On 11 April, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) approved a legally-binding framework to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping by 2050.
This major decision, passed by 63 nations—despite a shameful US withdrawal—mandates a global fuel standard and emissions pricing for large ships, covering 85% of the sector’s CO2 emissions. The IMO Net Zero Framework proves that global governance can deliver enforceable climate action, even in turbulent times. And for Zero Hour, it underscores the critical need for nations to align international ambitions with robust domestic laws.
The IMO’s success highlights the strength of binding global agreements. Unlike voluntary pledges, the new framework sets mandatory emissions limits and financial penalties—up to $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent—for non-compliant ships. Revenues from an IMO Net Zero Fund will support low-emission technologies, climate justice efforts, and a just transition for developing nations.
However, some environmental groups argue the framework, while historic, lacks sufficient ambition to align with a 1.5°C pathway. 24 nations, including nine Pacific Island states abstained, and the Pacific delegation said that the agreement “would do too little, too late to cut shipping emissions” and protect their nations. They were part of a coalition of over 50 countries, representing a majority of the world’s fleet, that rallied behind a proposal to charge commercial vessels a 1.5°C-aligned, flat high fee for each tonne of carbon emitted.
“Let’s be clear about who’s abandoned 1.5°C. Saudi Arabia, the USA and fossil fuel allies pushed down the numbers to an untenable level and blocked progress at every turn.”—Ralph Regenvanu, Environment Minister of Vanuatu
This is deeply disappointing—as is the massive reduction in expected revenue compared to a proposed flat tax, which further neglects the needs of vulnerable nations. However others point to the fact that in bypassing the need for full consensus the IMO’s majority voting system overcame much resistance from fossil fuel-aligned countries. This is something that has stalled many climate negotiations in the past. Global cooperation can prevail, when structured effectively, but it’s clear that this agreement has not gone far enough.
This IMO framework is therefore a part-proof concept for systemic change. Global governance, as seen in the Montreal Protocol (on substances that deplete the ozone layer) or COVAX (the vaccines accelerator), can deliver results when commitments are enforceable and equitable.
Shipping, a notoriously hard-to-decarbonise sector, now has a clearer path to net zero, sending a signal to other industries that transformation is possible. But is this enough? The answer’s easy: No, international agreements alone are not the end of the story. To maximise impact, all nations—including the UK—must lock their global ambitions into domestic law, ensuring accountability and alignment with global treaties.
If the (albeit flawed) IMO’s framework shows what’s possible globally, the CAN Bill can make it real for us, in the UK. By embedding the UK’s Paris Agreement and Global Biodiversity Framework commitments into law, the CAN Bill—which was adjourned, but not ended, by MPs on 24 January—would mandate science-based action to rapidly reduce “global boiling” emissions while reversing nature’s destruction. It would hold Ministers accountable, prevent backsliding, and ensure the UK leads by example.
As resistance from powerful interests grows—just look at the Conservatives’ roll-back of (their own!) net zero laws—the IMO’s partial success reminds us that change provokes pushback precisely because it works.
The UK must act boldly, giving the CAN Bill the time it deserves to pass through Parliament, and translate global ambition into domestic action. Together, we CAN build a future where climate and nature thrive—for all.
