Just a week ago, many in the maritime community – including the MCI team – felt cautiously optimistic that the Net Zero Framework (NZF) would be adopted at the IMO. Perhaps not in a landslide, but even after the predictable noise from some petrostates, expectations were for steady progress.
So, should we really have been surprised by the United States’ strong objection? Hardly. The warning signs were all there.
Since the Boston Tea Party, the United States has harboured a deep suspicion of anything that resembles external taxation. After more than 250 years that instinct remains alive and well. To be seen defending American consumers from what could be portrayed as an ‘international tax’ plays beautifully to large sections of the US electorate. Add to this a pervasive distrust of anything UN-related (except when convenient) and an administration openly hostile to climate initiatives, then Washington’s stance on the NZF becomes far less surprising.
From the US perspective, the IMO’s proposal represented the first truly global carbon price – effectively, a tax on trade that could raise costs for American consumers. Whether those consumers would even notice amid soaring prices already fuelled by domestic tariffs is anyone’s guess. But perhaps this was simply a case of avoiding the straw that might break the camel’s back.
The IMO, for its part, is an organisation built for technical consensus, not geopolitical crossfire. Its delegates – career diplomats, government specialists, NGOs, and industry representatives – are steeped in maritime nuance. They are skilled at the slow, patient art of negotiation and compromise.
That was before the arrival of a new US delegation – diplomatic special forces well versed in the dark arts of disruption and hardball persuasion. The message was clear: Vote for the NZF and your deal or trade agreement might not be there tomorrow. Few, including the IMO itself, saw that level of pressure coming.
To be fair, other countries also expressed concerns about the NZF. The NZF’s proposed financial architecture was vast and undefined – a global carbon fund of unprecedented scale, with limited clarity on how revenues would be managed, distributed, or governed. For many, that lack of transparency proved deeply unhelpful.
But let’s be clear, after ten years of debate, it wasn’t the maritime industry that pulled the plug on the NZF, it was national politics.
So where does that leave us, with a one-year delay on the table? If nothing changes, the US objections won’t vanish by 2026. Can the NZF be reworked into something both meaningful and politically viable? Only time will tell, but how much time do we really have?
Because let’s be clear: climate change hasn’t paused while the IMO regroups. The world continues to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and shipping still needs a single, global mechanism to decarbonise. Without it, we risk a patchwork of regional schemes that will make compliance and carbon accounting a labyrinth for ship operators. (One hears that carbon accounting firms are already rubbing their hands in anticipation — an ill wind, as they say.)
Perhaps it’s time to step back and revisit simpler, more transparent mechanisms. After all, whatever happened to the straightforward levy on fuel?
Looking ahead, in just over two weeks, COP30 will open in Belém, Brazil. This isn’t quite the start many had hoped for. Never mind that holding COP in the Amazon – iconic venue though it may be – poses a logistical nightmare that will limit attendance and, inevitably, blunt the meeting’s effectiveness.
Having the NZF in place would have given COP30 a powerful launchpad and real momentum. Not having it, and the reasons why it’s not in place, will send a clear signal to the assembled delegates: progress at this COP will be hard won, against very strong headwinds.
Headwinds – now that’s something the maritime industry knows about. But as the sector regroups and determines its response to last week’s decision, one truth remains: we need to decarbonise. Because if we don’t, we will all be the losers in the long term – and that long term needs to start now.
