Under intense pressure from Donald Trump's government, countries have shelved plans to force shipowners to start paying for the damage they cause to the climate.
US officials were accused of “bullying” and “intimidation” as the countries met in London for what was supposed to be the formal signing of the agreement. the decision a few months ago to introduce a small levy on greenhouse gas emissions from global shipping..
Instead, after four days of intense debate, the US effort appeared to have paid off with a decisive vote late Friday at the International Maritime Organization headquarters in London.
Most countries present voted to suspend plans for an emissions pricing mechanism for a year. While this means the measure remains in place and could still be introduced, it also gives the US and its allies, including Russia, Saudi Arabia and other oil states, the opportunity to increase pressure on other countries to drop the charge.
Arsenio Dominguez, IMO secretary general, said the results were not a cause for celebration. Taking aim at the hectic nature of the discussions, he chided delegates: “It's time to really look back at how we approached this meeting. My request to you is not to repeat our approach to this meeting for future discussions.”
A measure that will mean shipowners pay a small fee for CO2 produced by their courts and have incentives to look cleaner fuel And upgrade your shipswas adopted by a majority vote in April. But under complex rules of the world's shipping regulator, the vote had to be confirmed at its next meeting this week.
For months, the US, which pulled out of the April talks, has pressured other countries to reject the move. Over the past two weeks, the situation has escalated to what some countries are calling an unprecedented campaign against them.
USA countries under threatand individual officials with tariffs, fines and visa cancellations if they support the pricing mechanism.
Dr Simon Bullock, research fellow at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, said: “Once again, powerful fossil fuel nations are successfully blocking global efforts to cooperate on climate change. This is not the outcome the industry wanted and no one in the world can afford. “Progressive shipping companies and countries can still chart a course towards a clean future of shipping, but Trump's aggressive, destructive lobbying has done much to make their work stronger.”
Meanwhile, some oil states, including Saudi Arabia, have offered sweeteners to countries that voted against the plan, which was years in the making.
In the final tally, 57 countries voted in favor of the postponement, 49 countries voted against the postponement, and 21 abstained. The measure passed in April with the support of 63 member states and 16 countries against, although the US withdrew and 24 countries abstained.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's climate minister, expressed the frustration of many small developing countries: “This is unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.”
After Friday's vote, countries will have to meet in a year to take another look at the proposal. The delay means uncertainty and confusion for companies involved in shipping and global trade of many key commodities.
John Maggs, from the Clean Shipping Coalition, said: “By delaying its vision for net zero shipping, the IMO has today missed an important opportunity to address global shipping's contribution to climate destruction. With the effects of a warming climate being felt everywhere on earth, abandoning this solution is simply eluding reality. Governments serious about climate action must spend the next 12 months rallying every country that supports this framework, convincing those on the fence or against it that its adoption is the only sensible way forward.”
after promoting the newsletter
Even if the measure is agreed next year, it will take years to come into force as IMO rules mean it must undergo an additional period of technical assessment and analysis of how it can be implemented. This could mean a delay until at least the end of this decade.
Experts estimate the planned carbon tax could raise $10 billion a year, but to the disappointment of many small countries, most of the potential revenue will remain in the shipping industry. Most of the money will be used to help companies upgrade their ships to lower carbon fuels and pay for port modifications, rather than allocated to poor countries to help them cope with the impacts of the climate crisis, as many had hoped.
If it is ultimately passed, this measure unlikely to involve significant costs for imported goodsdespite concerns of some exporting countries.
Shipping accounts for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but this figure is projected to rise to 10% by mid-century. IMO it was working on various plans to reduce carbon emissions from shipping over the past two decades.But progress has been slow.
The unusual scenes at the IMO, where discussions are usually calm and highly technical, do not bode well for further negotiations on this issue. ways to increase the income poor countries need to cope with the effects of extreme weatherwhich will be continued UN Climate Summit Cop30 in Brazil next month.
Anaïs Rios, senior shipping policy officer at green campaigner Seas at Risk, said: “Emotions have run high at IMO this week, with once-ambitious alliances faltering and strategies clouding judgment. No flag should dictate the world's climate course. As countries like Saudi Arabia lead efforts to delay, few expected delay to prevail, but here we are. What is important now is that countries rise up and return to the IMO with a louder and more confident yes voice that cannot be silenced. The planet has no right to waste time.”
