According to company executives and Reuters data analysis, major players in the shipping industry are continuing to invest billions in emission reduction initiatives, undeterred by opposition from the Trump administration to a global carbon pricing mechanism. The global shipping sector accounts for approximately 3% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions, prompting green transition efforts led by Europe, Brazil, and other nations. However, in October 2025, the United States and Saudi Arabia, two leading oil producers, successfully led a move to delay a vote on a proposed $380 per ton carbon tax by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) for one year. Some analysts and industry observers initially warned that the lack of a unified global framework could complicate corporate planning and potentially cause some companies to pause green investments. Yet, in interviews with 15 shipping firms, ports, marine fuel suppliers, and maritime technology companies, 10 told Reuters that regional regulations, long investment cycles, and sustained expectations for decarbonization trends support their adherence to established plans. Analysis of ship delivery data through 2028 by Reuters indicates that vessels capable of using alternative fuels dominate new ship orders. Hakan Agnevall, CEO of Wärtsilä, a major global producer of marine engines and exhaust gas scrubbers, told Reuters that a one-year delay in carbon pricing is unlikely to sway its clients, who typically plan on 30-year investment horizons. "Predicting that regulations will change over a 30-year period is not a bold statement." Dual-Fuel Vessels Lead New Ship Orders While the majority of the nearly 50,000 commercial ships currently operating worldwide still run on fuel oil or gas oil, IMO member states unanimously adopted a resolution in 2023 setting a target for net-zero emissions around 2050. To prepare, companies have begun ordering dual-fuel vessels capable of using both traditional fuel oil and greener alternatives like liquefied natural gas, methanol, and ammonia. Pacific Basin, a major dry bulk shipowner, chose to order four new vessels that run solely on petroleum-based fuels, citing the IMO carbon pricing delay, but this company is an exception. Unlike sectors such as energy and automotive manufacturing, which have accelerated the scaling back of green ambitions following Trump's return to the White House, the shipping industry has so far maintained its course. Major shipowners have reaffirmed their commitments to emission-reduction investments, including procuring dual-fuel vessels and installing onboard energy-saving equipment. Analysis of World Shipping Council data by Reuters shows that investment in dual-fuel vessels had surpassed $150 billion by the end of December 2025. Data indicates that 1,126 dual-fuel container ships and car carriers have been delivered or are on order, a 28% increase from the previous year, signaling continued growth in new orders for lower-emission fuel vessels despite the IMO resolution delay. Orders for dual-fuel vessels also continue to outpace those for traditional ships, currently comprising 74% of the total orderbook for container ships and car carriers. Concurrently, investment in new marine fuels is progressing steadily. Alexander Saverys, CEO of Belgian shipowner CMB.Tech, told Reuters the company will continue investing in ammonia bunkering and production. A spokesperson for Mitsui O.S.K. Lines stated that the IMO delay merely extends the timeline for transitioning to low- and zero-carbon fuels, and the company remains focused on LNG-powered vessels and the early adoption of ammonia and methanol fuels. Maersk, one of the earliest companies to explore alternative fuels for emission reduction, initially chose methanol, later ordered LNG-powered ships, and has now begun testing ethanol as an alternative fuel. A spokesperson for NYK Group said the company reaffirmed its emission reduction strategy following the IMO resolution, viewing the one-year delay as an opportunity to discuss and refine the regulatory framework. "While recent regulatory uncertainty may make some operators more cautious, the overall direction for maritime decarbonization has not fundamentally changed," said Jason Stefanatos, Decarbonization Director at maritime consultancy DNV. "The commercial drivers remain." Global Green Incentive Policies Expand Despite IMO Delay Several companies cited regional green fuel regulations as a key reason for advancing investments. Shipowners and fuel suppliers stated that the EU's FuelEU Maritime regulation, which imposes penalties on ships failing to meet emission reduction standards, provides a commercial rationale for green fleets. Additionally, the EU Emissions Trading System and voluntary initiatives offer further incentives. Kenneth Tveter, an analyst at ship brokerage Clarksons, said owners of dual-fuel vessels are likely to deploy them on EU routes to avoid FuelEU Maritime penalties, with some companies potentially earning rewards for exceeding compliance. "If trade is concentrated around Europe, the commercial prospects for low-carbon fuels like ammonia and methanol remain significant," he said. The major port of Djibouti in the Horn of Africa and OPEC member Gabon have also introduced maritime emission taxes. The current momentum may prompt other key shipping hubs to quickly implement punitive regulations and incentive schemes. Notably, the UK has proposed extending its Emissions Trading Scheme to international shipping starting in 2028, and Turkey is considering a mechanism similar to the EU's. These factors will drive demand for LNG, bio-LNG, and biofuels over the next five years, according to Nacho de Miguel, Head of Alternative Fuels at marine fuel supplier Peninsula. "Although the IMO's net-zero framework has been delayed, it has not altered our strategy," he said.