ASSUMING states adopt the Net-Zero Framework in October, and turn today’s mass of green proposals, guidance, warnings, assumptions and draft amendments into law, then things will get really tough.

As of now, the NZF sketches the barest outline of what do to about global shipping emissions, and leaves a lot of the “how” for later.

We know it will tax shipping companies for some of their emissions against two targets, one laxer and one stricter, which become more stringent over time.

Tax revenue has been estimated at anything from $10bn a year to $100bn a year, depending on who you ask.

How does the IMO raise and spend all that money? Which countries will win and lose? What counts as a green fuel, and how much subsidy should it get? Does the IMF or the World Bank get involved? Which countries are the most vulnerable to climate change? Do ‘developing’ countries qualify?  If so, is China, which has the world’s second-largest GDP behind the US, such a country, as it likes to claim?

In what forms will reward subsidies be paid to companies or governments? How many new employees will we need to sort all this out?

Oh, and how do we stop the scheme becoming a huge slush fund?

Concerns about some of these questions are already being raised. Pacific Island states want to speed up work on the core governing provisions of the Net-Zero Fund, warning the current timeline will lead to delayed investment in greener fuels.

Others, including Türkiye, the UAE and Mexico, want the IMO to set up a subcommittee on reducing GHG emissions, so the IMO can better use the short time it has left until the scheme starts in 2028.

This is complex, but it’s important. Vast fortunes could be made and lost, and an example set for other global heavy industries.

If the scheme is adopted — and we hope it will be, but that’s still not certain — there will be plenty to grapple with. We can only hope states rise to the challenge.

Declan Bush
Senior reporter, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing