Shipping emissions levy shelved as countries bow to US pressure | Shipping emissions

Under intense pressure from Donald Trump’s government, countries have postponed plans to force shipowners to pay for the damage they cause to the climate.

US officials have been accused of “bullying” and “intimidation” as nations gather in London for an event that is supposed to ratify a months-old decision to impose a small tax on greenhouse gases from global shipping.

Instead, after four days of intense debate, U.S. efforts paid off with a decisive vote Friday afternoon at the International Maritime Organization headquarters in London.

The majority of countries attending the meeting voted to suspend plans for an emissions pricing mechanism for one year.

While this means the measure remains valid and can still be enforced, it also gives the United States and its allies (including Russia, Saudi Arabia, and other petrostates) the opportunity to step up pressure on other countries to drop the charge.

IMO Secretary General Arsenio Dominguez said there was no need to celebrate the result. He took aim at the fractious nature of the debates, scolding delegates: “It is now time to really look at how we approached this meeting. My request to you is that you do not repeat how we approached this meeting for future debates.”

Measure to see ship owners pay a small fee for CO₂ The law, which has incentives to seek cleaner fuel produced by their ships and upgrade their ships, was passed by a majority vote in April. But under the world shipping regulator’s complex rules, that vote had to be reconfirmed at its next meeting this week.

The United States, which withdrew from the talks in April, pressured other countries for months to reject this step. Over the past two weeks this has escalated to what some countries say amounts to an unprecedented campaign against them.

The US has threatened countries and individual officials with tariffs, fines and visa revocations if they support the pricing mechanism.

Dr. is a research fellow at the Tyndall Climate Change Research Center at the University of Manchester. Simon Bullock said: “Again, powerful fossil fuel states are successfully blocking global efforts to cooperate on climate change. This is not the outcome the industry wants and the people of the world can afford. Progressive shipping businesses and countries can still chart a course for a clean maritime future, but Mr Trump’s aggressive, disruptive lobbying has made their job even harder.”

Meanwhile, some petro-states, including Saudi Arabia, offered sweeteners to countries that voted against the plan, which has been in the works for several years.

At last count, 57 countries voted in favor of postponement, while 49 countries opposed the postponement and 21 countries abstained. The measure was passed in April with the support of 63 member states and 16 countries, but the United States abstained and 24 countries abstained.

Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s minister responsible for climate change, expressed the frustration of many small developing countries: “This is unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of the acceleration of climate change.”

After Friday’s vote, countries will need to meet again within a year to reconsider the proposal. The delay means uncertainty and confusion for companies involved in shipping and global trade of many important products.

John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, said: “By delaying the adoption of the net zero framework, the IMO today squandered a key opportunity to address global shipping’s contribution to climate breakdown. While the effects of climate warming are being felt around the world, canceling this decision is simply an escape from reality. Governments serious about climate action will spend the next 12 months bringing together every country that supports the framework, “We argue, convincing or opposing the undecided, that its adoption is the only rational way forward.”

Even if the measure is adopted next year, it will be years before it comes into force, as IMO rules mean the measure must be subject to an additional period of technical evaluation and review on how it could be implemented. This could mean a delay until at least the end of this decade.

Experts estimate that the carbon tax as planned could raise $10 billion a year, but to the disappointment of many smaller countries, most of the potential revenues will remain in the shipping sector. Rather than being allocated to poor countries to help them cope with the effects of the climate crisis, as many had hoped, most of the money will be used to help companies refurbish their ships, switch to lower-carbon fuels and pay for changes to ports.

If eventually enacted, the measure is not expected to impose a significant cost on imported goods, despite concerns from some exporting countries.

Shipping represents around 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but this is expected to rise to 10% by mid-century. The IMO has been working on various plans to reduce carbon from shipping for the past two decades, but progress has been slow.

The extraordinary scenes at the IMO, where discussions are normally staid and highly technical, bode ill for further discussions on ways to raise the revenues needed for poor countries to cope with the effects of extreme weather; This will continue at the COP30 UN climate summit in Brazil next month.

Anaïs Rios, senior officer of maritime policy at environmental campaigning organization Seas at Risk, said: “Emotions are running high at the IMO this week, with once-highly ambitious alliances faltering and strategy trumping logic. No single flag should determine the world’s climate trajectory. With countries like Saudi Arabia leading delaying efforts, few would see a delay prevailing.” was waiting, but here we are. What is important now is for countries to stand up and return to the world. IMO, with a louder and safer yes vote that cannot be silenced. The planet has no time to waste.”