A Chinese shipping company has launched a weekly “express” service from the nation’s major ports to the United Kingdom and mainland Europe, via the northern sea route. This Arctic voyage slims down what would otherwise be a 40-day journey by almost half. The South Korean shipping company, PanStar, also launched its first commercial trial through the Arctic last week.
Marine advocates have expressed concerns over these developments to Dialogue Earth. Many commercial Arctic voyages run on fuels that particularly accelerate the warming and sea ice melt of this region, which is already heating up nearly four times faster than the global average.
On 15 August, Sea Legend Shipping’s vessel, Dubai Tower, embarked on the company’s first Arctic voyage of the year from the port of Ningbo-Zhoushan on China’s eastern coast. The ship, carrying goods such as batteries, solar panels and components for renewable energy technology, is scheduled to arrive in Felixstowe, England on 7 September, having sailed through the Bering strait and along Russia’s northern coast.
Sea Legend has planned weekly express voyages from August, with the final journey due to reach Felixstowe in late October. Last year, the company completed an Arctic sailing trial from Ningbo-Zhoushan to Felixstowe.
Sian Prior, lead advisor to the Clean Arctic Alliance, tells Dialogue Earth she is surprised the commercial service is “happening so quickly”. Sea Legend told the Chinese outlet Caixin that the new route is partly driven by existing security risks in the Red Sea and around the Suez canal.
The climate heating impact of such voyages depends on the fuels used. Traditionally, ships operating in the Arctic use heavy fuel oil: a tar-like substance with the texture of thick peanut butter. This emits some of the highest levels of black carbon and becomes difficult to clean up in the event of a spill.
Media reports indicate that three of the seven Sea Legend vessels being used for the Arctic are capable of running on liquefied natural gas (LNG), while the others have traditional fuel oil engines. However, it remains unclear which fuel each vessel will ultimately use in the Arctic.
LNG can reduce the risk of oil spills and significantly lowers black carbon emissions, the sooty particles produced by burning heavy fuel oil. These particles supercharge the heating of polar environments because they darken surfaces they settle upon, promoting heat absorption and accelerating sea ice melt. But some experts say LNG is not necessarily better for the climate, because it is primarily methane. This leaks during extraction, processing, transportation, as well as from ships’ engines, becoming a potent greenhouse gas.
Mao Xiaoli, a marine programme lead at the International Council on Clean Transportation, a non-profit think-tank, worries the expansion of Arctic commercial shipping will exacerbate climate impacts: “More vessels entering the Arctic causes a greater warming effect. The warming, in turn, prolongs the period that ships can operate in the region, attracting even more ships.”
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) has banned the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil in the Arctic region since 2024, but multiple exemptions are enabling its usage until 2029. Amid the IMO’s general efforts to reduce polluting shipping emissions globally, most ships have already switched to very low sulphur fuel oil (VLSFO). But Prior points to research suggesting that VLSFO does not significantly reduce black carbon emissions. It may also be even harder to clean up after a spill.
According to Prior and Mao, the cleaner and more viable alternative is marine gas oil, a fuel made entirely from crude oil distillates. Currently, there are no rules obligating Arctic-bound vessels to use it. Denmark and other nations have proposed IMO standards that would require vessels to use cleaner distillate fuels (such as marine gas oil) in the Arctic. The proposal is due to be reviewed by IMO members in January next year.
Sea Legend argues the shorter Arctic route reduces total fuel usage and therefore emissions. It plans to expand its Arctic service period from around two months this year to three months next year, and eventually offer a year-round service.
“In theory, it might be viable year-round,” says Prior. “But I think, as a commercial route, we’re not looking at it for a couple of decades yet.”