Philippos Ioulianou, Managing director, EmissionLink. Image Credit: EmissionLink

Any ship owner considering whether to invest in onboard carbon capture will have credible reasons as the industry seeks to decarbonise, however they will also have to ask themselves whether the verified emissions savings justify the capital and operational expense.

The IMO's decision to develop interim safety guidelines is a welcome step toward standardising installation and operation however safety approval alone won't make onboard capture commercially viable. Owners need certainty on where captured CO2 will go, how emissions reductions will be verified, and whether those savings translate into tangible compliance and financial benefits. Waiting for these questions to be answered is time consuming and costly. Technology developers cannot sustain demonstrations indefinitely while waiting years for regulations, infrastructure, and commercial incentives to catch-up. Therefore the maritime industry should use the time during which the IMO drafts its guidelines to test the entire value chain in parallel.

This means supporting full-chain pilots that track captured carbon from the funnel through offloading, transport, and permanent storage or approved use. Capturing CO2 onboard is only one component of the puzzle, the decisive test is whether the end-to-end logistics operate reliably, safely, and economically.

Europe is uniquely positioned to accelerate this work. A dedicated portion of EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) revenues should, in my opinion, fund shipboard trials alongside essential port reception infrastructure. Public backing must also carry clear performance metrics, generating audit-ready data for regulators and verifiers. This approach would also ensure public capital serves a practical purpose while distinguishing viable maritime solutions from systems better suited to shoreside industries.

Onboard capture is unlikely to suit the majority of the global fleet either. Fixed, predictable routes offer the only realistic starting point. A vessel calling at the same ports can determine its storage capacity and secure off-take agreements but a tramp vessel trading on spot charters faces an operational and logistical hurdle that is far more complex. Technical feasibility also hinges on ship-specific variables such as vessel age, spatial constraints, auxiliary power demand, and remaining commercial life. There is also the contractual arrangements to consider. Who funds the additional fuel needed to run the capture system? Who absorbs the cost of offloading downtime and who claims the regulatory compliance credits? Without this, even the most promising technical proposals will stall.

When you take into account how this might affect the operational running of a ship at sea, any ship owner will want to consider how will this affect the crew. They will need to know whether their existing workforce can absorb these duties or whether onboard capture requires specialised technical crewing. For example. will they be required to operate and maintain complex chemical or cryogenic systems, monitor stored CO2, or manage high-pressure bunkering transfers?

Crucially, for me and anyone in the industry, the regulatory regime must distinguish between capturing carbon and preventing emissions. Calculating gross metric tons captured onboard tells only part of the story. While the EU ETS recognises qualifying capture and permanent geological storage or chemical binding, practical mechanisms for maritime monitoring, reporting, and verification remain underdeveloped. As FuelEU Maritime governs the onboard greenhouse gas intensity of energy rather than absolute emissions, owners cannot assume that capture credits under one regime will automatically satisfy the other either.

This is not a call to postpone carbon capture but it must be backed by targeted funding, comprehensive lifecycle accounting, and a viable commercial pathway. Regulation should enable decarbonisation, not merely govern its mechanics. Unless safety standards, verified accounting, and market economics mature in tandem, the industry risks creating an impeccable regulatory framework for technology few owners can afford to install.