Failure to reach consensus could delay shipping decarbonization efforts beyond 2027, risking the sector’s ability to contribute effectively to global climate goals.

The IMO’s regulatory framework, agreed upon in April, includes a plan to phase in zero or near-zero emission fuels and establish a fuel standard, but the final decision depends on member support in October.

If the regulations are rejected, further delays in decarbonization are expected, which could hinder global efforts to combat climate change.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is set to vote in October on new regulations aimed at decarbonizing shipping, including a global fee on greenhouse gases from ships over 5,000 gross tonnage starting in 2027, which would target vessels responsible for about 85% of shipping emissions.

Nearly 200 shipping companies are urging the IMO to adopt these regulations, which include the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases, as a crucial step to reduce sector emissions that have grown to account for roughly 3% of global greenhouse gases.

The proposed regulations would establish minimum fees and fuel standards, with a phased-in approach for zero or near-zero emission fuels, and aim to incentivize investment in cleaner technologies.

Most supporting countries and industry groups see these regulations as essential for providing certainty and encouraging greener investments, although some, like the U.S., oppose them, viewing them as a global carbon tax and threatening retaliation.

The U.S. government has warned it will consider retaliatory measures if it perceives unfair treatment, criticizing the standards as unrealistic and suggesting they could benefit China, a leader in clean fuel development.

While most nations support the regulations, the U.S. remains opposed, highlighting a geopolitical divide over climate policies in maritime regulation, with the U.S. threatening retaliation if the regulations are supported.

Proponents argue the fee would bring regulatory clarity and drive investments in cleaner fuels, but opponents fear it could increase costs and harm competitiveness, especially for U.S. shipping interests.