The decision does nothing but prolong the period of regulatory uncertainty, further increasing the investment risk
London – The imperative to decarbonize the maritime sector, responsible for less than 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, has imposed a profound and rapid revolution in shipbuilding strategies in recent years. In this context of epochal transformation, the dual-fuel propulsion ship has emerged as the strategic asset par excellence, establishing itself as the necessary technological bridge to cross the uncertainty of the energy transition. The adoption of engines capable of using both fossil fuels (typically liquefied natural gas) and low-carbon alternatives (such as methanol or, prospectively, ammonia) characterized a period of euphoria in global orderbooks, with leading shipowners and carriers investing billions in converting their fleets. However, data emerging from the first ten months of 2025 indicates an unexpected and significant phenomenon: a marked plateau in new dual-fuel construction orders. This deceleration, far from being a mere statistical data point, raises crucial questions about the solidity of the maritime energy transition strategy and the systemic challenges that are slowing its momentum. The first and most pressing reason for this setback lies in the volatility and uncertainty of “green” alternative fuel supply. Although the ordered ships are technically ready for the use of methanol or LNG, the real challenge lies in the availability and cost of their sustainable counterparts: bio-methanol, e-methanol, or bio-LNG. The shipping industry needs long-term guarantees on the production capacity of these fuels, whose production supply chain is not yet mature on a global scale. Fears focus particularly on green methanol, which had initially gained a dominant position in orders: the difficulties in its processing and higher-than-expected costs have generated significant skepticism, leading some shipowners to a temporary strategic retreat towards LNG as a short- and medium-term solution, even though this is not the ultimate goal of decarbonization. The hesitation is therefore the child of the pragmatic need to mitigate the risk of stranded assets, that is, of finding oneself with state-of-the-art ships but without the promised sustainable fuel at an economically sustainable price.
Alongside this fuel uncertainty is a persistent ambiguity in the international regulatory framework, a critical issue dramatically accentuated by today’s news of the one-year postponement of key IMO decisions regarding the Net-Zero Framework. Despite the formal adoption of binding regulations – which include a global carbon pricing mechanism and new fuel standards – being expected at the extraordinary session of the Marine Environment Protection Committee in October, the deep divide among member states, exacerbated also by positions of outright rejection expressed by powers such as the United States, has forced a strategic delay. The lack of a clear and binding signal from the top global regulator is exacerbating decision-making paralysis in the sector.
Operators, while awaiting the definitive extent of the carbon tax and the fuel standards that will come into force (now postponed to 2028), prefer to preserve liquidity rather than commit to substantial capital expenditures for technologies that could be superseded by more stringent regulations. Today’s decision by the IMO only serves to prolong the period of regulatory uncertainty, further raising investment risk and undermining the very credibility of the maritime governance body.
The implications of this plateau are of strategic importance for world trade and for our climate governance. A slowdown in fleet renewal threatens to compromise the intermediate 2030 emissions reduction target, making the ultimate 2050 goal even more arduous. The maritime sector risks turning into a bottleneck for global decarbonization if its assets continue to operate with a predominant dependence on fossil fuels. The challenge for the international community and for the leaders of the supply chain, key figures who find natural representation within the ranks of the Rotary, is to act with joint leadership to break the current deadlock. This requires a commitment not only in research and development, but above all in the creation of global bunkering infrastructure for new fuels and in the stabilization of markets through long-term purchase contracts that give confidence to producers. The energy transition at sea is not just an engineering problem, but a complex exercise in cross-sectoral cooperation and risk-sharing. Only by overcoming the uncertainty about the availability of green fuels and, even more urgently, by overcoming the political inertia that led to the delay of the IMO choices, will it be possible to reactivate the virtuous spiral of investment and ensure that the dual-fuel bridge does not become a dead end, but the springboard towards a zero-emission future. The burden of this action falls on the shoulders of large financial institutions, shipping majors, and global policy-makers, who are called upon to demonstrate vision and courage for the common good.
