The US decision to make public its offensive against the net-zero framework proposed by the international maritime organization has created considerable debate within the shipping community.
Several ministers within the Donald Trump administration issued a joint statement this week branding the plan as a “global carbon tax on Americans” and threatening retaliation ahead of an October vote that could shape shipping’s decarbonization pathway for decades.
Senior members of Donald Trump’s cabinet criticized the carbon pricing mechanism and fuel standards as unfairly penalizing US industries while favoring China. “Even small vessels would incur millions of dollars in fees, driving up costs directly for US consumers,” the statement warned.
The US rejection puts the IMO’s long-awaited greenhouse gas reduction strategy in the crosshairs just months before adoption.
Trust matters more than rhetoric in shipping
The framework, agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members at the April meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), would impose levies of $380 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent on ships failing to meet a 2028 baseline target, alongside stricter GHG intensity mandates and a fuel standard. Supporters see it as a groundbreaking measure to align shipping with a 2050 net-zero trajectory.
“The upcoming MEPC session in October provides the appropriate platform to address any concerns from member states ahead of the adoption process,” an IMO spokesperson told Splash today.
A spokesperson for BIMCO, shipping’s largest lobby group, told Splash the US stance is unlikely to derail implementation if the framework passes, but warned that Washington’s non-participation would complicate enforcement.
“Even when, or if, the US makes reservations that the rules will not apply to them, it will, because all ships in non-US flag trade are subject to it on an international level.
Dr Tristan Smith, who closely tracks IMO environmental legislation in his role as reader in energy and shipping at UCL Energy Institute in London, played down the US stance.
“I don’t think this is news, the same thing happened in April,” Smith recounted, discussing the US decision to walk out of the MEPC meeting this spring.
“IMO regulation of international shipping is generally, and in this case, enforced by port state control. If an individual country decides not to enforce in some way, a ship still faces enforcement penalties as soon as it sails to another country,” Smith explained.
Professor Lynn Loo, CEO of the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation, said she did not believe the IMO’s net-zero framework would be abandoned, as it has already taken many years of consensus-building to get to this point. However, Loo admitted political headwinds could slow down or weaken the framework’s implementation.
The new fuel supply chains, the improved port and terminal infrastructure, and vessels capable of using zero or near-zero carbon fuels are deeply interdependent and can take a decade or more to bring to full scale, explained Loo.
“Any loss of momentum now will make reaching the 2050 goals much more challenging. This is the time for Member States to remain focused on our collective long-term goals,” urged Loo.
Others see greater risks. Ing economist, Rico Luman, described the US rejection as “a blow” that could embolden other reluctant states. “If the US does not accept the effectuation, this will complicate the entire system. This could also make other countries hesitate, because they fear the consequences as the US might retaliate. This puts the final adoption in danger,” warned Luman.
For owners, the biggest headache may be the uncertainty the US injects into fuel investment decisions. Broker SSY said dry bulk ordering remains paralyzed by the absence of clear and stable rules, with owners hedging between LNG, ammonia, and methanol in the hope of future-proofing fleets.
“Confidence is more important than rhetoric in shipping, as without clear and enforceable rules, shipowners cannot responsibly future-proof their fleets, and decarbonization will remain a costly risk management exercise,” noted SSY in a recent market update.
The October MEPC session will now be a critical test. A two-thirds majority is needed to approve the net-zero package. Environmental NGOs warn that failure or delay could sink any realistic chance of shipping meeting its 2030 or 2050 climate targets.
“What is vital now is that IMO Member States formally adopt the net-zero framework to give the industry the certainty it needs to invest in the cleaner fuels and technologies that will enable us to meet the net-zero targets already agreed by governments,” said a spokesperson for the International Chamber of Shipping. Splash.
Starting with the Informa group in 2000 in Hong Kong, Sam Chambers became editor of Maritime Asia magazine, as well as East Asia editor for the world’s oldest newspaper, Lloyd’s List. In 2005 he pursued an independent career and wrote for a variety of titles including taking on the role of Asia editor at Seatrade magazine and China correspondent for Supply Chain Asia. His work has also appeared in The Economist, The New York Times, The Sunday Times, and the International Herald Tribune.
August 14, 2025
August 14, 2025
August 14, 2025
August 14, 2025
August 14, 2025
