Red Sea Reopening Rumours: Weighing the Emissions Benefits and Ongoing Challenges
As rumours swirl about the potential reopening of the Red Sea and Suez Canal to major shipping lines, the industry faces a pivotal moment. For months, geopolitical tensions have forced carriers to reroute around the Cape of Good Hope, adding distance, cost, and emissions to global trade. But what would a return to Suez really mean for freight emissions, and what hurdles remain?
The Current State: Rumours, Denials, and Cautious Optimism
The Suez Canal Authority (SCA) has announced strategic partnerships and toll reductions to incentivise a return, and the CMA CGM Benjamin Franklin recently became the first large container ship to transit the canal in two years, signalling operational readiness.
No recent reports suggest that major carriers, including Maersk and CMA CGM, are about to resume or increase transits through the Suez Canal. Maersk has emphasised that any return will depend on safety conditions, and the company has not yet issued a timeline. CMA CGM, while reportedly planning a full resumption, has not made public announcements. The Gemini Cooperation (Maersk and Hapag-Lloyd) has reiterated that the Cape of Good Hope route remains the default for now.
In short, the reopening is not yet confirmed, and safety remains the deciding factor.
The Emissions Equation: Why Suez Matters
The environmental stakes are high. Rerouting via the Cape of Good Hope has added up to 14 days to Asia-Europe voyages, increasing fuel consumption and emissions by as much as 70% per round trip, according to the UNCTAD report from Feb 2024.
For two key routes, the impact is clear (source Searoutes Freight Emissions Solutions):
- Singapore to Rotterdam:
- Suez Canal: 9,632 nautical miles, 0.7 tonnes CO₂e
- Cape of Good Hope: 13,574 nautical miles, 0.9 tonnes CO₂e
- Impact: 3,942 extra nautical miles, 0.2 tonnes CO₂e
- Shanghai to Rotterdam:
- Suez Canal: 10,513 nautical miles, 0.86 tonnes CO₂e
- Cape of Good Hope: 13,793 nautical miles, 1.13 tonnes CO₂e
- Impact: 3,280 extra nautical miles, 0.27 tonnes CO₂e
Returning to the Suez Canal would reverse these gains in emissions, offering up to 23% reduction for East Asia to North Europe trades and 40% for Middle East/India to North Europe trades.
The Broader Context: Regulatory Pressures and Industry Adaptation
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was set to adopt a Net-Zero Framework in 2026, which folded into a one-year delay due to US pressure. This framework plan to introduce mandatory emissions limits and a global carbon pricing mechanism for large vessels, making the Suez Canal’s shorter routes even more attractive for compliance and cost savings.
Yet, the alternative route through The Northern Sea Route, while shorter, poses environmental threats and operational challenges, and the Cape of Good Hope remains a fallback for many. The industry’s ability to adapt will depend on both geopolitical stability and the pace of regulatory enforcement.
What’s Next for Shippers and the Planet?
For shippers, the potential reopening of Suez offers a chance to cut costs and emissions—but only if security conditions improve. For the planet, every vessel that returns to Suez means a significant drop in per-voyage emissions, aligning with global decarbonisation goals.
However, the transition won’t be seamless. Even once traffic restarts, global ports may face a temporary surge in arrivals as a full swing back to Suez could create congestion before networks re-balance. Operational stability won’t return overnight: vessels need to be repositioned, container flows corrected, and weeks of backlog may have to be absorbed. Shippers should prepare for flexibility in their supply chains when the change will happen.
At Searoutes, we continue to monitor these developments closely, providing accurate emissions data to help shippers navigate both the risks and opportunities ahead.
For more insights, explore our blog or contact our team.