October 18 last year saw International Maritime Organization (IMO) member states vote for a one-year delay in the Net-Zero Framework (NZF), now the legislation’s arch-nemesis, the Trump administration, has moved to kill it off entirely. The framework—approved in principle at MEPC 83 in April 2025—had set out a global fuel standard and an emissions pricing mechanism, which together would have formed the backbone of international shipping’s path to net zero by 2050. Submissions for the next crucial meeting of the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) are flying in from around the world, with the document submitted from the United States likely to make the most headlines. The US submission – sent this month – has officially called for the total abandonment of the NZF. Washington is leading a charge to torpedo the current proposal, citing “dire economic consequences” for the shipping industry and global consumers. The US submission pulls no punches, labelling the NZF as a “flawed” approach that would turn the IMO into a “global climate bank”. The American delegation argues that the framework relies on expensive, unproven fuels while unfairly penalising existing technologies. Crucially, the US is demanding an “energy-all” approach that protects the use of LNG, nuclear, and conventional fuels. Perhaps most disruptively, the US suggests that the proposed March 2027 entry into force is now legally impossible and that the adjourned extraordinary session should never be resumed. Other major maritime nations are weighing in early on the debate ahead of the 84th gathering of MEPC in mid-October. While the US seeks to scrap the deal, Japan, the world’s third-largest shipowning nation, is attempting to act as a bridge-builder, proposing significant revisions to find a “landing zone” for consensus. Recognising the deep “divergent views” regarding a global carbon tax, Tokyo, in its recent submission to the IMO, has proposed removing mandatory payments to the NZF. Instead of a “tax,” Japan suggests a system where ships balance their GHG Fuel Intensity (GFI) deficits primarily through Surplus Units (SUs) traded in the market. Japan is also calling for a revision of GFI targets, arguing that current base targets are not realistically achievable and could lead to premature, costly ship replacements. Their proposal includes setting constant direct compliance targets from 2028 to 2035 to provide the industry with foreseeable compliance pathways. China, meanwhile, the world’s largest shipowning nation, is focusing its fire on the technical methodologies that will underpin future fuel regulations. Beijing’s latest MEPC submission is strongly opposing what it views as discriminatory accounting for e-fuels. China argues that the GESAMP-LCA Working Group has exceeded its mandate by attempting to include “embodied emissions” – the carbon footprint of manufacturing renewable energy infrastructure-solely for e-fuels. To ensure a level playing field, China is pushing for onboard carbon capture and storage (OCCS). Beijing demands that OCCS not be excluded from default emission values, arguing that shipping’s limited experience with captured CO2 should not stifle the technology’s development. Since the October vote last year, IMO secretary-general Arsenio Dominguez has been running a delicate campaign to soften and straighten the NZF’s language, meeting with member states to work out a way to get the legislation through somehow in October this year. The