Geopolitics and Green Shipping: How Global Instability is Slowing Maritime

Global shipping, which constitutes the backbone of international trade and carries nearly 90% of world trade, now remains one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonise. As climate change intensifies, the maritime sector faces pressure to reduce its carbon footprint.

Illustration by The Geostrata

An international framework led by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has laid out pathways towards Global shipping, which constitutes the backbone of international trade and carries nearly 90% of world trade, and now remains one of the most challenging sectors to decarbonise.

As climate change intensifies, the maritime sector faces pressure to reduce its carbon footprint, along with national and regional initiatives towards cleaner maritime operations. However, despite growing awareness and available technology, progress remains slow, underlining the crisis beyond engineering or economics.

ENERGY SECURITY AND STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

In contemporary years, geopolitical tensions have reshaped global priorities. Conflicts, sanctions and strategic rivalries have reinforced a renewed emphasis on energy security and supply chain resilience. Wherein, energy security has taken over the climate commitments as an immediate concern, therefore scrutinising nations to suddenly prioritise fuel availability over fuel sustainability.

Transition fuel, liquefied natural gas (LNG), became a geopolitical asset rather than a climate compromise; companies invest in these powered vessels that guarantee operational reliability after looking at emissions for decades.

The immediate question for many states is- No longer how green the shipping turns into, will it be secured enough for the supply chain too?

Cleaner fuels like green hydrogen, ammonia or green methanol are viewed as risky bets and technologically immature, expensive and geopolitically vulnerable. These fuels require large-scale infrastructure, stable supply chains and long-term consistency in policy.

FRAGMENTED TRADE ROUTES AND EMISSIONS GROWTH

Geopolitical instability has altered global shipping routes, with direct implications for emissions. The security threats and conflicts in key maritime corridors, including the Red Sea and Black Sea, have forced vessels to take longer and less efficient routes, increasing fuel consumption and emissions. Rerouting around the Cape of Good Hope instead of the Suez Canal is not just a logistical decision but an environmental setback.

While regulatory frameworks push for lower emissions, such disruptions expose critical contradictions. Geopolitical realities include operational practices that increase the carbon intensity of maritime transport.

SANCTIONS AND UNEQUAL TRANSITIONS

The global push for cleaner shipping is further complicated by sanctions regimes and economic fragmentation. Access to advanced maritime technology, alternative fuels, and green financing is unevenly distributed. Developing countries, many of which play a crucial role in port operations, shipbuilding, and ship recycling, face structural constraints that limit their ability to adopt cleaner technologies.

This uneven transition risks creating a divided maritime system. Advanced economies move ahead with green shipping corridors and pilot projects, while others remain locked into carbon-intensive systems to preserve economic competitiveness.

Such disparities undermine the collective nature of climate action and weaken trust in global maritime governance.

THE POLITICAL NATURE OF MARITIME DECARBONISATION

Shipping Decarbonization is commonly related to economic or technical challenges. Instead, it is a political challenge in reality. This depends on the cooperation between the states, shared standards, balanced trade relations and long-term trusted commitments followed by financial responsibility. Geopolitical rivalries, strategic competition, and declining multilateral trust directly weaken these foundations.

Maritime climate governance depends on stable diplomatic relations and predictable policy environments. When geopolitical tensions dominate international relations, climate commitments risk being deprioritised or treated as secondary concerns.

CONCLUSION

The slow progress in global shipping decarbonization cannot be explained solely by technological or financial constraints. Geopolitical risk has emerged as a decisive factor shaping energy choices, investment behaviour, and operational practices within the maritime sector.

As long as global politics prioritise short-term security and strategic advantage over collective climate goals, the transition to cleaner shipping will remain uneven and delayed.

For decarbonization efforts to regain momentum, climate objectives must be insulated from geopolitical shocks. This requires stronger multilateral coordination, targeted financial support for developing economies, and regulatory frameworks that provide long-term certainty despite political instability. Without addressing the geopolitical dimensions of maritime decarbonisation, the vision of a low-carbon global shipping system will continue to drift out of reach.

---

BY SHRIYA SAWANT

FOR TEAM GEOSTRATA

info@thegeostrata.com