Perfectly illustrating the dichotomy that faces the attempt to reach consensus over the global approach over net zero for maritime were two emails that landed with a minute of each – one from classification society ABS, the other from the Global Maritime Forum.
The header of the ABS email was not one most would have expected – “ABS Chairman and CEO Urges IMO to Pause and Rethink the Net Zero Framework” lobbing a proverbial incendiary bomb into the discussions leading up to the extraordinary meeting of MEPC next month. The call by Christopher Wiernicki for a timeout on the IMO’s net zero framework is unprecedented from an industry organisation of the stature which ABS holds.
The press release came from the launch of the ABS 2025 Sustainability Outlook Report during London International Shipping Week (LISW) with Wiernicki saying shipping and the IMO were on different trajectories. The report highlighted total well-to-wake (WtW) emissions from shipping continued to rise and were 121% higher than in 2008.
Marrying ambition with reality
“The industry needs a framework but we need one that marries ambition with reality,” said Wiernicki. “The mechanics need to be thought through. Right now, we are not where we need to be. Emissions remain 121% above the 2008 baseline, compliance costs are compounding, and the signals shaping investment – regulation, fuel pricing, penalties, availability, scalability – are moving at different speeds. The IMO needs to take a timeout. We need to get this right.”
Beyond the headline grabbing statements the report gives a detailed analysis of the current situation and why ABS believed that the current Net Zero Framework up for vote at IMO next month needs major adjustment arguing that green fuels will take much longer to develop at scale that current timeframes allow for. A strong role is seen for LNG and latterly bio-LNG as a bridging fuel with nuclear put forward as the long-term option to achieve net zero in shipping.
Risk of significant negative consequences
The second email from the Global Maritime Forum was a statement by the Getting to Zero Coalition from its 180 plus member shipping companies. It took the exact opposite view of ABS calling on member states of the IMO to back its net zero measures and that, “A failure to do so risks significant negative consequences for the shipping industry.” It warned that not adopting the framework would set back the momentum already in play from the ordering of vessels capable of running on alternative fuels.
The statement from the Getting to Zero Coalition presaged the release of an analysis, undertaken jointly by the UCL Energy Institute, the Global Maritime Forum, and the Climate High-Level Champions. In many ways the report agrees with ABS that the industry is not track when it comes to meeting the climate targets – analysing the aim having at least 5-10% of the fuel used in international shipping come from scalable zero-emission sources by 2030.
The number of Scalable Zero-Emission Fuels (SZEF) vessels on order would only meet 37% of needed demand by 2030 and the fuel production supply uncertain with a huge potential variation of 32% to 134% of what is required.
However, the solution suggested is very different to that from ABS.
Not simply does the IMO Net Zero Framework need to be approved by member states but negotiations ahead of the vote need urgently require the inclusion of incentives to encourage the adopters of zero-emission fuels to promote their take-up before the framework enters force in 2027.
Ahead of the extraordinary meeting in October these two different illustrate the gulf in opinions that still exist.
Trump administration’s ‘unequivocal rejection’
The ABS report dovetails, although this is not to say they are connected, with the Trump administration’s “unequivocal rejection” of the IMO’s Net Zero Framework last month, which also highlighted the preclusion of LNG and biofuels. Moreover, the US also made the threat of retaliation, understood to be tariffs, on states that back it at next month’s vote at the IMO.
For many sitting in Europe it may be hard to comprehend that climate change and the target of net zero emissions are not as important or high on the agenda in other parts of the world. It was something that was mentioned to me earlier this year by a shipping executive who worked in Asia for many years and then moved back to the UK, and he said that the emphasis on reducing emissions from shipping is much higher in Europe.
If you look at countries with export led economies that have just gone through protracted negotiations with the Trump administration to try and keep US import tariffs as low as possible, the threat of a new round of tariffs if they choose to support the IMO’s Net Zero Framework would be particularly unappealing. Especially if as may well be the case net zero is not the hot button issue domestically that it is for western governments.
Political realities
Imagine being the politician who has explain the country has been hit with higher US tariffs endangering jobs because they chose to back net-zero emissions for an industry most people barely realise exists in the first place. It is not too hard to see how some states in this position could be strong armed by the US into not supporting Net Zero measures at the IMO.
Indeed, some of these states may not be unhappy with being able to justify not supporting net zero at the IMO as it would add costs to their exports in terms of shipping and would be a burden for their own maritime businesses. Here the ABS report and stance would be very helpful as it provides a renown industry expert in the maritime world saying that the IMO net zero plans are out step with the reality of developments in terms of new fuels.
The responses of IMO Secretary General Arsenio Dominguez seem typical of his approach when asked publicly about difficult issues – essentially one of “It’ll be all right on the night”. Speaking at an LISW event on Tuesday Dominguez said he was confident that the framework would be approved in October. The following day at the week’s headline conference when asked about a scenario where the measures were not passed he simply stated “I do not work that way”
His confidence is not necessarily shared by all in the industry. Even prior to recent events going back to May this year DNV Maritime CEO Knut Ørbeck-Nilssen, told a webinar, “Considering that the US withdrew from the whole process, I think it is still uncertain what will happen in October.”
A show of hands of the audience at the LISW headline conference revealed that at most 50% thought the measures would make it through regardless.
Is the IMOSecretary General really that confident as he appears – who knows?
But these coming few weeks are going to be a real test of his charm and diplomatic skills.
