In a world increasingly committed to climate sustainability, a recent study reveals the public's keen interest in swapping out conventional shipping fuels for biofuel and hydrogen. This initiative, aimed at curbing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from global shipping—which account for roughly 3% of the worldwide GHG emissions—has found endorsement among the masses, according to research led by the University of Southampton.

Notably, the study, the first of its kind to probe public sentiment on potential fuel alternatives in shipping, has been published recently in the journal Environment, Development, and Sustainability. Industry leaders had pledged back in 2021 to strive for net-zero GHG emissions by 2050—an aim which the global shipping industry, responsible for 80-90% of the world's trade, significantly impacts.

"Switching to fuels with the potential to reduce GHG emissions on the scale needed to address the climate crisis has huge implications for the shipping industry," Professor Damon Teagle, co-author of the study and Director of the Southampton Marine and Maritime Institute at the University of Southampton commented. Teagle added that "industry stakeholders are wary of going down the wrong path" due to the enormous investment and infrastructure overhaul required—hence the need for public consultation in such a critical transition is paramount.

Based on in-depth interviews and a survey conducted among nearly a thousand UK citizens, biofuel and hydrogen emerged as the most popular alternatives to conventional shipping fuels. These were perceived as relatively low-risk biofuel was considered particularly so, while hydrogen was deemed to generate fewer negative by-products.

On the other hand, liquid natural gas (LNG), while not invoking a robust public reaction, found some support, primarily linked to its current widespread availability. Meanwhile, nuclear fuel was preferred over heavy fuel oil (HFO) commonly used in shipping. However, it wasn't entirely off the hook from public skepticism. One interviewee colorfully encapsulated this concern, saying, "If there was an oil spill, it's terrible. But if there's a nuclear spill, it’s a freaking disaster."

Public sentiment showed the least support for ammonia, despite some assessments proposing it as a balanced carbon-free alternative. It was deemed unproven, risky and was referred to as "dangerous" and "toxic" in interviews. The study also revealed that those living in port cities exhibited slightly more acceptance of alternative shipping fuels.

"LNG also seems likely to be regarded as a positive transitional solution," lead author Daniel Carlisle from Massey University in New Zealand pointed out. He further emphasized the importance of considering public opinion alongside technological and economic evaluations, especially given the stark difference in perceptions towards ammonia between the public and industry leaders. Carlisle concluded, "Our research shows there is public support for the research, development, and implementation of alternative shipping fuels over incumbent fossil fuels, with biofuel and hydrogen preferred solutions."