A landmark deal to cut global emissions from shipping has been scrapped after Saudi Arabia and the US managed to conclude negotiations.
More than 100 countries gathered in London to endorse the deal, first agreed in April, which will see shipping become the world's first industry to adopt internationally agreed emissions reduction targets.
But US President Donald Trump called the plan a “green scam” and his administration officials threatened countries with tariffs if they voted for it.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the result a “huge victory” for Trump.
But reflecting the pressure the countries faced, International Maritime Organization Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez issued a “call” not to repeat it.
On Friday, as countries were due to vote on whether to approve the agreement, Saudi Arabia tabled a proposal to delay negotiations for a year.
The Chairman stated that this would mean that the agreement would not be approved because key terms of the agreement would have to be renegotiated.
The proposal was passed by only a few votes.
Hon. Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate change minister, said the Saudi proposal was “unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.”
“We came to London to reluctantly support the IMO Net-Zero programme. While it doesn't have the ambition that climate science requires, it still marks a significant step,” he said.
The shipping industry generally supported the deal as it offered consistent global standards.
Speaking after the talks concluded, Thomas Kazakos, secretary general of industry body the International Chamber of Shipping, said: “We are disappointed that member states were unable to agree on a way forward at this meeting.”
“The industry needs clarity to be able to make investments,” he added.
Britain and most EU countries voted to continue negotiations, but some countries, including Greece, opposed the EU bloc and voted to abstain.
Russia, Saudi Arabia and the United States voted to postpone the negotiations. who expressed concern that the deal would lead to higher prices for consumers.
Some key countries, including China, which initially voted to support the agreement in April, have agreed to delay proceedings.
The island nations of the Bahamas also changed their position, while Antigua and Barbuda, which had agreed in April, abstained. A delegate from the group of island nations told the BBC the countries were particularly reliant on the US for trade and the Trump administration had been pushing hard for them to change their stance.
The deal was first agreed in April after ten years of negotiations and was considered historic as it meant shipping would become the first industry in the world to set internationally agreed emissions reduction targets.
The agreement meant that from 2028, shipowners would have to use increasingly cleaner fuels or face fines.
Shipping currently accounts for 3% of global emissions, with levels rising along with global trade: 90% of goods are now transported by sea. Unlike other sectors, shipping has failed to reduce emissions, partly due to a lack of cost incentives.
“Today there is no fuel as cheap as diesel that ships use, because when we extract crude oil from the ground, we extract all the useful parts of it: kerosene for aviation, diesel fuel and gasoline for cars,” Faig Abbasov, director of the maritime transport program at the Transport and Environment think tank, told the BBC during the latest IMO negotiations.
This means no interference International Maritime Organization It was previously estimated that emissions could increase by 10–150% by 2050.
A meeting of countries this week in London was expected to give final approval and determine next steps. But since April, the US has increasingly voiced its opposition to the plan, which it worries could lead to higher prices for consumers.
In a post on Truth Social Thursday evening, President Trump wrote: “The United States will NOT support a new global green tax on shipping fraud. We will not tolerate higher prices for American consumers.”
With negotiations now delayed, the carefully planned 2028 timeline for rules seems impossible.
“A delay in action could require changes to the text of the agreement that undermine planned timelines and could reverse years of work,” said Blanaid Sheeran, a negotiation observer and policy fellow at environmental NGO Opportunity Green.
