I usually don't post op-eds but when one actually says "Sorry, but Donald Trump is right on that point." in a widely recognized maritime industry site I thought anons might like to see
Shipping calls time on EU climate overreach
Pierre Aury October 31, 2025
Pierre Aury on how little the world listens to Brussels.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) just postponed by one year its vote on the final version of the rules to deal with the decarbonisation of shipping, rules referred to as the Net Zero Framework (NZF).
Although we are flabbergasted that this postponement was obtained through, among other things, threats of sanctions against countries voting in favour as well as threats to their representatives as individuals, we can not be happy about the postponement itself. There are no technologies nor zero carbon fuels deployable at scale quickly enough to achieve shipping decarbonisation so de facto this proposed NZF is in fact just a tax on shipping. Sorry, but Donald Trump is right on that point.
Moreover, some of the proposed fuels are either extremely dangerous, like ammonia at even a very low concentration in the air or highly corrosive, like methanol. A recent trial saw the need to change injectors two or three times more often with methanol than with HFO with a very high pilot fuel consumption, especially at low engine loads.
According to a recent Lloyd’s Register report, nuclear, if a theoretically viable option, is facing too many hurdles like public acceptance, the creation of a new worldwide legal framework or how to deal with waste disposal to have any chance to be deployed on time to help meet the NZF targets.
Let us not forget the scale of the task ahead of us to decarbonise shipping: 100,000 ships carrying 12bn tons of cargoes a year. Such a task cannot be efficiently dealt with by a knee-jerk reaction like the one of an IMO being under pressure from the European Union to deliver a very strict plan to decarbonise shipping and do so quickly and do so using the same highly complex approach, which requires a PhD in mathematics to start to vaguely understand how it is supposed to work.
Let us now jump to another subject: EU sanctions against Russia. The first three sanctions packages were enacted back in February 2022 while the last one, the 19th sanction package, was enacted by the EU in September 2025. 19 packages and counting. 19packages in 44 months – that is a sanction package every two months with no sign of these sanctions having any effect on Russia.
Yes, Donald Trump pledged to end the war within his first 24 hours in office. He moved into office on January 20 this year, so nine months into his second term, the conflict between Moscow and Kyiv is still grinding on with no sign of being near an end. But it seems that the EU and the US are less and less aligned, with the US even contemplating opening a tunnel between Siberia and Alaska, while clearly the EU is spending a lot of money to prepare for war with Russia within the coming five years.
Now why deal with this failed attempt to agree on a strongly EU-flavoured NZF and these inefficient sanction packages in the same column? Because we think that these two subjects are just the two sides of the same coin. That same coin is that the world doesn’t care about the EU anymore.
For once, we will end our column on a constructive note: given the urgency, why doesn’t the IMO replace this impossible-to-understand NZF with a simple CO2 tax payable at the time of bunkering, with the proceeds to be used to fund research on new technologies to suppress shipping CO2 emissions?
https://splash247.com/shipping-calls-time-on-eu-climate-overreach/