Rasmus Elsborg

Shipowners won't get new IMO rules from US midterms. If climate friendly Democrats regain both US chambers, I see stronger congressional support for maritime climate action. Encouraging for the IMO Net Zero Framework. But the president's administration directs US negotiations at the IMO, where member governments agree on global shipping rules. Lawmakers influence funding and domestic policy, so their support matters. Negotiators still need agreement among countries with different fuel costs and trade priorities. For me, that's the distinction between a favorable election outcome and an agreed framework. Meanwhile, shipowners face EU emissions trading and FuelEU Maritime obligations where those rules apply. We need governments to align reporting requirements so operators can reuse emissions data across these systems. For fleet budgets, I track agreed requirements and implementation dates before treating election headlines as a compliance change.

Three EU shipping reports becoming one sounds like relief. I care more about whether the people filing them spend less time chasing corrections. The Commission proposes merging EU MRV, EU ETS and FuelEU Maritime reporting in COM(2026)620. It isn't law yet. For the people doing the work, shared fuel figures need shared definitions before they enter them once. Someone also needs to own each correction. But I care most about how teams send evidence to the verifier and handle what comes back. A correction arrives two weeks later, after three people have touched the file. Who sorts it out? If the verifier requests the same evidence again, someone still has to pull it together. How well the proposal handles that remains unclear. For me, the test starts with a messy bunker delivery note, followed through to the final compliance check.

Something called a messy energy transition? In China, they use electric trucks to haul coal in mines. #China #Energy #transformation wsj.com/world/asia/these-tru…

If you cannot trace your emissions number, you cannot defend it. TIME covered the carbon accounting debate. I judge outside help by one test. Can you explain the assumptions after they leave. time.com/article/2026/10/09/…

New ECSA study on shipping and the EU ETS. The headline: shipping is about 10% of ETS emissions but pays almost 20% of the bill, and unlike other sectors it has never received free allowances. The Commission's SMAP mechanism would earmark 110 million allowances for maritime decarbonisation. ECSA's in-house study puts the need at 330 million (around EUR 30bn) to build a market for sustainable fuels and technologies. Two things to keep apart. The revenue imbalance is a matter of record. The 330 million figure is an industry estimate tied to a negotiating position, and the study's assumptions deserve a close read. ECSA also asks that SMAP cover energy efficiency projects, not only fuels. That matters for the existing fleet, where retrofits are often the nearest term lever. The ask now goes to Parliament and Council as ETS negotiations get under way this autumn. #maritime #euets #vessel #IMO ecsa.eu/new-study-finds-ship…

The 2026 EU ETS review is the first since shipping entered the system. For maritime: smaller vessels (400 to 5,000 GT) phased in, up to 110m EUAs for clean fuels and propulsion, one combined ETS/MRV/FuelEU report, and an IMO review clause. Negotiations start this autumn. #ets #Europe #IMO transportenvironment.org/art…

Most SMEs already have 80% of the data they need for a first GHG inventory. Purchase ledger → Scope 3 Category 1 Energy bills → Scope 1 + 2 Travel expense reports → Scope 3 Category 6 The first version doesn’t need perfect data. It needs a clear boundary, documented assumptions, and a method you can explain to a customer or auditor. Numbers you can defend beat numbers you can’t.

Your first GHG accounting sheet can be built from records you already keep. Purchase ledger, energy bills, travel. No sustainability department. No consultancy fee for the first step. Numbers You Can Defend. Written so an SME can do it in-house.