VesselBot puts the Q2 EU ETS bill at €572 million. File Image / Pixabay

• Seven Singapore–Felixstowe–Zeebrugge voyages had just 0.5% of their emissions in EU ETS scope, VesselBot finds
• More than 20,000 EU-linked containership voyages in Q2 produced 7.15 million tonnes of CO2e needing allowances
• Direct Singapore to Europe voyages carried an estimated ETS cost of €26–€31 per TEU
• Published surcharge on those trades is €56–€70 per TEU, though it also covers FuelEU Maritime
• VesselBot says the gap is not evidence of overcharging

Voyage data for the second quarter shows both what the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) is costing container lines and how much a ship's schedule can change that cost, with supply chain emissions data firm VesselBot finding in a new case study that cargo calls at a UK port left just 0.5% of emissions on seven Singapore to Europe voyages within the scheme.

The company, which sells shipment-level emissions data to cargo owners, estimates that more than 20,000 containership voyages to or from EU and EEA ports in the second quarter of 2026 generated 11.8 million tonnes of CO2e, of which 7.15 million tonnes, or 60%, required allowances.

At an allowance price of €80/tonne that comes to about €572.4 million for the quarter, VesselBot estimates.

For a per-container figure the study isolates 58 voyages linked to a leading container line running direct from Singapore to Rotterdam, Valencia, and Piraeus, where half of emissions fall in scope.

It puts the ETS cost on those trades at €26.3 to €30.5 per TEU, against the carrier's published Energy Transition Surcharge of €70 per TEU to Rotterdam and €56 per TEU to Valencia and Piraeus.

"This difference should not be interpreted as evidence of overcharging: the Energy Transition Surcharge also incorporates FuelEU Maritime costs and other carrier-specific commercial assumptions that fall outside the scope of this analysis," the study says.

Schedule Effect

The sharper contrast comes from seven voyages that ran Singapore to Felixstowe and then on to Zeebrugge.

Because the UK is outside the scheme, the long leg from Singapore falls entirely out of scope and only half of the short crossing to Belgium counts, leaving 451.1 tonnes out of 89,949 tonnes of CO2e subject to allowances.

That is an ETS exposure of about €4,400 to €6,000 per voyage, VesselBot estimates, less than the €7,000 the published €70 per TEU surcharge to Zeebrugge would collect from a single 100-TEU shipment.

By Ship & Bunker's calculation from the study's figures, the 31 direct Singapore to Rotterdam voyages carried an average ETS exposure of about €474,000 each, against roughly €5,000 for each of the voyages that called at Felixstowe first.

The effect is well known: in 2024 Ship & Bunker reported a Sea-Intelligence estimate that Brexit had cut the ETS-reportable distance on some North Atlantic services by as much as 73%, because only the last port of call counts and UK ports sit outside the scheme.

That was a calculation from service rotations, whereas VesselBot's case study measures the effect on observed voyages and sets it against what shippers are charged.

VesselBot cautions that the port sequence is "consistent with (though not proof of)" routing to reduce ETS exposure, since scheduling and network design could produce the same pattern, and says it "should be read as suggestive rather than conclusive".

Within the Rules

Under EU rules only a stop to load or unload cargo counts as a port of call, so a token stop would not reset the voyage, and VesselBot's figures show each ship carrying fewer containers out of Felixstowe than it brought in, consistent with genuine cargo calls.

For now the leg into the UK carries no carbon price at all: it falls outside the EU ETS, and the UK's own emissions trading scheme, which began covering shipping on July 1, applies only to domestic voyages and emissions in UK ports, with international voyages proposed from 2028.

In July the European Commission also proposed tighter rules on calls at nearby non-EU ports.

VesselBot's broader argument is that a flat per-TEU surcharge tells a shipper little about the carbon cost of its own cargo, which "can vary by an order of magnitude depending on routing".

The full case study can be found here.