I got off the plane to find a long list of texts — messages filled with anger and disappointment about the delay of the historic climate framework at the International Maritime Organization (IMO). Those words were still echoing in my mind when I spotted a group that evening: the U.S. delegation, celebrating at the local pub next to my hotel. But, what were they celebrating? The delay of climate action that would protect the most vulnerable?
I found myself thinking not about the setback that had just occurred, but about the work ahead and the possibilities still within reach. The path forward remains open, powerful and necessary for clean shipping.
From Oct. 14-17, 2025, the IMO convened the second extraordinary session of its primary body, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC ES.2). Negotiators, delegates and observers arrived prepared for what was expected to be another historic milestone in London: the formal adoption of the IMO Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a landmark global regulatory framework aimed at driving the decarbonization of international maritime shipping. It promised:
Instead of receiving messages of celebration for future generations and communities impacted by shipping pollution, the talks were derailed by significant economic pressure and diplomatic resistance from the United States and other petrostates. In unison, they deployed procedural maneuvers resulting in preventing the planned vote that many members supported earlier in the year and ultimately adjourned the meeting for another year. Effectively, the United States turned their backs on our historic allies at the U.N. and dimmed the necessary market signals that would have unleashed billions in investment toward clean shipping innovation and needed jobs for Americans.
The global shipping sector is responsible for a substantial share of greenhouse gas emissions and significant air pollution — such as particulate matter and sulfur oxides, yet it remains one of the last major sectors without fully-formed binding climate and air quality regulations for the entire planet. Decisions made at the IMO through MEPC and its Intersessional Working Group on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Ships (ISWG-GHG) holds the power to shape investment in clean marine fuels, establish fuel standards, implement carbon pricing for shipping, secure climate financing for evolving economies, and create life cycle GHG accounting systems. These are all the necessary ingredients for transforming a polluting industry into a clean one.
The draft regulatory proposal before the MEPC is grounded in rigorous technical science and modeled on proven policies such as California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard — an approach that, in the world’s fifth-largest economy, has successfully driven the shift to cleaner fuels with support from industry, government and communities alike. Imagine a global system where ships gradually reduce fuel carbon intensity and polluters pay for the emissions they generate. In London, the question was never whether the world’s fleet could align with climate science. The question was whether the politics in the room would allow it.
Days before MEPC ES.2 began, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy issued a joint statement that marked a departure from traditional multilateral engagement, saying a cascade of potential “punitive” measures could include:
The statement branded the measure as a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations” and promised to impose costs on countries if they support the NZF. The final line landed like a threat from a different era: “Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.”
After watching the celebrating delegation from afar while I ate fish and chips, something compelled me to approach. I needed to understand and to plan for what comes next. I stepped up to the group and asked how they were feeling about the week’s talks. After confirming I wasn’t a reporter, one delegate said,“You’re the first person who’s been willing to speak to us.”
As they spoke, the week’s events crystallized into something more complex. Yes, part of it was isolation — where a delegation was so estranged from the international community that even a single conversation felt like a breakthrough. But what followed revealed far more: the tactics of obstruction, the depth of that isolation and the widening fractures in how we approach global climate governance.
By week’s end, the pressure campaign led by the United States and allied oil states had succeeded: 57 member states voted to adjourn the meeting for a full year, with 49 voting to continue and 21 abstaining.To cynics, the framework was postponed — perhaps indefinitely. Yet, if the ISWG-GHG technical discussion held Oct. 20-24, 2025 was any indication of most countries’ will to act, then we have both significant work ahead together and reason for cautious optimism. The world’s first global carbon pricing mechanism can still succeed with or without every member state on board.
The excuses for inaction across both weeks were numbingly familiar. We heard the usual refrains: “It’s not the right time” and “We need more clarity.” And, of course, the predictable reframing of polluter accountability as somehow harmful to American families. The rhetoric echoed the delay tactics of the civil rights era — every call for justice recast as a burden on ordinary people, every step toward accountability dismissed as government overreach, every push for progress met with an admonition to “go slow.”
In the end, their actions betrayed their words. This was never truly about protecting American families. At one point, a member of the U.S. delegation in pointy shoes and a tailored suit, speaking with blunt confidence said without flinching: “There is no transition happening.”
Not “the transition needs more time” or “we have solvable concerns about the approach” — but a flat denial that decarbonization is even occurring. It was climate defiance in its rawest form: a wholesale rejection of the science, the economics and the moral imperative that brought 175 nations to the table. Is there more work to do on the details? Of course, but that should never be used as an excuse to stall life-saving progress for emerging economies and port communities.
In that pub, surrounded by the architects of this rupture, I understood what had transpired. It was not simply a failed vote, but the calculated deployment of economic leverage against nations least able to resist. This power asymmetry managed to leverage the complexity and exploit the inherent fragility of multilateral negotiations to halt progress.
While the MEPC ES.2 was deeply disappointing to many, ISWG-GHG offered a glimmer of hope and the so-called “clarity” some delegations claimed to need. At this October meeting, critical issues were openly discussed through carefully framed questions led by the chair on such topics as:
Returning from weeks of intense highs and lows, the stakes for the years ahead are crystal clear. At Pacific Environment, we see the writing on the wall, but we also see the path forward. The work ahead demands renewed commitment: reminding our allies that many in the United States still believe in multilateral cooperation grounded in ethics and the rule of law; building coalitions and country blocs for first mover benefits; and supporting a robust ISWG-GHG process to ensure technical clarity and integrity.
Those texts and recent outcomes — disappointing as they were — serve as a reminder that “it takes a village” to drive genuine climate progress. It also foreshadows the challenges climate action will face in the coming decade under current leadership. The current administration must not cling to the fossil fuels of the past. The global maritime industry is already moving ahead. If folks refuse to engage or bury their heads in the sand while other forward-thinking decision-makers begin to develop the clean ships and fuels of tomorrow, our ports, workers and shipbuilders will be the ones left behind and this would be the real “port diversion.”
The fight for climate justice in international shipping continues. We are building our 2026 campaigns to meet this moment. The ultimate question is: Will we allow economic coercion to override the urgent needs of our planet and future generations? The answer is still being written.
Now is the time to act — boldly and together. Justice is a part of who we are, and we are not backing down. We’re just getting started, and we need your voice to build an effective coalition: contact your representatives, support frontline communities and demand accountability. No matter the climate headwinds at the IMO, we are ready to be creative and make a positive difference for all in clean shipping.
Can we fix the challenges that still threaten our environment? Not without you.
2025 is coming to a close, but you can still help make a difference with a gift to ensure a healthier planet in 2026. Give now and see your impact grow.
