IMO Bows to US Pushback, Delays Green Fuel Mandate for Global Shipping
In a dramatic turn at the recent meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) held in London from 14-17 October 2025, progress on landmark rules to decarbonise the global shipping industry was stalled, largely due to the influence of the United States.
A much-anticipated vote on the so-called Net-Zero Framework (NZF) and associated fuel and emissions mandates were postponed by a year, sending shockwaves through environmental and shipping circles.
The NZF - drafted in April 2025 - would have imposed the world’s first binding package of shipping regulations combining a global marine fuel standard (reducing greenhouse-gas (GHG) intensity) and an economic measure (charges/credits tied to emissions).
The proposal targeted vessels over 5,000 gross tonnage - responsible for about 85% of international shipping emissions. At the April meeting, a simple-majority vote approved the draft, and the full MEPC session this month was expected to formally adopt the rules and set a firm entry date (2027) for implementation.
However, the United States, after withdrawing from earlier negotiations, mounted a strong campaign to block the adoption. A US diplomatic note in April warned that any measure imposing economic burdens on US vessels or shipping companies would trigger "reciprocal measures".
Excerpt from a US diplomatic note to IMO member states: “Our government will consider reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures."
At the meeting last week, US pressure helped persuade 57 countries to vote in favour of adjourning the decision by one year - rather than pushing ahead. The motion to delay passed while 49 opposed and 21 abstained.
According to delegates, multiple procedural objections, last-minute breaks and side-consultations reflected the tension and influence of external lobbying, particularly by the US.
Key implications:
The fuel-standard element and GHG pricing system are now in limbo; shipowners and investors are left without clarity on the regulatory timeline.
The shipping industry, which some analysts estimated could raise US$11-12 billion annually from the proposed mechanism, now faces a setback in its transition to zero- or near-zero-GHG fuels.
Environmental groups and many developing nations are alarmed that a major decarbonisation lever has been delayed, asking how global shipping will meet the targets set out in the IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy (e.g., 40 % reduction in carbon intensity by 2030) if regulatory momentum stalls.
Critics say the US action reflects a broader retreat from multilateral climate-governance in the maritime sector.
Delegates noted that while the framework remains “very much alive” according to IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez, the delay injects uncertainty into ship-ordering decisions, fuel-investment plans and the competitive landscape for alternative fuels.
Supporters of the NZF argue that the delay sends exactly the wrong signal at a critical moment: global shipping is responsible for around 3 % of CO₂ emissions and without clear regulatory mandates and market signals, the adoption of green fuels and technologies could be hindered.
Meanwhile, the US maintains that the pace and structure of any global regime must protect its economic interests and avoid what it calls a “global green new scam tax” on shipping.
In short: the IMO meeting achieved no final outcome on the landmark decarbonisation rules it had been expected to deliver.
The influential role of the US, combined with other states’ concerns about cost and competitiveness, means that a decision now looms in 2026 - just as shipping companies and fuel-suppliers were gearing up for a clear signal.
The pause may prove costly in delaying the clean-fuel transition and raising the risk that the shipping sector misses the window to align with the 2050 net-zero goal.
As one shipping-industry observer put it: “This is a significant blow for the green transition in global shipping. The industry needed regulatory clarity, now it’s stuck in limbo.” The next round of negotiations will be watched closely.
Read More: IMO Sulfur Cap and The Changing Dynamics of Global Shipping
