Following the Trump administration’s explicit criticism of the IMO’s regulatory framework on net-zero greenhouse gas emissions (Net Zero Framework), a growing chorus of voices from the industry is proposing to loosen the terms of the agreement provisionally approved at MEPC 83 five months ago, in opposition to the Getting to Zero Coalition.
On Thursday, a group of major shipowners announced its intention to make changes to the agreement and expressed “serious concerns” regarding the current text. Among the signatories are, among others, Bahri, Frontline, Capital Group, TMS, Dynagas, GasLog, Hanwha Shipping, Angelicoussis Group, and Stolt Tankers: “In its current state, we do not believe the IMO NZF can be effective in supporting the decarbonization of the maritime sector,” they stated to Reuters in a joint declaration, adding that a “realistic” adjustment is necessary before its adoption can be considered.
Separately, DNV suggested reconsidering the agreement’s terms for LNG, currently the most widespread alternative fuel choice in the maritime sector. The availability of a true zero-carbon fuel is scarce, and DNV predicts that production projects to manufacture it will likely face obstacles for some time. Appealing to “pragmatism,” DNV’s CEO, Knut Orbeck-Nilssen, advocated for a more open view of LNG within the framework of the IMO’s Net Zero Framework.
Across the Atlantic, ABS has called for a complete “pause” to reflect on the details of the net-zero emissions regulatory framework. Its Chairman and CEO Christopher J. Wiernicki recently stated that “achieving net-zero emissions for shipping by 2050 looks like an unknown.”
Despite the agreement having its skeptics, the Getting to Zero Coalition – comprised of Maersk, NYK, Fincantieri, Gard, CMB.Tech, BV, and LR, among many others – has urged the IMO to approve it as it is. “Every year of delay in implementation will result in further delays in the future, as existing projects will be abandoned and the planning cycle will have to start over. The absence of global regulatory guidance will increase the costs of change in the long term, costs that will be borne by the industry, countries, and consumers,” the coalition wrote.
But the overall political context has also changed since the IMO took the first step on the path to carbon regulation nine years ago. Carbon emission reduction measures have fallen out of favor in Washington and are facing obstacles in Europe as well. France, once a convinced supporter of climate action and a key backer of the Paris Agreement, is now quietly pushing to slow down the formalization of European climate targets for 2040, reports Politico. A key vote on the 2040 targets was scheduled for September 18th but was canceled last week following postponement requests from France and Germany, the opposite of what might have been expected in years past.
