Net zero by 2050? This decade’s fuel choices will decide in International Shipping News 15/04/2026 The debate over whether net zero is possible by 2050 may continue for years, while global emissions and temperatures continue to rise. But the question of green hydrogen’s role in achieving it has swung from hype to skepticism to a pragmatic center: shipping and several other hard-to-abate sectors need green hydrogen to reach net zero. Yet, the hydrogen itself remains elusive. Demand waits for supply. Supply waits for demand. It’s an ouroboros. Technology ahead of fuel Taking shipping as an example, the industry has innovated and invested in dual-fuel ships capable of running on both conventional fuels and synthetic ammonia or methanol – and these ships are already setting sail. Their engines are designed to use fuel as efficiently as possible: today to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, and in the future, to make the most efficient use of the more expensive synthetic ammonia and methanol. The problem is that while ship technology ran ahead, the fuel front was stalling. First, hydrogen fuel production is a massive undertaking: renewable energy, electrolysis, synthesis plants, storage, pipelines, and ports. Second, the bill. To reach net zero by 2050, shipping alone will need 100 to 150 million tons of green hydrogen annually as feedstock, even at maximum efficiency across the sector. The hard-to-abate sectors together will need 500 to 600 million, an investment of $9 trillion. So, just for the feedstock, shipping would need to fund $2 to 3 trillion upfront. Which sector can afford today to commit three trillion dollars for a fuel that will be ready in 5-10 years and require upfront purchase contracts of 10 to 15 years? And yet, that’s the timeline: 25 years to 2050. The snake eating its tail Meanwhile, the collapse of hydrogen projects around the world proves that the challenge is more than isolated anomalies; it is systemic. Underpinning shipping’s deadlocked fuel transition is a set of five tightly linked factors – fuel fragmentation, geography, finance, regulation, and port constraints, that reinforce each other. First, fuels. In the absence of synthetic fuels, shipping is trying to juggle oil, diesel, liquefied natural gas, and biofuels. This hedging is rational, but it dilutes investment and prevents any single fuel from scaling. It would be comparable to an electric vehicle charging infrastructure with 12 different types of current, which thankfully isn’t the case, or there would probably be no electric vehicles. Second: geography. Following the oil and gas model, hydrogen production is concentrated in a few nation-scale projects – some as large as half of Switzerland. For shipping, 80% of the global fleet operates on flexible routes. An early market that forces trade to reroute from 6,000 ports to a mere handful of fuel supply hubs will limit adoption. Aviation would face a similar challenge. Third: finance. Shipping’s low-cost, low-margin business model is predicated on the universal availability of the cheapest fuel in the global mix. Synthetic fuel contracts overturn every precedent: expensive, long-term, limited. Fourth: regulation. Shipping’s global regulation should be a strength. Global carbon pricing could level the playing field for the entire industry. However, that strength depends on a two-thirds vote from member states. With the onus on national governments and local producers to assemble subsidies, permits, materials,