The US decision to go public on its offensive against the International Maritime Organization’s proposed net-zero framework has created considerable debate within the shipping community.
Various ministers within the Donald Trump administration issued a joint statement this week branding the plan a “global carbon tax on Americans” and threatening retaliation ahead of an October vote that could shape shipping’s decarbonisation pathway for decades.
Senior members of Donald Trump’s cabinet slammed the carbon pricing mechanism and fuel standards as unfairly penalising US industries while favouring China. “Even small vessels would incur millions of dollars in fees, directly driving up costs for American consumers,” the statement warned.
The US rejection puts the IMO’s long-awaited greenhouse gas reduction strategy in the crosshairs just months before adoption.
Confidence matters more than rhetoric in shipping
The framework, agreed in principle by a majority of IMO members in April’s gathering of the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC), would impose levies of $380 per tonne of CO₂-equivalent for ships failing to meet a base target from 2028, alongside stricter GHG intensity mandates and a fuel standard. Supporters see it as a breakthrough 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,” a spokesperson for the IMO told Splash today.
A spokesperson from 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 places reservations that the rules will not apply to them, it will, because all ships of non-US flag trading internationally are bound by their flag.US ships will also be required to comply if they trade internationally.There is only the option of non-party bilateral trade outside the rules,” the BIMCO spokesperson explained.
Dr Tristan Smith, who follows IMO environmental legislation closely in his role as professor of energy and transport at London’s UCL Energy Institute, played down the US stance.
“I don’t think this is news – the same happened in April,” Smith recounted, discussing the US decision to walk out of the MEPC gathering this spring.
“The IMO’s regulation of international shipping is generally, and in this instance, enforced by port state control. If an individual country decides not to enforce in some way, a ship still faces enforcement sanctions as soon as it sails to another country,” Smith explained.
Professor Lynn Loo, the CEO of the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation, said she did not think 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 conceded political headwinds can slow or weaken the framework’s implementation. New fuel supply chains, upgraded port and terminal infrastructure, and vessels capable of using zero- or near-zero-carbon fuels are all deeply interdependent and can take a decade or more to bring to full scale, Loo explained.
“Any loss of momentum now will make reaching the 2050 targets far more challenging. This is the time for member states to remain focused on our collective long-term goals,” Loo urged.
Others see bigger risks. ING economist Rico Luman described the US rejection as “a blow” that could embolden other reluctant states.“If the US doesn’t accept the effectuation, this will complicate the whole system. This could also make other countries doubt, because they fear the consequences as the US could retaliate. This puts the final adoption in danger,” Luman warned.
For shipowners, the bigger headache may be the uncertainty the US move injects into fuel investment decisions. Broker SSY said dry bulk ordering remains paralysed by the absence of clear, stable rules, with owners hedging between LNG, ammonia, and methanol in the hope of future-proofing fleets.
“Confidence matters more than rhetoric in shipping as without clear, enforceable rules, shipowners can’t responsibly future-proof their fleets, and decarbonisation will remain as just a costly exercise in risk management,” SSY noted in a recent markets update.
The October MEPC session will now be a critical test. A two-thirds majority is needed to pass the net-zero package. Environmental NGOs warn that failure or delay could sink any realistic chance of shipping hitting its 2030 or 2050 climate targets.
“What is vital now is that the IMO member states formally adopt the net-zero framework to give 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,” a spokesperson for the International Chamber of Shipping told Splash.