Windassist

Sailcargo, sailtraining and wind-assisted ship propulsion

Windassist

Sailcargo, sailtraining and wind-assisted ship propulsion

Sustainability

US try to sabotage the Net-Zero Framework

Ahead of the upcoming MEPC 84 , the United States submitted a proposal to the IMO opposing carbon taxes, fuel restrictions, and regional schemes while calling for an energy-neutral, non-punitive approach to maritime emissions policy.

Previously, during the second extraordinary session of the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC/ES.2), held in October 2025, the United States strongly opposed the proposed Net-Zero Framework. U.S. officials framed the plan as an economically harmful global carbon tax and actively lobbied other countries to reject or delay it. This included diplomatic pressure and warnings of possible trade-related consequences for countries that supported the framework. Preparing for the upcoming MEPC 84, held 27 April – 01 May, the US maintains that position.

As a result of opposing voices, IMO agreed to delay the planned adoption of the Net-Zero Framework.

According to the US submission for MEPC 84, rather than pursuing a global GHG emissions scheme that would restrict energy types, the Organization should look to foster an environment of energy abundance and must avoid rigid mandates and economic burdens.

Furthermore, the Organization must not set arbitrary targets in the future and try to reverse-engineer compliance, nor should it disadvantage any type of fuel.

Five policy guidelines

Specifically, the United States requests that any new proposal introduced at MEPC meet the following policy guidelines:

  • No economic element: there must be no financial penalty, carbon tax, levy, or multilateral fund, or equivalent thereof. The United States will vigorously oppose any of the aforementioned levied by the Organization on the shipping industry. The United States will not tolerate an IMO-administered fund of any kind built on revenues from a global carbon tax or penalizing mechanism.
  • No penalties or limits on fuel types: proposals should not have limits on conventional crude or diesel, LNG, nuclear, biomass-based fuels, or any other type of marine propulsion technology. Proposals should welcome an “energy-all” approach that does not restrict or constrain current or breakthrough fuel types.
  • Ensure reliability for the shipping industry’s existing fleet to avoid any disruption to global trade: proposals must eliminate penalties on LNG, recognize biofuels as viable marine fuels, and support industry-led advances in alternative fuels and other technologies without picking “winners and losers” via regulations.
  • Mandatory withdrawal/phaseout of any existing regional shipping emissions reduction scheme, including the European Union’s ETS: Member States and regional organizations must commit to terminating their existing regional schemes to avoid a duplicative system of frameworks/agreements. Proposals should not impose additional layers of carbon trading or pricing in the existence of aggressive European Union schemes.
  • Use of explicit acceptance procedure: considering the significance of a global shipping agreement, and the potential impact on the shipping and energy industries, the explicit acceptance procedure for entry into force should be used. The tacit acceptance procedure, whereby Member States’ support is assumed unless otherwise so stated, is not appropriate given the magnitude of the issue.

Source: Safety4Sea.com.

Windassist sponsor