In July 2023 at its MEPC80 meeting, the International Maritime Organization (IMO)‘s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) which sets environmental policy for global shipping unveiled its revised greenhouse-gas strategy to steer global shipping toward net-zero emissions by or around 2050..
For an industry responsible for nearly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, this was the first clear signal that the age of unregulated maritime carbon was ending and was hailed as a historic milestone..
However, of late, there have been a few objections, murmurs, and outright name-calling about the IMO’s emerging Net Zero Framework, including the US Department of State which called it a “global carbon tax” and “an environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people.“
Recently, in September, a few Greek shipowners, long regarded as the industry’s traditionalists, publicly denounced the framework, calling it “unrealistic” and “detached from the commercial realities of global trade.”
While this MAY BE expected from the USA, who ironically only account for less than 0.5% of the world’s merchant fleet, such commentary from Greek shipowners who own 20% of the world’s merchant fleet gives others pause for concern..
So what actually is the issue here..? What exactly is the IMO’s Net Zero Framework..?
The IMO is the United Nations agency that sets the rules for international shipping.. Its 2023 strategy marked a turning point, upgrading its 2018 target of “50% reduction by 2050” to a net-zero commitment by mid-century..
To move from promise to practice, the organisation developed the Net Zero Framework, a global system of carbon accountability for shipping..
It combines emission-reduction standards, lifecycle fuel assessments, and most controversially, a carbon pricing mechanism.. Ships that exceed set limits will pay into a climate fund, while those that outperform the targets can earn credits..
The framework takes a well-to-wake approach, measuring emissions from the entire fuel cycle – production, transport, and use.. Implementation is slated to begin around 2027, focusing first on the largest ocean-going vessels that generate most emissions.
Supporters argue that this framework finally brings fairness, predictability, and accountability to a fragmented industry long dependent on voluntary commitments..
The rationale behind the plan
Those backing the IMO’s framework believe that only global coordination can ensure meaningful change.. By setting uniform targets and penalties, the system prevents regulatory patchwork, where some nations enforce strict standards while others pretend not to notice.
It also sends a powerful message to shipowners, financiers, and fuel suppliers: the era of cheap, dirty fuel is ending.. Clear regulation gives investors the confidence to back new fuels like green ammonia or e-methanol, knowing they will not be undercut by competitors ignoring the rules..
In short, advocates see the Net Zero Framework not as punishment but as a long-term insurance policy, protecting the industry’s relevance in a low-carbon world..
Why some shipowners are pushing back
Greek shipowners, who control roughly 20 percent of the world’s merchant fleet, have become some of the most vocal critics.. Their concern is not with the goal, few deny the need to decarbonise, but with the speed and practicality of the plan..They argue that cleaner fuels are still prohibitively expensive and in short supply, and that imposing carbon costs before alternatives are viable risks driving smaller players out of business.. In their view, the IMO is asking the industry to jump before building the bridge..
Seatrade Maritime News is reporting George Procopiou, chairman of Dynacom Tankers as saying “the regulators are making shipping into “a tax collector” fleecing the industry with the false hope of decarbonisation.”
They also raise the question of equity.. Many developing economies rely on affordable maritime transport to sustain trade.. If shipping costs rise sharply due to carbon pricing, it could hit the poorest countries hardest, especially those far from major markets.. Unless the proposed carbon fund is used transparently to assist such nations, the framework risks widening global inequalities rather than closing them..
Between ambition and practicality
The IMO’s plan walks a tightrope between climate ambition and commercial reality.. The technology to achieve full decarbonisation, from green fuels to global bunkering infrastructure, remains in its infancy.. The challenge is not intent, but execution..
For the framework to work, it must blend regulation with realism.. It needs robust financial mechanisms, fair distribution of carbon revenues, and clear incentives for early movers.. Without these, the initiative risks becoming a paper victory that fuels resentment rather than progress..
The way forward
Despite the protests, political and commercial, one fact is unavoidable: global shipping cannot delay its energy transition forever.. With over 80% of world trade moving by sea, the sector’s emissions are too significant to ignore..
The debate over the IMO’s Net Zero Framework is not just about carbon.. It is about who bears the cost, who captures the opportunity, and who steers the transition. The U.S. may not have many ships on the water, but it certainly has plenty of opinions.. Greek shipowners may not like the rules, but they know that change is inevitable.. Between them lies the truth, the need for bold ambition guided by pragmatic implementation..
Whether the resistance comes from Capitol Hill or the port of Piraeus, the tide of change has already turned.The only real question is whether the industry will learn to sail with it or keep fighting against the current..
