The Rotterdam Paradox: Can a Port Built on Fossil Fuels Ever Truly Go Green?

The Port of Rotterdam, Europe’s largest freight hub, is facing mounting pressure to transform its fossil fuel-driven operations into something more sustainable. Its sheer scale – around 600 megatonnes of carbon emissions per year – makes it a test case for green transformation.

Environmental group Advocates for the Future has filed a lawsuit against the Port Authority, arguing that the port’s current activities are not aligned with its stated commitment to sustainability. The suit demands that the port phase out fossil-based energy and develop a concrete plan to reduce emissions.

In response, the Port Authority has unveiled a comprehensive plan to cut direct and purchased energy emissions by 90% between 2019 and 2030. This includes investing in onshore power for ships and developing a hydrogen hub. However, critics argue that these efforts are insufficient.

Maikel van Wissen, director of Advocates for the Future, emphasizes the need for a concrete plan to phase out dependency on fossil fuels. “A port of this scale should be using its influence to speed up the shift to cleaner operations,” he says.

The port’s industrial cluster is responsible for approximately 29 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, roughly half of the Netherlands’ domestic emissions. Mark van Dijk, head of external relations at the Port Authority, acknowledges that this is “not a good situation.” However, he points out that the port has set targets to cut its own direct and purchased energy emissions by 90% between 2019 and 2030.

The challenge for Rotterdam lies in its size and complexity. The port’s biggest emitters often have headquarters abroad, where loyalty is tied to boardrooms rather than local regulations. If rules become too strict, they can simply relocate their operations elsewhere – as Shell did when it shifted its headquarters to the UK.

Bettina Kampman from environmental consultancy CE Delft notes that even transitioning activities to lower emissions comes with challenges. “New developments need physical space,” she says. “They can accelerate energy infrastructure development, but this is limited by the lack of power cables.” This highlights the need for a global level playing field – a framework like the Emissions Trading System or past rules on sulphur in marine fuels.

Emeritus professor Harry Geerlings from Erasmus University Rotterdam emphasizes that any single port authority cannot drive a full transition alone. “What’s needed is a global level playing field,” he says. “The right incentives change behaviour.” He points out how EU sulphur limits changed the way ships operated, and how China eventually followed suit when its vessels could no longer enter US and European ports without complying.

However, even with the right framework in place, there are limits to what regional rules can do. Many ships now sail with dual fuel setups, burning cleaner fuel as they enter European waters before switching back to cheaper, high-sulphur heavy fuel oil once they’re out on the high seas.

The geopolitics surrounding fossil fuels add complexity to the issue. The US under President Donald Trump has cast doubt on climate policy and promoted incentives that favour fossil fuels over renewables. This contrast sharpens Rotterdam’s concern about losing energy-intensive industries – a dilemma it must navigate as it tries to transform its operations.

As Geerlings notes, “A port needs activity as a logistics node – otherwise it’s no longer a port.” The fate of the Port of Rotterdam will be closely watched by those seeking to understand whether a port built on fossil fuels can truly become green.