IMO Net-Zero Framework Talks End Without a Deal, Pushing Shipping's Carbon Price Fight to December
Another round of talks in London, another week without agreement. The IMO's working group on greenhouse gas emissions met from September 1 to 4 to work through the Net-Zero Framework, the plan meant to put a global price on shipping emissions. About 1,200 delegates took part. People in the room described the discussion as productive and less political than earlier rounds. The key decisions were still deferred.
The next stops are fixed. Another working group session starts November 23, then MEPC 85 from November 30, and a resumed extraordinary session on December 4 that could, in theory, adopt the framework.
What the framework does
The Net-Zero Framework would be the first binding carbon price on an entire global industry. It was approved in draft in April 2025 and would apply to large ocean-going ships, those over 5,000 gross tonnage, which produce most of shipping's emissions.
It has two main parts. A global fuel standard sets a limit on the greenhouse gas intensity of the fuel each ship uses, tightening over time. Ships that go over the limit buy "remedial units" to cover the gap, at $100 or $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent depending on how far over they are. Ships that beat the standard earn surplus units they can sell or bank. The money raised goes into a fund that rewards zero-emission fuels and supports developing countries.
The goal is net-zero emissions from international shipping by around 2050.
How it stalled
The plan was supposed to be adopted in October 2025. It wasn't. Under heavy pressure from the United States, including threats of retaliation against countries that backed it, member states voted to adjourn for a year.
The US has gone further since. In a submission dated March 16 this year, Washington called for the IMO to "end consideration of the NZF entirely." It argues the rules would push expensive fuels that aren't available at scale and hurt trade. A group of oil producers, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Iraq, Bahrain, Algeria and Russia, wants any framework to be consensus-based and to avoid what it calls punitive measures.
MEPC 84, held from April 27 to May 1, left the framework standing but didn't adopt it. Member states can table amendments before MEPC 85.
Where things stand after this week
About two-thirds of member states still back a centralized pricing and collection system that rewards early movers. Small island states are pushing for tighter rules.
Several rewrites were floated. Japan proposed replacing the central pricing mechanism with contributions directed by shipowners, and got little support. Liberia, the world's biggest flag registry by tonnage, wants requirements tied to whether clean fuels are actually available and affordable. China put forward a proposal that combines reward payments into a single transaction, and it drew broad backing.
The open issues are the hard ones. The fund, now renamed but still disputed. How rewards for zero-emission fuels work. Whether the fuel intensity pathway should be softened. How pooling and credit transfers between ships would work. The lifecycle assessment of fuels was deferred entirely.
Why owners care now
For shipowners, the framework affects decisions they're making today. A ship ordered in 2026 will trade into the 2040s. Owners placing record orders for VLCCs and container ships need to know whether those ships will face a $100 or $380 per tonne cost within their lifetime, and which fuels will count as compliant.
The war has also changed the fuel debate. Bunker prices jumped after Hormuz closed, and some argue that makes alternative fuels easier to justify. Others say higher fuel bills are exactly why the industry can't take on a carbon price now.
December will decide whether the IMO has a global carbon price or a long list of proposals. Either way, the ships ordered this year will be sailing under whatever comes out of it.