DOES today’s intervention by some of the world’s biggest shipowners mean the Net-Zero Framework is doomed?

In short: probably not.

Companies representing Evangelos Marinakis, George Economou, Maria Angelicoussis, John Fredriksen, Peter Livanos, as well as Saudi giant Bahri and South Korea’s Hanwha Group, said the NZF’s shortcomings were too great for states to adopt it next month.

Industry calls for the International Maritime Organization to shoot down the green framework were foreshadowed early this week, when DNV expressed reservations, and rival class society ABS went one step further in calling for a “pause and rethink”. Lloyd’s Register supported adoption, but not very loudly.

Their complaints — that taxing LNG will hobble its transition pathway, that the trajectories for carbon cuts are too harsh and will push companies to pay to pollute, that the future fuels are unproven and the oversight of the spending too opaque — have all been voiced at the MEPC in recent months, particularly by oil & gas exporters.

UCL professor Tristan Smith said the statement reflected shipowners and class societies seeking to protect their investments in liquefied natural gas fuel from future taxes.

“It’s not particularly surprising or new that some shipowners with various LNG interests are expressing negativity to regulation that will reduce their competitivity, especially when viewed through the ‘coincidence’ of similar ABS and DNV PR from the last few days,” he said.

Smith said the shipowners’ arguments were not new to the diplomats at IMO.

“Because there is nothing new here, it would be surprising if these views had not already been expressed already, and therefore hadn’t already been priced into the member state positions taken already in April,” he said.

If or when it comes to a vote next month, the shipowners’ opposition probably isn’t decisive.

Shipowners are represented at IMO by industry groups, such as the International Chamber of Shipping and BIMCO. But it is states, and particularly big flag states, that really matter.

To pass into law, the NZF needs the support of two-thirds of signatories to Marpol Annex VI present and voting. Abstentions don’t count; only Yes or No votes.

Of those signatories, 57 voted Yes and eight voted No in April (including Iran, whose vote didn’t count because it hadn’t paid its fees). Another 16 abstained, six called but didn’t say anything, and 24 didn’t show up, including the US.

That put the majority at 89% in favour, well clear of the 66% bar.

Nine of the abstentions were protest votes, which will probably switch to Yes votes when push comes to shove. If they do, and the US changes to a No, we get 66 votes out of 74: still 89% in favour.

Greece and Cyprus (which flags Frontline) voted Yes in April. They are bound to vote as a bloc with the rest of the EU27, whose climate policy is set by Brussels, and firmly in favour.

A source close to the talks did not expect the shipowners’ latest statement to swing the vote.

“Internally the Greeks are using their ‘resistance’ as leverage toward the [European] Commission to scrap the EU ETS/FuelEU Maritime, while some of the Greek shipowners just don’t want to upset the US,” they said.

Plenty of the criticism of the NZF is valid. Supporters of adoption share much of it. But they say states should work together to fix the problems in the two years until the scheme comes into force. Industry backers include Maersk, the World Shipping Council, and now China’s Cosco Shipping.

This week in London, several industry talking heads warned that failure of the NZF would be a “disaster”.

A failure of the vote would mean no global regulation of greenhouse gases from ships for the foreseeable future, something plenty of shipowners would doubtless welcome.

But the EU would almost certainly increase the scope of its ETS and FuelEU to cover all voyages in and out of the bloc (from 50% today).

Other countries could use the failure of the UN system as justification for levying their own carbon taxes, as Djibouti and Gabon have already done.