Implementation of Maritime Transport Mitigation Measures according to their marginal abatement costs and their mitigation potentials

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has set a target to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from shipping by at least 50% in 2050 compared to 2008. Some studies focused on negative cost mitigation measures to achieve this goal, while it is almost a consensus that alternative maritime fuels with low or zero direct GHG emissions are needed. This article gathered data from implementation, marginal abatement costs (MAC) and mitigation potentials of 22 mitigation measures, to assess their implementation according to their MAC and GHG abatement potentials. Findings showed that measures with negative costs are more implemented than measures with positive costs, and that measures with negative costs have at least a 25% of implementation rate, with one exception, and for some, this exceeds 50%. Among the measures with high mitigation potential, only the use of alternative fuels without carbons measure has a low implementation rate. Nevertheless, it is crucial to reach the IMO's target. Hence, studies that analyze emission reduction scenarios should consider the implementation rate since there are still opportunities to overcome market barriers to measures with negative costs not yet fully implemented, especially with the approval of the EEXI and CII regulations. •This study evaluates the implementation of Maritime Transport Mitigation Measures.•It compares the measures’’ marginal abatement cost (MAC) to their mitigation potentials.•Negative MAC measures have at least a 25% of implementation rate.•EEXI creates opportunities to overcome market barriers to negative MAC measures.