From the magazine – President Trump’s administration is once again acting like a bull in a china shop, this time threatening to sabotage the introduction of a global regulation to make shipping more sustainable. In August, countries, including the Dutch authorities, were told that they had to reject an IMO deal to reduce emissions from shipping, otherwise they would face retaliatory measures in the form of extra high import tariffs, visa restrictions and additional port charges.
In every issue of SWZ|Maritime, SWZ|Maritime’s editor Antoon Oosting writes an opinion piece under the heading “Markets” about the maritime industry or a particular sector within it. For the October 2025 issue, he discusses the upcoming IMO MEPC meeting on the Net-Zero Framework and how the Trump administration tries to oppose this. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher (the SWZ Foundation), the KNVTS, or other editors.
In that respect, it will be very interesting to see the outcome of the upcoming meeting of the MEPC, the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the International Maritime Organization (IMO). From 14 to 17 October, the committee will discuss the details of the proposals for the introduction of the Net-Zero Framework to achieve a global shipping industry with zero CO2 emissions by 2050. To enforce this, the plan is to introduce levies for ships’ CO2 emissions as of 1 January 2028.
By the time this magazine reaches its readers on Tuesday, 21 October, the outcome of the MEPC-meeting will already be known. Whether the 176 IMO member states will manage to reach a final agreement remains to be seen. At the previous meeting in April, the preliminary agreement was supported by only 63 member states, with sixteen voting against and 24 abstaining. The United States was not even present.
Also read: Dutch navy gets new fleet, but will have to wait for it
Levy system
Even if a majority is secured for a Net-Zero Framework – with or without the necessary adjustments – including the proposed levy system on polluting ships, it remains to be seen whether countries opposing it will actually commit to it. There is a risk that some countries will ignore the entire IMO system or set up their own systems instead.
In that respect, the rest of the world views the European Union’s own tax system for ship emissions as a very bad proposal. The revenue of this system disappears into national treasuries and it is questionable how much of this will be used to promote cleaner shipping. This European system was to encourage cleaner shipping, but now it threatens to undermine a global regulation via the IMO.
Major division
The American threat, which amounts to a declaration of war on any global agreement for cleaner shipping, has led to major division in the international shipping world. Never before has an MEPC meeting been preceded by so many statements and alternative proposals from ad hoc coalitions of countries and shipowners. As a result, IMO meetings, unlike the mainly technical exchanges, are in danger of turning into political debates and, thus, exacerbating global division.
Whereas last year everything seemed to be pointing towards a globally applicable system to make shipping more sustainable and CO2-free, the mood at the MEPC in April, and the cancellation of the American delegation’s attendance at this meeting, already signalled that the future did not look bright. A vote is already unique in IMO meetings, where consensus has almost always been the norm. Division is never good for the authority of international organisations such as the IMO, which operates as an extension of the UN.
Also read: Shipyards have plenty of work, but financial risks remain high
Useless and harmful
And certainly not with an American President who has no interest in international cooperation and simply calls the UN ‘useless’ and ‘harmful’. And apparently, those terms also apply to the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework. The Trump administration has set out to strengthen the economic power of the United States. In Trump’s vision, this also includes a greater role for the US in global shipping. In the eyes of the Trump administration, the IMO’s proposed levies constitute an unnecessary burden on the shipping industry and would do little to reduce emissions.
In a joint statement on 12 August, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of Transport Sean Duffy said that the Net-Zero Framework amounts to ‘a global carbon tax on Americans, imposed by an irresponsible UN organisation’. US government officials argue that the proposed fuel and emission standards would disproportionately harm the US by mandating the use of expensive alternative fuels that are not yet widely available.
Greenhouse gas-free fuels
The aim of the Net-Zero Framework is to achieve the climate targets set out in the IMO’s 2023 strategy for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from ships, accelerating the introduction of GHG-free and near-GHG-free fuels, technologies and energy sources, and supporting a just and equitable transition. Ships will be required to reduce their annual GHG emissions over time.
Ships that exceed the standards will have to purchase compensation units to offset their excess emissions, while ships using technologies with no or near-zero GHG emissions will be eligible for financial rewards. The Americans now say that such measures undermine US leadership in low-emission technologies such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and biofuels, while giving China an economic advantage.
According to the American statement, these fuel standards suit China because they require the use of expensive fuels (including E-fuels) that are not available worldwide. These standards would also exclude the use of proven technologies for the global shipping fleet, including low-emission options in which US industry is a leader, such as LNG and biofuels.
In the statement, the Americans also warn that the Net-Zero Framework will force ships that do not meet the new standards to pay high fees, which could mean millions of dollars in additional costs even for small ships. According to the government, these costs would have an impact on the American economy and lead to higher prices for energy, transport, shipping and cruises.
Also read: Lack of EU control on rare earths risks naval shipbuilding
‘Reconsider the framework’
During the London International Shipping Week (LISW) in September, American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) President and CEO Christopher J. Wiernicki called on the IMO to pause and reconsider the Net-Zero Framework. He warned that current targets are not in line with the reality of global shipping.
‘Shipping and the IMO are following different paths. There is no clear path for the availability and scalability of green fuels and infrastructure support. LNG and biofuels are critical to any success and should not be overlooked, overpenalised or eliminated in net-zero regulations.’ He added that while the sector needs a framework, it must combine ambition with feasibility.
Wiernicki: ‘At the moment, we are not yet where we need to be. Emissions are still 121 per cent above the reference year 2008, compliance costs are rising, and the signals that determine investments – regulations, fuel prices, fines, availability, scalability – are developing at different rates. The IMO needs to pause for a moment. We need to tackle this properly.’
The ABS CEO emphasised that, given the global scarcity of green and blue fuels, software solutions and efficiency technologies offer the most immediate benefits. According to ABS, compliance costs will rise sharply, with daily operating costs for a typical ship sailing within the EU potentially increasing from around $ 15,000 in 2028 to around $ 45,000 in 2035.
Shipowners also disagree
Meanwhile, divisions have also emerged among shipowners. Major shipping companies, including Greek operators, have called on the IMO to amend the Net-Zero Framework proposals. They argue that the current proposals will not achieve decarbonisation and that fair competition is at stake. The group, which includes Frontline (Cyprus) and Bahri (Saudi Arabia), has expressed its ‘grave concern’ about Net-Zero.
In a joint statement, the companies say that the framework does not contain realistic implementation pathways and that it could lead to excessive financial burdens and inflationary pressure on consumers. During the LISW, Greek Minister of Shipping Vassilis Kikilias echoed the industry’s concerns and said that improvements are needed. The statement was co-signed by Capital Group, TMS Group, Centrofin, Marine Trust, Trust Bulkers, Common Progress, Dynacom, Dynagas, Emarat Maritime, Gaslog, Hanwha Shipping, Angelicoussis Group, Seapeak and Stolt Tankers.
On the other side are the International Chamber of Shipping and major container shipping companies such as Maersk and CMA-CGM, which have already made significant investments in making their ships more sustainable and are using non-fossil fuels. They have joined forces in the Maritime Just Transition Task Force (MJTTF), which insists on the full implementation and adoption of the draft proposals for the Net-Zero Framework agreed in April. Much will depend on how much pressure the US can exert on countries with large shipping registers such as Panama, Liberia and the Marshall Islands.
The big question is what China and the Hong Kong shipping register will decide. IMO decisions require a two-thirds majority of 108 of the 176 member states. In addition, those voting in favour must represent fifty per cent of the world fleet in their shipping registers. This gives island states such as Cyprus, Malta, the Marshall Islands and the relatively small Panama a great deal of power.
The main interest of the shipping industry lies in creating certainty about future regulations. Certainty that is necessary for investing in ships that have an average lifespan of 25 years. You cannot bet on the outcome of the IMO, but I would not be surprised if the decision is postponed and ABS CEO Wiernicki gets his way, and with him, the Trump administration. If you are a subscriber reading this, you will know whether I was right or wrong.
Respond to this article by sending an e-mail to Robin Zander, SWZ|Maritime’ss editor-in-chief: redactie@swzmaritime.nl.
Cartoon by Hans de Wilde/SWZ|Maritime.
Also read: EU inland navigation calls on EC to support choice of HVO
