57 States against 49. On October 17, 2025, this one-vote majority was enough to postpone by one year the adoption of the first global carbon taxation framework for maritime transport. The 11 to 13 billion dollars in annual carbon revenues expected remain in limbo, victims of an unlikely coalition led by the United States and Saudi Arabia.
This vote at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) reveals a new geopolitics of climate: a minority of fossil fuel states now succeeds in swaying maritime powers like China, Greece, Japan, and South Korea toward postponement. The paradox: without a global price signal, European and Asian shipowners who have invested in clean ships become the primary losers from the delay imposed by heavy fuel oil producers.
The Essentials
- 57 States voted to postpone the IMO Net-Zero framework against 49 States in favor, under American and Saudi pressure
- The 11-13 billion dollars in annual carbon revenues expected remain blocked
- The United States represents only 0.57% of global tonnage but shifted China and Japan
- Shipping emits 1.1% of global greenhouse gases and could reach 17% by 2050 without action
- The planned implementation in March 2028 becomes uncertain
The United States Mobilizes Diplomatic Influence Against Its Own Maritime Interest
The United States orchestrated the blockade despite a glaring economic paradox. With only 0.57% of global maritime tonnage, they possess a marginal merchant fleet compared to Greece (18.5%), China (13.8%), or Japan (11.7%). Yet their diplomatic pressure was enough to sway these shipping giants.
The American administration cited “preservation of economic competitiveness” and “inflation risks” to justify its opposition. This position above all reflects the influence of domestic oil lobbies: ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips collectively spent 28.4 million dollars on lobbying in 2024, according to OpenSecrets. Their revenues depend directly on maritime heavy fuel oil, the most polluting fuel in the industry.
Saudi Arabia reinforced this strategy by mobilizing its Gulf allies. Aramco, the world’s leading oil company, derives 15% of its revenues from the maritime sector. Riyadh explicitly declared that “any international carbon taxation constitutes interference in national energy sovereignty,” according to IMO minutes.
This United States-Saudi Arabia coalition reproduces a strategy already observed in climate negotiations: blocking by proxy rather than opposing head-on. The mechanism functions by promising commercial compensation to pivot states in exchange for their postponement vote.
China Pivots by Economic Calculation, Not Climate Conviction
The Chinese shift represents the major geopolitical surprise of the vote. Beijing possesses the world’s second-largest merchant fleet with 13.8% of global tonnage, or 249 million tons deadweight. Its initial position supported rapid adoption of the carbon framework.
Three factors explain this reversal. First, China’s competitive advantage in shipbuilding: its shipyards control 47% of new global orders according to Clarksons Research. A one-year postponement allows them to deliver more conventional ships before carbon standards take effect, maximizing short-term revenues.
Second, American commercial pressure. Washington conditioned the lifting of certain tariffs on Chinese steel on Beijing’s support on “multilateral energy matters.” This promise represents potentially 2.3 billion dollars in annual savings for Chinese exporters, according to Peterson Institute calculations.
Third, long-term influence strategy. China prefers developing its own maritime decarbonization standards rather than adopting a Western framework. Its investments in green ammonia reached 12 billion dollars in 2025, positioning the country to dominate future green maritime fuels. A postponement gives it time to finalize this infrastructure before international rules are adopted.
This position reveals Chinese logic: accept the short-term political cost (environmental criticism) to maximize economic and technological advantage in the medium term.
European and Japanese Shipowners Trapped by Their Own Green Investments
The maritime industry faces an unprecedented situation: companies that anticipated carbon regulation suffer temporary competitive disadvantage. Maersk, MSC, and CMA CGM have collectively ordered 847 ships running on green methanol since 2023, representing 94 billion dollars in investments.
These European giants were counting on the carbon framework entering force in 2028 to monetize their clean ships. Without heavy fuel oil taxation, their operating costs remain 15 to 25% higher than conventional ships according to Global Maritime Forum analysis. Green methanol costs 1,200 dollars per ton compared to 650 dollars for heavy fuel oil in Singapore.
Japanese shipyards suffer similar blowback. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Kawasaki invested 8.7 billion dollars in hydrogen and ammonia propulsion technologies since 2022. Their order books show 312 green ships deliverable between 2026 and 2030, but shipowners now hesitate to honor these contracts without regulatory certainty.
This distortion creates a perverse effect: responsible companies bear additional costs while their polluting competitors retain their economic advantage. Hapag-Lloyd estimates 340 million dollars in annual surcharges for its partially decarbonized fleet compared to competitors using exclusively heavy fuel oil.
Regulatory uncertainty pushes some shipowners to cancel green orders. Capital Ship Management postponed indefinitely the acquisition of 23 methanol ships planned for 2026, citing “lack of visibility on the evolution of the international regulatory framework.”
The 13 Billion in Carbon Revenues Remain Hostage to Fossil Fuel Producers
The IMO Net-Zero framework envisioned progressive taxation: 100 dollars per ton of CO2 in 2028, rising to 200 dollars by 2035. With 1.1 billion tons of CO2 emitted annually by shipping according to the IEA, revenues would have reached 11 billion dollars in the first year, progressing toward 13 billion by 2030.
These funds were intended for 70% to developing countries to finance their green maritime transition. The mechanism replicated that of the Green Climate Fund but with guaranteed and predictable resources. Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Indonesia were counting on these revenues to modernize their ports and develop local green fuels.
The postponement also blocks private investment in green maritime infrastructure. Green ammonia projects in Singapore, Rotterdam, and Long Beach total 23 billion dollars in investments conditional on carbon framework adoption. Without an international price signal, these projects lose their economic viability.
The oil industry thus protects a captive market of 300 million tons of heavy fuel oil annually, valued at 195 billion dollars at current prices. Each year of postponement represents 13 billion in revenues preserved for refiners, primarily based in Singapore, South Korea, and the Netherlands.
This geography reveals complex geopolitics: refining countries like the Netherlands officially support decarbonization while economically benefiting from postponement. Rotterdam processes 85 million tons of heavy fuel oil annually, generating 4.7 billion euros in revenues for the Dutch economy.
The Technological Race Accelerates Despite Regulatory Uncertainty
The postponement paradox: it does not stop innovation but displaces it toward national and regional strategies. The European Union activates its Plan B with the extension of the ETS system (carbon market) to maritime transport starting January 2026. This unilateral taxation covers 80% of traffic touching European ports.
Brussels thus imposes 85 euros per ton of CO2 on ships serving Europe, generating 5.2 billion euros annually according to the European Commission. This fragmented approach creates a distortion: shipowners optimize their routes to avoid European waters, paradoxically lengthening certain journeys and increasing global emissions.
South Korea develops its own strategy with Hyundai Heavy Industries. The naval giant invests 11 billion dollars in liquefied hydrogen ships, targeting 30% of global market share in this segment by 2030. Seoul bets on technological lead to compensate for the absence of a unified international framework.
Singapore transforms its status as an oil hub into a green fuel platform. The city-state invests 7 billion Singapore dollars in green ammonia and methanol facilities by 2028. This strategy aims to capture the added value of maritime energy transition, regardless of the international timeline.
These national initiatives create an accelerated but disorderly technological race. Each region develops its own standards and reference fuels, fragmenting the global market. This fragmentation complicates shipowners’ tasks as they must navigate multiple incompatible regulations based on their commercial routes.
Climate Multilateralism Faces Its Crisis of Democratic Legitimacy
The IMO vote reveals a structural dysfunction: states least exposed to climate consequences possess disproportionate veto power. Saudi Arabia and the United States, which emit respectively 1.9% and 1.1% of global maritime emissions, blocked a reform supported by Europe and small island states, first affected by rising seas.
This asymmetry reproduces blockages observed in other multilateral forums. At COP28, oil-producing countries weakened the text on “phase-out” of fossil fuels by mobilizing their commercial allies. The mechanism remains identical: promise economic compensation in exchange for climate votes.
The Maldives and Tuvalu denounce “inverted taxation”: the countries most vulnerable to climate change indirectly subsidize polluting industries through the absence of a price signal. Mohamed Nasheed, former president of the Maldives, calculates that each year of postponing the maritime carbon framework costs 180 million dollars in additional climate adaptation for small island states alone.
This legitimacy crisis pushes toward alternative coalitions. The Alliance of Small Island States develops its own maritime carbon taxation mechanism, applicable in their combined territorial waters. Though representing only 3% of global traffic, this initiative creates a legal precedent for bypassing multilateral blockades.
The stakes exceed maritime transport alone: it tests the international system’s capacity to address global challenges against fossil fuel interests. If a minority of states can indefinitely postpone urgent climate reforms, multilateralism loses its regulatory function at the moment it becomes vital for planetary stability.