EmissionLink urges EU to route ETS cash into shipboard carbon capture trials

Maritime emissions specialist EmissionLink has called for a dedicated share of EU Emissions Trading System revenues to fund onboard carbon capture trials and the port infrastructure to support them — warning that without targeted money, the technology risks staying commercially unviable while regulators write the rules around it.

The proposal from the Cyprus-headquartered consultancy lands as the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) begins drafting interim safety guidelines for onboard carbon capture systems. Philippos Ioulianou, EmissionLink's Managing Director, welcomes that work but argues safety rules alone won't move shipowners to spend capital. What moves them is a bankable business case.

"Developing safety guidelines is an important step, but regulation alone will not persuade shipowners to invest in carbon capture," Ioulianou said. "Owners need a credible business case, backed by verified emissions savings, workable carbon disposal arrangements and a clear understanding of the financial benefits."

What would the money actually fund?

EmissionLink wants EU ETS revenues directed at full-scale demonstration projects that test every link in the chain: onboard collection and storage, offloading at berth, onward transportation, and permanent geological storage or approved use. Each project should run against clearly defined performance criteria and produce independently verifiable emissions data — the kind of evidence base that can inform both future regulation and private investment decisions.

The second target is port reception infrastructure. Captured CO2 has to go somewhere, and today most ports have no offloading arrangement, no reception facility and no onward transport contract. Without that, the shipboard kit is stranded equipment.

"Europe is well positioned to lead this work," Ioulianou said. "Allocating a proportion of EU ETS revenues to onboard trials and port reception infrastructure would help establish whether carbon capture can become a commercially viable decarbonisation solution for shipping."

Which ships does this actually work on?

Not all of them — and EmissionLink is blunt about that. Onboard carbon capture is unlikely to be practical for every vessel in the fleet.

• Best fit: ships on fixed, predictable routes, where operators can size carbon storage capacity and lock in offloading arrangements at designated ports.
• Worst fit: vessels trading irregular routes or spot charters, where the logistics of finding reception facilities mid-voyage are considerably harder.
• Technical screen: vessel age, available space, additional power demand and remaining commercial life all determine suitability.

The commercial layer is just as thorny. Owners and charterers still have to resolve contractual questions around extra fuel consumption, offloading delays and who gets credit for compliance benefits.

"Installing carbon capture equipment introduces responsibilities that extend well beyond the initial investment," Ioulianou explained. "Shipowners must consider the operational impact, the demands placed on crews and who ultimately bears the additional costs. These questions need answering before the technology can be adopted with confidence."

Does EU ETS recognition carry over to FuelEU?

Here's the trap EmissionLink flags for compliance desks. The EU ETS does recognise qualifying carbon capture combined with permanent geological storage or chemical binding — but the monitoring, reporting and verification arrangements for maritime capture remain underdeveloped.

And recognition under one regime doesn't guarantee recognition under the other. FuelEU Maritime regulates the greenhouse gas intensity of energy used onboard, not absolute emissions — a different metric that a tonne of captured CO2 doesn't automatically improve.

"Capturing carbon is not necessarily the same as delivering a verified reduction in emissions," Ioulianou said. "Shipowners need certainty over how those savings will be measured, independently verified and recognised under the relevant regulations. Without that clarity, it becomes extremely difficult to justify the capital and operating expenditure."

What happens next?

EmissionLink's position is that the window while the IMO drafts its safety framework shouldn't be dead time. The company wants commercial trials, emissions verification procedures and port infrastructure advanced in parallel, so that when the safety rules land, the market is ready to use them.

For practitioners, the sequencing question is the one to watch: whether Brussels earmarks ETS auction revenues for maritime capture demonstrations before the IMO's interim guidelines are finalised — or leaves the technology to prove its economics without public money. That decision, more than the safety framework itself, will determine whether onboard capture scales or stalls.