BAR Technologies, the Portsmouth-based engineering firm, has warned that the proliferation of overlapping frameworks is placing unprecedented compliance pressure on operators trading across multiple jurisdictions.
The result, the company argues, is an increasingly complex landscape in which shipping faces different baselines, reporting obligations and cost exposures depending on where vessels trade. The International Carbon Action Partnership, a forum for governments and public authorities that have implemented (or are planning to implement) emissions trading systems (ETS), estimates that more than 30 ETSs are either already in force or under development worldwide.
‘Carbon compliance is becoming more fragmented by the month,’ said John Cooper, CEO of BAR Technologies. ‘Instead of building momentum behind a single global framework, we’re creating a patchwork of schemes with different baselines, rules and cost mechanisms. That creates confusion, inflates costs, and weakens the industry’s ability to invest in real, scalable solutions.’
The European Union’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), which entered into force on 1 January 2026, does not directly tax shipping emissions but introduces indirect carbon costs by pricing the embedded emissions of imported goods such as steel, aluminium, cement and fertilisers, all major seaborne cargoes.
Cooper said that CBAM ‘is an example of how carbon pricing is now embedded into trade. But it’s also a reminder that without multilateral alignment, we risk policy friction and commercial uncertainty on a global scale’.
BAR Technologies is calling for a unified, globally administered carbon-pricing framework, backed by a bunker-level fuel collection mechanism that could fund reinvestment into maritime decarbonisation while avoiding duplication across regional schemes.
While negotiations at IMO continue, BAR argues that wind-assisted propulsion can provide an immediately deployable route to emissions reduction. Its WindWings rigid sail technology is already installed on several commercial vessels, delivering fuel savings that are independent of fuel type.
The company’s stance reflects broader concern among shipowners that regulatory divergence is creating uncertainty over future fuel competitiveness and the returns on capital deployed into alternative fuels, retrofits and efficiency upgrades.
