A diplomatic note from Washington emphasized the rejection of economic measures targeting U.S. ships based on their greenhouse gas emissions or fuel choices. The U.S. also warned of reciprocal responses to offset any potential fees or economic harm to American interests. Furthermore, Washington opposed the use of shipping sector-generated funds for unrelated environmental projects. This move marks a significant setback for proponents of stronger global climate regulations in maritime transport, which accounts for nearly 3% of global CO2 emissions.
The U.S. labeled the proposal as "blatantly unfair" and warned of potential retaliatory measures, including offsetting fees imposed on American ships and compensation for broader economic harm. The U.S., under President Trump—a known critic of international climate policies and who previously withdrew the country from the Paris Agreement—is not participating in the IMO negotiations. The threat of U.S. retaliation adds tension to an already complex global trade environment.
A leaked document suggests that the United States is opposing a proposed carbon levy on international shipping, arguing that it would impose significant economic burdens and escalate global inflation. The proposed levy, debated at the IMO meetings in London, aims to charge up to $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted by ships, potentially raising $60 billion annually to support climate adaptation in developing nations. The U.S. reportedly warned of possible "reciprocal measures" against countries supporting the levy, deeming it unfair and contrary to international maritime law. This stance aligns the U.S. with other opposing nations like China and Brazil. Critics find the U.S. position contradictory, given its ongoing global trade conflicts under President Trump. Despite U.S. resistance, the IMO talks continue, with developing nations emphasizing wealthy nations' lack of commitment to climate goals. Environmental advocates argue that a strong carbon pricing mechanism could benefit market stability. Alternative approaches like carbon trading are seen as potentially less effective. The U.S. State Department confirmed it would not participate in this round of IMO negotiations, citing President Trump’s policy prioritizing national interests over international environmental agreements.
Nations are currently negotiating what could become the first global carbon tax on shipping emissions, coordinated through the IMO. The IMO is pushing for mandatory regulations to support its target of achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector by around 2050. The Marine Environment Protection Committee is considering a carbon pricing mechanism and a marine fuel standard to incentivize the shift from heavy fuel oil to cleaner fuels like hydrogen and ammonia. Over 60 countries, led by Pacific island nations, support a flat fee per ton of emissions, seen as the most equitable approach. However, countries like China and Brazil prefer a credit trading system. Environmental organizations and industry groups both back pricing strategies, emphasizing the urgency of reducing emissions which currently account for about 3% of global totals. Revenue from a levy could support green transitions for developing countries. If negotiations conclude successfully, regulations may be adopted by October 2025 and take effect in 2027, potentially marking a major international step toward climate action in global commerce.
At the IMO meeting in London, representatives from 175 countries are negotiating a long-anticipated agreement to reduce carbon emissions from shipping over the next 25 years. A proposed carbon levy on ship emissions could generate critical funding for climate actions in poorer nations, particularly vulnerable small island states. However, countries like China, Brazil, and Saudi Arabia oppose the levy, citing concerns about consumer price increases, while the EU may support a diluted version of the proposal. Poor nations accuse wealthier ones of backing away from earlier climate commitments and stress the minimal cost impact of the levy on consumer goods. They argue that this measure would promote climate fairness and uphold global environmental responsibility. Although IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez expressed optimism about reaching a binding agreement on emission targets and a global fuel standard, time is short and technical discussions are ongoing. A final deal, if reached, would undergo further refinement and potentially be adopted in October. Environmental advocates warn that failure to enforce decisive action now could derail hopes for decarbonizing the maritime sector.
Topics
World