
The United Nations agency that governs global shipping has voted to delay the adoption of its landmark decarbonization strategy by one year, following intense opposition from the Trump administration.
The Friday decision by the International Maritime Organization in London casts uncertainty over the future of the Net-Zero Framework, which would have been the world’s first binding emissions target for an entire industry.
“Today’s delay in adopting the [framework] is a missed opportunity,” Natacha Stamatiou, who leads the Environmental Defense Fund’s global shipping work, said in a statement to Canary Media. ​“Every delay means that innovation will struggle to scale, inequities will deepen, and the transition to clean shipping will become harder and more costly.”
International shipping is responsible for about 3% of the world’s annual greenhouse gas emissions. Climate pollution from diesel-guzzling vessels — which haul virtually everything we buy and use — is projected to soar in the coming decades if nothing changes.
The Net-Zero Framework would require large ships to progressively reduce greenhouse gas emissions as much as possible by 2050. The strategy, which leans on a carbon tax, would force ships to swap out dirty fuels with cleaner alternatives, such as e-methanol or green ammonia, and adopt other energy-saving technologies like wind-assisted propulsion.
The delayed vote puts that progress on ice — and represents a stunning reversal from where negotiations sat just a few weeks ago.
In April, over 60 countries in the IMO, including Brazil, China, and India, agreed to put the framework to a vote in October. In the months leading up to this week, diplomats, environmental groups, and even industry organizations said they expected relatively smooth sailing toward approval.
However, on Oct. 10, ahead of the negotiations, the Trump administration issued a statement forcefully opposing an international environmental agreement, claiming it ​“unduly or unfairly burdens the United States.” U.S. officials also began calling and writing to countries that supported the measure, threatening to impose tariffs, withdraw visa rights, and take other retaliatory measures, The Guardian reported on Wednesday.
On Friday, the final day of talks, the U.S., Singapore, Liberia, and Saudi Arabia all called on IMO to postpone adoption of the climate rules. The motion to delay was ultimately put forward by Singapore and called to a vote by Saudi Arabia. While 49 countries voted against the delay, 57 were in favor. Twenty-one nations abstained.
Without a clear framework in place, progress toward decarbonizing shipping will remain slow going. Efforts to kickstart alternative, lower-carbon fuels have emerged in recent years, but shipping companies and fuel producers have been hesitant to invest at a meaningful scale without a clear directive from the IMO.
Shipping companies, for their part, had said they welcomed the certainty that a global, finalized net-zero standard would provide — particularly as the European Union presses ahead with its own ship-emission rules. A coalition of major shipping industry groups said in an Oct. 9 statement that without an international strategy, a patchwork of separate regulations could bog down the industry in costs without advancing decarbonization.
“This delay unfortunately continues the business uncertainty that hampers investment for private sector actors that are ready and eager for this energy transition to accelerate,” said Ingrid Irigoyen, president and CEO of the Zero Emission Maritime Buyers Alliance.
The Net-Zero Framework is the product of the IMO’s now decade-long attempt to institute a climate strategy.
While the details are still being sorted out, the basic idea behind the regulation is as follows: Every year, shipping companies must calculate their ​“GHG fuel intensity” — the emissions per unit of energy used, on a lifecycle basis — the results of which determine their next steps. Ships that don’t meet IMO’s fuel-intensity standards must buy ​“remedial units” to cover their compliance gap; the dirtiest ships must pay an additional penalty to IMO for every metric ton of CO2 above the established threshold.
Had the strategy passed, the global fuel standard and carbon-pricing mechanism would have taken effect in 2027, and ships would have needed to start reporting their GHG fuel intensity in 2028. That timeline will now be revised.
There’s no clear deadline yet for when the group will reconvene and conduct a final vote to officially adopt the framework. The IMO will hold a technical meeting to discuss the design of the framework next week.
But experts and advocates warned that there is no more time to delay.
“This is catastrophic for confidence, and therefore also for the equitable and ambitious decarbonisation we need,” Tristan Smith, professor of energy and transport at University College London, said in a statement. ​“We will now have to double-down on other means to drive shipping GHG reduction and energy transition. Climate science tells us that the challenge of decarbonisation does not go away, it gets harder.”
‍