chorus of critics.
The campaign’s specific aim is to pressure large retailers to ship goods on emission-free ships by 2030.
The environmental organization Stand.earth highlights that Maersk, as ”one of the best-known brands in shipping, has made record profits on a very fragile planet”.
”Maersk has long touted itself as the world’s greenest container shipping line, but this latest reversal on LNG powered vessels smacks of a similar capitulation on scrubbers a few years ago,” she says, adding:
”We are at a critical moment in our fight against climate change. Maersk has again failed to maintain the principled policies for which it’s been receiving environmental accolades for years. This is not only an embarrassing failure of Maersk’s purported climate leadership, but amounts to a betrayal of current and future generations.”
At environmental organization Pacific Environment, which spearheads international coalitions urging to mount pressure on shipping’s emissions, Maersk should make better use of its ”real power in the market to impact change by choosing zero-emission technologies.”
”We are disappointed that Maersk continues to invest in LNG ships because of the impacts to the climate”, says Erika Thi Patterson, Senior Director in the organization’s Ship It Zero-campaign..
”Maersk has a huge impact on the shipping industry as one of the largest cargo shippers in the world. Everyone is watching what Maersk does and that’s why it should double down on its commitments to climate and also mitigate pollution at the ports which cause outsized impacts including asthma and even death.”
Holds faith in methanol
Maersk plans to order between 50 and 60 new dual fuel ships with a total capacity of 800,000 twenty-foot containers.
The shipping major maintains, however, that green methanol is to most competitive and scalable short-term clean fuel..
”We’ve said from the beginning that the future of shipping is going to be that there will be multiple fuel technologies coexisting. There is a lot of uncertainty around the regulatory regime that we will have in relation to the green transition, so it is risky to bet on just one technology,” said Vincent Clerc at the press conference held in connection with the publication of the Q2 results, which included plans to invest in LNG ships.
In September 2023, Maersk deployed the first dual-fuel ship that can run on methanol. Between 2025 and 2027, the remaining 24 planned methanol ships will be delivered.
Maersk expects to need 5 million tons of green fuel annually from 2030 if it is to meet its climate targets.
English edit: Simon Øst Vejbæk
