Carbon pricing options for international maritime emissions

This research paper evaluates three market-based measures—an offsetting scheme, a maritime emissions trading scheme (ETS), and a climate levy—to address international shipping emissions. The authors assess these options against four criteria: effectiveness, compliance with the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) principles of non-discrimination and no more favourable treatment (NMFT), consideration of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), and the minimization of transaction costs and administrative burden. The paper concludes that a climate levy is the most appropriate instrument for decarbonizing the sector in alignment with the Paris Agreement.

• The authors recommend a climate levy as the most suitable market-based measure for the international maritime sector because it provides investors with greater certainty and is most likely to incentivize both operational and technical emission reductions. It is noted that lower price levels are required under a levy than under an ETS to achieve the same incentive for efficient technology due to the lack of price volatility.
• An emissions trading scheme (ETS) provides high certainty regarding overall emissions due to the cap, but it is deemed unsuited for targets such as "at least" 50% reduction because price incentives diminish as emissions decrease. Furthermore, the uncertainty of future price levels in an ETS is unlikely to incentivize shipping companies to invest in technological changes.
• Offsetting schemes are viewed as having high transaction costs and uncertain effectiveness, as price levels depend on external factors, which could allow sector emissions to continue increasing.
• Regarding the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities (CBDR-RC), the paper states that neither exemptions nor nationally determined contributions are viable options for an environmentally effective scheme. However, a climate levy or an ETS could support CBDR-RC if the revenues generated are used to compensate states.
• The paper argues that the International Maritime Organization's Marine Environmental Protection Committee (MEPC) should act quickly to adopt a carbon price because ships currently being built will remain in use for decades.

APA

NewClimate Institute (2019). Carbon pricing options for international maritime emissions. http://www.newclimate.org/resources/publications/carbon-pricing-options-for-international-maritime-emissions

Chicago

NewClimate Institute. Carbon pricing options for international maritime emissions. 2019. http://www.newclimate.org/resources/publications/carbon-pricing-options-for-international-maritime-emissions.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=NewClimate Institute |title=Carbon pricing options for international maritime emissions |date=19 March 2019 |url=http://www.newclimate.org/resources/publications/carbon-pricing-options-for-international-maritime-emissions |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{newclimateinstitute2019carbon, author = {{NewClimate Institute}}, title = {{Carbon pricing options for international maritime emissions}}, institution = {NewClimate Institute}, year = {2019}, month = mar, url = {http://www.newclimate.org/resources/publications/carbon-pricing-options-for-international-maritime-emissions}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }