The International Maritime Organization’s 2023 revision of its greenhouse gas strategy — calling for net-zero emissions by or around 2050 and significant reductions before 2040 — has fundamentally altered the trajectory of maritime development. For over a century, ports competed on efficiency, connectivity, and cost. Today, a fourth benchmark has entered center stage — green readiness.
Cargo owners, financiers and regulators are demanding cleaner supply chains. Multinational shippers are setting their own Scope 3 emissions targets. Financial institutions, under frameworks such as the Poseidon Principles, now evaluate the carbon intensity of vessel portfolios. Meanwhile, alternative fuels are moving from lab charts to shipyards, with methanol-ready and ammonia-ready newbuilds entering orderbooks at a pace unthinkable five years ago. This shift is turning maritime decarbonization into a competitiveness race. The ports that provide clean fuels, shore-based power, efficient digital traffic management and predictable regulatory timelines will attract the world’s newest, cleanest vessels and the highest-value cargoes. Those that lag risk becoming secondary ports serving older fleets.
For Hong Kong, a preeminent maritime hub, this is a moment of strategic consequence. The city does not start with a blank slate. It’s embedded in one of the world’s most ambitious climate and maritime regions. China’s national climate targets have accelerated investment in low-carbon energy, electrification and alternative fuels. Within this national context, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area is emerging as both a manufacturing powerhouse and a strategic testbed for greener ports, vessels and logistics systems.
The Pearl River Delta Emission Control Area, jointly advanced by Hong Kong and Chinese mainland authorities, marked a first step in synchronizing maritime environmental rules across regional waters. Shenzhen and Guangzhou are now advancing shore-power deployment and smart-port optimization, while shipyards in the Greater Bay Area are building methanol-ready vessels and piloting electric ferries at scale. This duality — cooperation and competition — defines Hong Kong’s strategic environment. If Hong Kong moves decisively, the Greater Bay Area can multiply its influence: Shared bunkering standards, interoperable digital systems, and cross-boundary green shipping corridors could make the region one of the world’s most advanced low-carbon maritime clusters. But if Hong Kong hesitates while neighboring ports accelerate infrastructure rollout, the same regional dynamism could leave it sidelined. In a race defined by execution, the Greater Bay Area is a catalyst. The direction Hong Kong chooses over the next five years will decide whether that catalyst amplifies its role or overtakes it.
Around the world, several ports have already begun to define what green leadership looks like. Singapore has emerged as the most proactive Asian benchmark. With a transparent green port program, incentives for energy-efficient vessels, and rapid progress in methanol and ammonia bunkering pilots, Singapore has made one point unmistakably clear: It intends to remain the world’s premier bunkering hub in a multifuel future.
If Hong Kong matches its policy ambition with infrastructure speed and ecosystem coordination, it can not only remain a global hub but become a leading green port for the zero-carbon era. The race has already started. Hong Kong still has time to catch the front — but no time to lose
Europe’s largest port, Rotterdam, illustrates a different dimension of leadership by building a full green-hydrogen value chain, supported by cross-border energy planning and strong European Union mechanisms. Rotterdam has also prioritized digital port-call optimization — slashing emissions by reducing idle time through just-in-time arrivals.
Los Angeles and Long Beach, meanwhile, prove the power of persistence. Their Clean Air Action Plan — combining regulation, phased targets, and public investment — drove one of the world’s most extensive deployments of shore power, dramatically reducing local pollution.
Shanghai pairs rapid shore-power expansion with State-supported pilots in alternative fuels and port automation. It benefits from scale — but more importantly, from decisive sequencing: infrastructure first, incentives second, innovation third.
Hong Kong has made meaningful progress. Its early mandate on low-sulfur at berth significantly improved air quality, and the launch of a carbon-intensity-based port incentive program — the first of its kind globally — shows policy creativity. Electrification pilots for ferries mark a step toward cleaner local waters, while changes to bunkering regulations in 2024 have opened the door for alternative fuels.
Yet, against the global benchmarks, the city’s shortfall is execution speed and infrastructure scale. Shore power remains limited, and alternative-fuel bunkering infrastructure is still in the planning phase. Private-sector players have signaled readiness, but require clearer sequencing, timetables, and assured demand signals. Hong Kong is not behind in vision — but it is behind in delivery.
In a race in which first movers lock in network effects, this matters. Green shipping corridors, new-fuel supply chains and digitalized port-call systems reward early commitment. Retrofit clusters and clean-tech innovators gravitate to ecosystems in which infrastructure already exists.
One strength of Hong Kong’s position is that it does not need to gamble on a single future fuel. Most experts expect a multifuel transition, where liquefied natural gas plays a near-term role; green methanol becomes a key transitional fuel because of easier handling; and ammonia and hydrogen emerge as long-term zero-carbon solutions for deep-sea shipping. Hong Kong can therefore design flexible bunkering capability, evolving with the fleet.
Unlike many ports, Hong Kong holds a unique structural advantage: a deep green-finance ecosystem and international capital base. This is where Hong Kong can lead, not follow. Green bonds, sustainability-linked loans, and transition-finance instruments can accelerate vessel retrofits, clean-fuel infrastructure, and research and development. By tying financing conditions to carbon intensity — aligned with Poseidon Principles and Climate Bonds Initiative criteria — Hong Kong can reward first movers and penalize inaction, shaping behavior across the whole value chain. It can become the global capital of green maritime finance — the place where decarbonization is bankable.
Global carbon-pricing regimes are reshaping shipping economics. Hong Kong cannot ignore this shift. If its maritime ecosystem remains carbon-intensive while competitors offer cleaner corridors, costs will rise, and cargo will reroute. Aligning with carbon-market realities is not ideological — it is commercial self-defense.
To compete, Hong Kong should prioritize five actions: 1) fast-track shore power and alternative-fuel infrastructure — clear targets, clear sequencing, and visible early deployment; 2) build Greater Bay Area-based green shipping corridors — harmonize port-call data, fuel standards and regulatory rules with Shenzhen and Guangzhou; 3) scale adoption of digital systems — mandate just-in-time arrival and port-call synchronization; 4) leverage finance to drive decarbonization — make Hong Kong the preferred capital market for green retrofits and new-fuel projects; 5) develop local capability and talent — support universities, shipyards and startups working on zero-carbon vessel technologies.
The global maritime map is being redrawn by decarbonization. The ports that lead will be those that move early, plan clearly and execute relentlessly. Hong Kong has every foundational asset it needs — world-class finance, legal certainty, maritime heritage, and integration with the dynamic Greater Bay Area. What it needs is decisive delivery. If Hong Kong matches its policy ambition with infrastructure speed and ecosystem coordination, it can not only remain a global hub but become a leading green port for the zero-carbon era. The race has already started. Hong Kong still has time to catch the front — but no time to lose.
The author is director of research at the Institute of Innovative and High-Quality Development (Hong Kong).
The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.
