Comparing Green Shipping With The Modern Concept Of Clean Shipping

The maritime industry, vital to global trade, contributes 2.5% of global greenhouse gas emissions while grappling with environmental degradation, maritime crimes (e.g., C3+ trafficking, smuggling, counterfeiting, war crimes, human rights violations, maritime zones violations, illegal surveys, and weapon-testing), and social inequities. Green shipping prioritizes environmental compliance through energy-efficient technologies like low-sulphur fuels and scrubbers, achieving significant reductions in sulphur oxides (SOx) by 95% and carbon dioxide (CO2) by 20%, aligning with MARPOL Annex VI and the IMO’s 2018 GHG Strategy. However, its narrow focus overlooks ethical governance, crime minimization, and inclusivity. Clean shipping, a modern paradigm, integrates zero-emission technologies (e.g., hydrogen, ammonia), AI-driven crime prevention, social inclusivity via the Maritime Labour Convention (MLC, 2006), and economic sustainability through EU ETS savings and consumer demand for ethical brands. Supported by UNCLOS (1982), the Global Compact for Migration (2018), and national statutes like the UK Modern Slavery Act 2015, clean shipping addresses a broader spectrum of challenges, reducing maritime crime by 25-30% and fostering stakeholder trust. This paper critically compares these paradigms through international conventions, national laws, case law (e.g., MV Ever Given, 2021), and case studies (e.g., Yara Birkeland), highlighting clean shipping’s holistic vision as the maritime future despite high costs and infrastructure gaps. Recommendations include hybrid strategies, policy incentives, and strengthened UNCLOS enforcement to bridge gaps and ensure a sustainable, equitable, and crime-free maritime ecosystem.