Op-Ed Warns Rival GHG Proposals Threaten IMO Climate Deal

Debate Intensifies Ahead of MEPC 85

As the IMO prepares for its Marine Environment Protection Committee meeting (MEPC 85) in December, a fresh dispute has emerged over how the shipping industry should decarbonize. According to an opinion piece by Lukas Leppert, President of the Clean Shipping Coalition, published by Maritime Executive, two newly circulated “alternative” proposals — submitted by Liberia and Japan — risk undermining years of negotiation on the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework (NZF).

Shipping currently accounts for roughly 2-3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, comparable to the output of Japan, the world’s fifth-largest emitter. Leppert argues the industry no longer faces the question of whether to cut emissions, but how quickly and by what mechanism it should meet the IMO’s 2023 GHG Strategy and its 2050 net-zero target.

The Net-Zero Framework as the Established Compromise

The NZF, already backed by broad support among IMO member states, combines a global fuel standard requiring gradual reductions in fuel carbon intensity — enforced through penalties — with a carbon pricing mechanism intended to give operators a financial reason to move faster than the minimum standard. Leppert describes the NZF as the product of extensive negotiation and warns that further dilution would make the energy transition slower, less effective, and ultimately more expensive.

Liberia’s Proposal: Business as Usual?

The submission from Liberia, the world’s largest flag registry, would let vessel operators continue using conventional fuels where cleaner alternatives are seen as too costly or hard to source, according to the op-ed. It also shifts emphasis toward trading surplus compliance units while dropping mandatory contributions to a proposed Net-Zero Fund. Leppert contends that without binding reduction targets or firm financial incentives, this approach would not meaningfully shift industry behavior, and the absence of pooled funding would leave states facing disproportionate climate impacts without support.

Japan’s Proposal: Procedural and Structural Concerns

Japan’s alternative raises a separate issue: it was not circulated the required six months ahead of MEPC 85, meaning it cannot be formally adopted at that meeting under normal procedure. Leppert warns that pushing adoption to 2027 would extend a delay that began when MEPC ES.2 was adjourned for a year, compounding lost time as emissions continue and the eventual transition becomes costlier.

On substance, Japan’s plan would let individual shipowners direct compliance payments to projects of their own choosing rather than into a centralized fund. Leppert cautions that without independent oversight, this could channel money toward

Reviewed by Ibrahim Halil Ceylan, Marine Surveyor at Apeks Marine.