Efforts to decarbonise the global shipping industry are facing renewed uncertainty, as the United States intensifies its opposition to the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net Zero Framework (NZF).
Following the suspension of progress on the framework during last October’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) session, further discussions are scheduled for late November. However, the US administration is reportedly seeking to halt the process entirely.
The move represents a potential reversal of more than a decade of progress toward global emissions regulation in shipping.
Critics argue that Washington’s approach — described by some observers as confrontational — risks undermining international cooperation and destabilising regulatory alignment across the industry.
At the core of the dispute is a lack of consensus. While a compromise agreement had been reached at MEPC83, the US and its allies have pushed to dismantle the framework, favouring alternative approaches aligned with fossil fuel interests.
The US position includes rejecting carbon pricing mechanisms, opposing limitations on fuel types and resisting the creation of any IMO-managed fund based on emissions penalties.
It has also called for the elimination of regional schemes such as the European Union’s Emissions Trading System (EU ETS), despite the fact that these were expected to be replaced by a global IMO framework.
If the NZF fails, industry stakeholders warn that a fragmented landscape of regional regulations will emerge, increasing complexity and operational costs for shipping companies.
Environmental organisations, including Pacific Environment, argue that the framework is essential for driving meaningful decarbonisation. They emphasise that carbon pricing could generate funding to support developing countries in transitioning to cleaner shipping.
Legal pressure is also mounting. Advisory opinions from international courts have reinforced the obligation of states to protect the environment, suggesting that failure to act could lead to increased litigation.
The stakes extend beyond regulation. Without a unified global framework, the industry faces higher costs, regulatory uncertainty and growing geopolitical tension — a combination that threatens both stability and long-term sustainability.
