IMO Climate Talks Stay Alive as Carbon Plan Survives U.S. Pushback at MEPC 84

Australia Canada European Union (EU)International Middle East Opinions Policy Saudi Arabia UK (United Kingdom)United Arab Emirates UAE White House

May 07, 2026

Print This Article Share it With Friends

by Mike Schuler (gCaptain) The International Maritime Organization has kept its landmark shipping climate framework alive following a week of high-stakes negotiations in London, setting up a decisive endgame later this year after deep divisions again blocked a final deal.

The outcome from MEPC 84 broadly matched expectations heading into the meeting, with the IMO Net-Zero Framework (NZF) ultimately emerging intact as the sole agreed basis for continued negotiations despite a coordinated push to weaken or reopen the proposal.

Closing the session, Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said talks were “back on track,” while cautioning that rebuilding trust among member states remains essential to securing agreement.

MEPC 84 was widely seen as a key political checkpoint after last year’s dramatic delay of the framework, when a razor-thin vote exposed deep geopolitical divides—tensions that resurfaced again this week.

The United States, building on comments from Federal Maritime Commission Chairman Laura DiBella, pressed countries to reconsider the framework, arguing it risks imposing broad costs across global supply chains and disproportionately impacting consumers.

But the collapse of the framework never came. Instead, a broad coalition of countries held the line to preserve the framework’s core structure, including its controversial carbon pricing mechanism, which is widely seen as the defining feature of the proposal.

...

The United States Department of State said its coalition helped force the IMO to expand negotiations to include alternative proposals that could remove the carbon pricing element altogether.

In a statement, spokesperson Thomas “Tommy” Pigott said U.S. diplomats “successfully delivered” a path forward that protects American economic interests, arguing the NZF would act as a global carbon tax on shipping and consumers. The U.S. said partners including Saudi Arabia, Liberia, Panama, and Argentina backed efforts to examine competing proposals, some representing a significant share of global tonnage.

The State Department also pointed to the decision to continue negotiations across multiple proposals as evidence that support for the original framework is eroding—though that interpretation contrasts with other delegations that maintained the NZF as the central negotiating text.

Faced with the broader impasse, delegates chose to move forward rather than force a vote, keeping the NZF as the central negotiating text while allowing alternative proposals to remain under consideration.

The next phase will now unfold through a series of intersessional talks in September and November, with a potential decision window in December.

...

The Middle East conflict has already driven sharp volatility in bunker fuel prices, reinforcing arguments from framework supporters that a global system could provide long-term cost stability and accelerate the shift to alternative fuels.

Critics continue to argue the opposite—that carbon pricing risks raising costs and distorting trade flows.

...

The IMO approved a new Emission Control Area in the Northeast Atlantic, tightening limits on sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter across a wide swath of European waters beginning in 2028.

...

Despite mounting political pressure and competing proposals, the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework remains alive, with carbon pricing still firmly at the center of the debate. READ MORE

Related articles

IMO Net Zero Framework survives assault but adoption remains uncertain (Datamar News)
US Push Against IMO Shipping Carbon Levy Keeps Net-Zero Framework in Uncertain Waters (Net Zero Compare)

Excerpt from Datamar News: MEPC 84, which concluded on May 1 after five days at IMO headquarters, saw nearly 100 delegations take the floor on the framework’s future. When the dust settled, 55 countries had spoken in support of the Net Zero Framework and its critical carbon pricing mechanism, while 51 favoured proposals to substantially reopen or weaken it – including removing the carbon price entirely. The committee agreed to convene two intersessional working group meetings, in September and November, ahead of MEPC85 at the end of November, with a resumed extraordinary session pencilled in for December 4.

...

Analysis from the UCL Shipping and Oceans Research Group, which tracked the meeting closely, found that the pendulum had swung meaningfully back toward the framework. Five countries that had supported adjournment at last October’s extraordinary session flipped back to supporting the NZF, while 10 countries that had abstained or not taken a position now clearly supported it. Only two countries moved in the opposite direction.

Alternative proposals tabled by Japan and Argentina fared poorly. Japan’s proposal to strip out the carbon pricing element attracted support from just seven member states, while the Argentina-led proposal – which would remove both the carbon price and the fund – drew 24. Neither, individually or combined, could form a simple majority.

Professor Tristan Smith of UCL said the failure of NZF opponents to capitalise on the moment was significant. “For the opponents of meaningful and effective IMO GHG regulation, this was an opportunity for them to finish what they started at MEPC.ES2. Their failure to do so is critical for shipping and trade’s future success, as well as multilateralism’s future and for the chances of an equitable energy transition.”

Dr Pinar Langer, also of UCL, said the meeting had clarified the path forward. “MEPC84 suggests there is limited appetite for starting again or shifting to a much weaker alternative. The more credible path now appears to be targeted refinements to the agreed Net Zero Framework, while preserving the elements that make it meaningful and effective.”

Thomas Kazakos, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping, welcomed the tone of the week while acknowledging that significant hurdles remain. “The constructive dialogue that has taken place this week is hugely welcome, although it is clear that many Member States are still unable to adopt a global regulatory framework unless further adjustments are made,” he said, adding that ICS intends to contribute ideas ahead of September’s intersessional meeting on how to achieve the necessary broader support. READ MORE

Excerpt from Net Zero Compare: The IMO Net-Zero Framework has two main parts.

The first is a global fuel standard. This would require ships to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity of the fuels and energy they use over time. In practical terms, vessels using high-emission fuels would face increasing pressure to improve efficiency, switch to lower-carbon fuels, or buy compliance units.

The second is a pricing mechanism. Ships that exceed agreed emissions limits would need to pay into an IMO Net-Zero Fund or use surplus units generated by better-performing vessels. The fund is intended to support the deployment of low-emission ships, clean fuel infrastructure, research, training, technology transfer, and transition support for developing countries.

The rules would apply to large oceangoing ships above 5,000 gross tonnage. These vessels account for most international shipping emissions and are already covered by IMO fuel data collection requirements.

If adopted, the framework would be added to MARPOL Annex VI, the global treaty covering air pollution from ships. That would make the rules part of the core international regulatory system for maritime emissions.

Why is Shipping Difficult to Decarbonize?

International shipping is one of the hardest sectors to bring in line with net-zero goals. It carries much of the world’s trade, operates across jurisdictions, and depends heavily on fossil-based marine fuels.

Large vessels can operate for 20 to 30 years, meaning decisions made today on ship design, engines, and fuel systems can lock in emissions for decades. At the same time, alternatives such as green methanol, ammonia, hydrogen-based fuels, and sustainable biofuels are still limited in availability and often more expensive than conventional fuels.

Ports also need new infrastructure before cleaner fuels can be supplied at scale. This includes storage, bunkering equipment, safety systems, and certification processes. For some fuels, such as ammonia and hydrogen, safety and handling requirements remain major operational considerations.

These challenges are why many governments and industry groups argue that global rules are needed. Without a common framework, shipping companies could face a fragmented system of regional carbon prices, fuel standards, and reporting rules.

What is at Stake for Shipowners?

For shipowners and operators, the final shape of the IMO framework will influence fleet planning, fuel procurement, and long-term investment.

A clear carbon price would make high-emission fuels more expensive over time. That could improve the business case for energy efficiency upgrades, wind-assist technologies, route optimization, dual-fuel engines, and alternative fuel vessels.

It would also affect chartering contracts. Cargo owners and ship operators would need to decide how compliance costs are shared, particularly in contracts where one party controls the vessel and another controls fuel decisions.

For companies ordering new ships, the uncertainty is significant. A vessel built today may still be operating in the 2040s or 2050s.

...

Fuel Suppliers and Ports Face Investment Decisions

The debate is also important for fuel suppliers, ports, and infrastructure investors.

A global fuel standard would create demand for lower-carbon marine fuels. That could support investment in green methanol, ammonia, synthetic fuels, advanced biofuels, and renewable hydrogen supply chains. However, these markets need long-term demand signals before large projects can reach final investment decisions.

Ports would also need to decide which fuels to support. Not every port can build infrastructure for every possible fuel pathway. A stronger IMO framework could help narrow the investment case by giving clearer guidance on which fuels are likely to gain market share.

At the same time, developing countries and smaller ports may need financial and technical support to avoid being left behind. This is one reason the proposed IMO Net-Zero Fund has become central to the talks. Supporters argue that revenue from a levy could help finance a fairer transition, particularly for countries that rely heavily on maritime trade but lack capital for new infrastructure.

Cost Concerns Remain Central to the Dispute

Opponents of a shipping carbon levy argue that it could increase freight costs and place pressure on consumers, exporters, and import-dependent countries.

Shipping costs are only one part of the final price of most goods, but even modest increases can matter for low-margin commodities, food imports, energy products, and long-distance trade routes. Small island states and remote economies are particularly exposed because they depend heavily on maritime transport.

The IMO has recognised that any emissions pricing system must consider impacts on food security, trade costs, and vulnerable economies. The challenge is designing a mechanism that reduces emissions while avoiding unfair burdens on countries with fewer alternatives or higher transport dependency.

...

Regional Rules are Already Moving Ahead

...

Implications for Cargo Owners and Investors

...

Negotiations Remain Unresolved READ MORE