What’s keeping shipping awake at night? Five key takeaways from Nor-Shipping 2025
US-China rivalry will determine global trade outcomes
Forget any outdated notions of Cold War multipolar power balances — we have entered a new era of superpower rivalry between the US and China that will define everything from economics and trade to technology, climate change, and yes, shipping.
Challenging China’s maritime dominance is not a Trump issue. The current trade tensions will not only outlast the current administration, they will define trade from here on.
It is part of a more fundamental shift away from globalisation as we have known it to what the academics call “conflictual coexistence”.
Expect a continuing bifurcation of trade down geopolitical lines and, potentially a requirement to choose sides.
What does that mean for shipping? Well, the response from the stages of Nor-Shipping, and the wine-fuelled gossip on the sidelines, has been predictably bullish.
Shipping is responsive; it is adaptive, and it is flexible, and that has been heard loud and clear this week.
The global economy is not going to stop simply because existing trade routes are in danger of being disrupted. New trade routes will inevitably emerge, countless industry leaders have explained.
Shipping has seen it all before and will see it again, seems to be the industry view of the new world order.
Carbon trading offers an opportunity for some. Most of shipping, however, is not ready
The surging cost of carbon compliance is already rippling through supply chains. It will drive up freight rates, it will influence fuel choices, and potentially reshape global trade patterns and upend established business models.
This is about winners and it is about losers.
The good, or at least the bigger players with sufficient scale, have already spotted there is a commercial advantage to be taken in optimising operations and having an emissions strategy that moves beyond basic compliance.
The bad will invest remarkable effort in avoiding it altogether.
But what about the majority of shipping that sit in the squeezed middle, unable, unwilling, or unsure of how to progress amid overwhelming complexity?
Taxes on emissions costs are going to overtake bunker bills in the next few years if operators don’t act, so presumably everyone is racing to comply and set themselves up?
Well no, it seems not.
The first filing deadline under the EU ETS for the emissions calculator in 2024 was in April, and this week we learned that just 40% of the relevant shipping industry participants actually filed within the deadline. With records like that many shipowners should consider a career change to journalism when the fines finally bankrupt them out of the industry.
What is very clear from this week, is that the industry is already struggling to hit the regulatory requirements for the EU ETS and there are expensive regulatory penalties coming down the line that will hurt.
The general consensus from those we spoke to this week who are in the weeds of this issue is that the “average” shipping companies just has not got the expertise or bandwidth to deal with the complexities of emissions compliance.
Geopolitics on steroids does not mean wait and see — decisions have to be taken
“There will always be uncertainties, in the same way as there are opportunities,” explained one stoic chief financial officer on the sidelines of yet another stressful stage debate on the disintegration of geopolitics.
“I cannot just sit and wait and see — if I did nothing would happen,” she said, neatly summing up the industry dilemma of the day.
On stage the message was defiant — shipowners paralysed by the geopolitical swings risk losing out, explained a revolving cast of forthright industry leaders who pointed out that in times of “geopolitics on steroids”, doing nothing is not a viable alternative.
Off stage, their commitment to specific questions of progress and investment was generally more hesitant.
After we see what happens with port fees, tariffs and the October MEPC clarifications, then we will come back to you on that, was the general response.
Globalisation is dead, and the dollar might be following it
Tariffs make for great headlines, but what shipping should really be worried about is a longer-term trend by nations to strengthen their supply chains and protect their own interests.
Protectionism is all the rage, and not just in the US either. The pandemic showed just how fragile complex supply chains can be, and many businesses simply do not want to leave themselves exposed should things turn south again.
Timing, as ever, is everything.
According to the latest OECD forecast this week, the world’s advanced economies risk a significant GDP loss if they move too quickly to localise supply chains as a result of the deteriorating geopolitical environment.
Leave it too late, however, and inevitably things look equally bleak for those passively waiting for the inevitable
But if you want proof that the old way of doing things could soon be over, look no further than the dollar, not shifting supply chains.
The de facto currency of the post-war world is starting a long decline, DNB group vice-president Harald Serck-Hanssen told Nor-Shipping.
The greenback has seen its share of global reserves erode by around 10% over the past decade.
That’s by no means a quick death, but many believe the pound had a 50% share on the eve of the First World War. Now it makes up less than 5% of global reserves.
The industry is still in limbo when it comes to decarbonisation
Has the outcome of MEPC83, that pivotal climate strategy session at the International Maritime Organization in April, given the industry sufficient clarity to accelerate decarbonisation investment?
No, it seems not. We polled Lloyd’s List readers prior to Nor-Shipping and just 25% of you said yes.
The optimistic caveat, however, is that 53% of you said “let’s talk after October” — the point at which much of the detail will be confirmed, or not.
In the meantime, there is the distinct sense that it is prolonging a period of paralysis for everyone still unsure what to invest in.
We have a framework, which is better than nothing, but we are still struggling to understand what it means beyond just finding biofuels.
Some say LNG is dead, others worry it will dominate.
The halls of Nor-Shipping were festooned with signs namechecking methanol and ammonia in the advertisements. But until the rewards and rankings are clarified, you can’t assess whether there will be any of these fuels. So, there was a sense of déjà vu at this year’s events.
For shipowners who can choose “flexibility” and look at future retrofits, it’s not that much of a problem. But for people who’ve already invested, or have to sink a lot of money into research and development, it really is.
We can talk about innovation and industry leaders but 90% of the industry will just go with the lowest cost of compliance to compete, and it’s a bit reductive to think they wouldn’t.
At the end of the day it’s all regulation; the rest is window dressing.
Content Original Link:
" target="_blank">
