S7 Ep7: Evelyne Williams, Research Associate, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University, New York

Evelyne analyses the different proposals submitted by different countries ahead of the MEPC 84 meeting, which will mark the first time the committee reconvenes since the extraordinary session, in October 2025, that was expected to formally adopt the first global greenhouse gas (GHG) pricing mechanism for shipping but was instead adjourned for a year. With Pacific Island States and Brazil calling for the existing Net-Zero Framework (NZF) text to progress without substantive alterations, while the United States and a group of petro-states including Saudi Arabia and Russia are opposed to any centrally administered pricing mechanism, she expects the current text to be reopened, and any potential outcome to ‘fall somewhere in the middle.’Evelyne also dissects two ‘middle path’ proposals, one submitted by Liberia, Panama and Argentina and the other by Japan, which would weaken emissions reduction targets and remove the Net-Zero Fund. From a climate perspective, she warns that both options risk under-delivering on the IMO 2023 Strategy’s ambition of reaching net-zero ‘by or around’ 2050.She argues that the outcome of MEPC 84 will largely be dictated by how seriously countries will take pressure from the United States, and whether they will be willing to butt heads with the Trump administration. She emphasises that the war in Iran has given the U.S. ‘considerable’ leverage on countries that depend on its LNG, and expects that some delegations, including the EU, could be less vocal in their defence of the NZF as a result.  While the White House has ramped up the ‘rhetorical volume’, she explains that the country’s opposition to the NZF is not purely ideological and reflects genuine economic concerns. However, she highlights that the longer-term strategic picture goes in the opposite direction, and the U.S. could benefit from the Net-Zero Framework as a leading producer of LNG and biofuels. She also interprets the country articulating its ‘red lines’ as a sign it might remain open to a deal, which she notes is a change from its previous posture during October’s extraordinary session. https://www.energypolicy.columbia.edu/