THE International Maritime Organization is waiting to see what six months of lobbying has done to move the numbers for and against the Net-Zero Framework.

Defenders of the global carbon pricing scheme on Wednesday included the UK, Several EU states, Brazil, Australia, Mexico, Colombia, South Africa, Canada, Tuvalu and Kiribati.

Those in the No camp as of lunchtime included the US, Saudi Arabia, Russia, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Panama and Argentina.

Supporters argued the NZF was the only way to meet the IMO’s 2023 greenhouse gas strategy goals – that is, net zero by or around 2050 – and to guarantee funds to help smaller, poorer countries cope with climate change.

Detractors said it would raise global trade prices and might not work. They argued green fuels were still too scarce, nascent and expensive to succeed at scale.

There is no big vote set for this week at MEPC84. But delegates are watching to see which proposals will make it into future draft legal text that would then form the basis of any future NZF replacement regulation.

The US struck a more magnanimous tone than it did at the extraordinary MEPC in October, at which the NZF vote was adjourned for one year at the request of Saudi Arabia.

The US said it would act as an “honest broker” to discuss any alternatives to the NZF as long as they didn’t include a carbon tax.

“We think there’s real opportunity here to move the ball forward,” it said.

It also insisted that any such alternative follow the ‘explicit acceptance’ procedure. This method, not used by IMO for more than 50 years, would virtually ensure any such measure wouldn’t enter into force even if countries vote to formally adopt it.

Sources said the key question was how many countries would stand by the regulation’s ‘economic element’ – a carbon price to narrow the gap between fossil and green fuels, and to bankroll subsides for green R&D – and how many would side with Panama, Liberia and Argentina’s bid for a tax-free regulation.

That ‘Panlibarg’ proposal, explicitly backed by Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, would bar any alternative fuel costing more than 15% more than very low sulphur fuel oil, leaving LNG the only option in a normal market.

The UK said Panlibarg would not meet any of the objectives the NZF sought to meet. It took aim at the scheme’s “complex and ever-changing criteria” for defining eligible alternative fuels.

Brazil and several other backers said any problems with the NZF could be dealt with later in guidelines, while opponents said such problems meant the NZF was too risky and uncertain to adopt at all.

China didn’t pick a clear side, but spoke of the need to build on the progress already made over the past two years of talks on the NZF (which it voted to approve last April).

It said what the IMO sought was “not a theoretically flawless and perfect solution”, but rather a practical one that could be launched promptly and continuously improved.

Several countries spoke about the need to reduce dependence on fossil fuels because of the price shock caused by the war in Iran.

MEPC84 continues.