INSIGHT: Net Zero Shipping, A Tax Game Disguised as Climate Policy?

Rob Mortimer is CEO of Fuelre4m. Image Credit: Fuelre4m

The US warning countries to reject the IMO’s so-called Net Zero shipping deal or face tariffs sounds brutal on the surface.

But look a little deeper and you can see why Washington might be pushing back.

This isn’t a fight about saving the planet. It is about who controls the cash and who sets the rules.

The IMO framework dresses itself up as climate action, but at its core it is more about taxing the air than cutting pollution.

It creates funds, subsidies, and complicated carbon schemes that sound progressive but deliver little in the way of actual emissions reduction.

The reliance on unproven technologies like large-scale carbon capture and endless credit trading gives the appearance of momentum, but sidesteps the harder task of reducing fuel consumption and carbon output from ships.

The US position, backed by the threat of tariffs, may look confrontational, but it exposes a legitimate concern. The IMO’s structure risks skewing competition.

By funnelling money and regulatory advantages toward certain fuels and major players, it could lock in advantages for well-capitalised fuel companies and shipowners, leaving smaller operators and developing nations to foot the bill.

Washington’s response may be blunt, but it calls out an uncomfortable truth. This is as much about market control as it is about emissions.

Let’s be clear, neither side is playing the climate hero. The IMO is building a carbon-finance machine, while the US is resisting a system that shifts financial leverage overseas.

What’s being debated is influence, not atmospheric CO₂ levels.

And that’s the tragedy. Shipping’s emissions, roughly 3% of global totals and rising, are real, immediate, and solvable. However, instead of investing in practical measures like using the latest fuel technology or slow steaming, route optimisation and cleaner propulsion systems, the industry is consumed by a policy fight over pricing models and credits.

Decarbonisation is an operational challenge, not an accounting exercise.

Yet the debate has drifted so far into financial engineering that the original goal of cleaner shipping is at risk of being lost in translation.

The shipping industry needs regulators to refocus on actual emissions cuts, not trading schemes and political point-scoring. That means pushing for scalable, near-term solutions, ensuring regulatory clarity, and making decarbonisation accessible beyond the top tier of shipowners.

Right now, what we’re witnessing isn’t a climate debate, it’s a geopolitical chess match played over maritime emissions policy.

Until the conversation shifts back to real-world solutions at sea, the push for net zero emissions will remain more slogan than strategy.