Trump Attacks the IMO Net-Zero Framework at the UN as China Launches a Green Shipping Corridor Alliance

President Donald Trump used his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday to attack the International Maritime Organization's Net-Zero Framework, describing it as a secret attempt to set up the first global carbon tax. He said it would raise international shipping costs by 10% to 20%, maybe more, and promised there would be "no global taxes" while he is president.

In the same week, Beijing inaugurated the International Green Shipping Corridor Alliance, a group of 45 companies and organisations from 12 countries set up to coordinate low-carbon shipping routes. Its founding members include COSCO, CMA CGM, Shanghai International Port Group and China Energy Engineering Group.

Washington wants the framework stopped. Beijing is organising the fuel and port network that a carbon price would reward. The vote comes in December.

The December 4 Vote

The framework pairs a tightening limit on the greenhouse gas intensity of marine fuel with a pricing mechanism: ships over the limit pay, ships on cleaner fuel earn rewards. It would cover ocean-going ships above 5,000 gross tonnes, which produce more than 85% of the sector's emissions, and raise an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion a year. Washington calls that a tax. Supporters describe it as a pricing mechanism tied to each ship's emissions performance.

Adoption was supposed to happen in October 2025. Instead, after US officials warned supporters of tariffs, visa restrictions, port fees and sanctions, governments voted 57 to 49, with 21 abstentions, to adjourn for a year.

The new timetable is tight. Technical talks are set for November 23 to 27, the Marine Environment Protection Committee meets from November 30 to December 3, and the extraordinary session is due to resume on December 4 to decide on adoption. At this month's intersessional talks, 38 countries spoke in favour of keeping carbon pricing and its revenue mechanism; 17, many of them oil producers, opposed it. The United States, Saudi Arabia and Liberia (the world's biggest flag state) have pushed for major changes. European and Pacific island states argue that a weaker price would starve alternative-fuel investment and make the 2050 net-zero goal harder to hit.

If adopted, amendments like these normally enter into force about 16 months later under the IMO's tacit acceptance procedure. That would mean 2028.

Where the Fuel Is Being Built

December settles the price signal. The fuel supply isn't waiting for it.

DNV's latest Maritime Forecast to 2050 puts alternative-fuel-capable ships at 5.2% of world tonnage this year, up from 0.4% in 2020, mostly LNG and methanol designs. Plenty of those dual-fuel ships still burn conventional fuel, because the alternatives cost more and the incentive to switch is still weak. Low-greenhouse-gas fuels have been bunkered at nearly 90 ports, but coverage gets thin once you look past biodiesel (nearly 70 ports): low-GHG methanol is available at 16, low-GHG ammonia at just three, all of them in East Asia.

That's the backdrop for the Beijing alliance. Its stated priorities include an international certification system for green marine fuels and bringing domestic rules on green ships, fuels and ports in line with international standards. Its chairman, Fu Xuyin, is a former Chinese vice minister of transport who also ran the China Maritime Safety Administration. Whoever shapes fuel certification gets a say in whose fuel counts as green, with or without a global price.

What Owners Can Do Before the Vote

DNV modelled four regulatory futures, from full adoption of the framework to outright rejection and gridlock. Across them, demand for low-GHG marine fuels in 2050 ranges from 33 million to 185 million tonnes of oil equivalent. A spread that wide makes any single-fuel bet hard to justify.

Efficiency is the exception. DNV's worked example is a 15-year-old 5,000-TEU containership fitted with a new bow, an upgraded propeller and propeller boss cap fins. The retrofit costs about $2.35 million, cuts fuel use by around 16% and pays back in 1.4 to 4.2 years depending on fuel prices. The case holds in every scenario DNV ran, including the one where Europe's ETS and FuelEU Maritime are left to carry shipping's climate policy on their own.

Washington's position is on the record. The vote is ten weeks out.