Three Myths Freight Companies Still Believe About CO2

The IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report puts transport at about 16% of global greenhouse gas emissions. ITF estimates around 2.9 gigatonnes of CO2 a year from freight specifically — close to the total annual emissions of India.

I have had a version of this conversation with three different forwarder ops teams in the past month. The pattern is identical every time: EU ETS auditors, CSRD reviewers, and Scope 3 customers ask for emissions numbers; the team produces a number; the auditor pushes back; the team learns three assumptions they were carrying without noticing. The corrections below are the ones that save reporting time later. For the full mode-by-mode breakdown and what regulators expect specifically, see Freight's 8% of Global Emissions and the regulatory compliance guide. For how I actually compute the per-shipment number, see GLEC v3.2 in practice.

Myth: All CO2 Is the Same

When a customer told me last quarter that they "emitted 500 tonnes of CO2 last year," my first question was the one I now ask every time: are those tank-to-wheel (TTW) or well-to-wheel (WTW) numbers? The difference matters more than most teams realise. I learned the hard way that the same shipment looks 15-25% smaller under TTW than under WTW, and the auditor I was about to walk through the file was going to spot the gap inside of five minutes if I did not name the boundary up front.

If you're reporting TTW numbers to a customer who expects WTW, you're understating your footprint. If you're comparing your emissions against a competitor's and one of you is using TTW while the other uses WTW, the comparison is meaningless. The GLEC Framework v3.2 standardizes on WTW precisely to avoid this confusion.

There's also the question of CO2 versus CO2e (CO2 equivalent). Freight operations produce other greenhouse gases -- methane from LNG-powered vessels, nitrous oxide from combustion -- and CO2e rolls them all into one number based on their global warming potential. When someone quotes you a figure, check which metric they're using.

Myth: Sea Freight Is Clean

This one comes up constantly. A container ship emits roughly 3-8 grams of CO2 per tonne-kilometre. A truck emits 60-150 g CO2/tkm. So shipping is 10-20x more efficient, right? Case closed?

Not quite. The per-tkm number masks the sheer volume. The IMO's Fourth GHG Study (2020) found that international shipping accounts for approximately 2.89% of global GHG emissions. That's a bigger share than most countries. And that figure doesn't capture everything.

Sea freight is more carbon-efficient than road or air per unit of cargo, and that's worth knowing. But calling it "clean" glosses over real impacts that regulators are already targeting. The EU ETS expanded to cover maritime shipping starting in 2024, and the IMO's CII (Carbon Intensity Indicator) ratings now penalize the least efficient vessels.

Myth: You Can Offset Your Way Out

I get asked about offsets in nearly every customer call once we get past the calculation step. The short version of my opinion: offsets have a role, but they are not a substitute for actual emission reductions. The Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) makes this explicit — under the SBTi Net-Zero Standard, companies must achieve at least a 90% absolute reduction in emissions, with offsets covering only the remaining 5-10% of residual emissions. We score shipments against that 90% cut, not against the offset budget.

This doesn't mean offsets are worthless. High-quality credits -- particularly carbon removal projects verified under standards like Verra or Gold Standard -- can address the genuinely hard-to-abate slice of your footprint. But the sequence matters: reduce first, offset the remainder.