During a meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London, the Trump administration issued a torrent of threats of tariffs and other sanctions to block a landmark deal to cut global shipping emissions. The IMO plan was intended to achieve net-zero shipping emissions by 2050.

The IMO Net-zero Framework, first agreed in April after ten years of negotiations, would have been the first in the world to combine mandatory emissions limits and GHG pricing across an entire industry sector.  The agreement had meant that from 2028, ship owners would have to use increasingly cleaner fuels or face fines.

The Trump administration, backed by Russia and Saudi Arabia, pushed to delay the adoption by a year. The motion to delay was narrowly passed in a vote of 57 to 49, with other nations absent or abstaining. 

Rather than working toward cleaner ship fuels and zero carbon emissions, the Trump administration sided with rising levels of pollution and increased global warming. The administration used multiple threats to dissuade countries from voting for the measure, including visa restrictions and additional fees on flagged ships from those countries landing at U.S. ports.

90% of goods are transported by sea. Shipping currently makes up 3% of global emissions, although levels are increasing in line with global trade. Unlike other sectors, shipping has been unable to reduce its emissions, in part due to the lack of cost incentives.

“There is no fuel as cheap as diesel that ships use today because when we take crude oil out of the ground, we take out all the nice bits, that’s the kerosene for aviation, diesel and petrol for cars,” Faig Abbasov, programme director for maritime transport at think tank Transport and Environment, told the BBC during the last IMO negotiations.

This means that without intervention, IMO had previously estimated that by 2050 emissions could grow by between 10% and 150%.

With talks now delayed, the carefully planned timeline to get the regulations in place for 2028 does not appear feasible.

“A delay in action may require changes to the text of the agreement that undermine the planned timeline, and could revert years of work to date,” said Blánaid Sheeran, an observer to the talks and policy officer at environmental NGO Opportunity Green.

The European Union then issued a two-sentence statement of support for the tax proposal, saying it would “ensure a global level playing field.”
 
Arsenio Dominguez, the secretary general of IMOr, called out the pressure campaign against the measure, without naming any countries. “It’s the manner in which the conversations took place this week,” he said. “This was not the normal I.M.O. meeting.”

The World Shipping Council called it a “carefully balanced regulatory package.” Another industry lobby, the International Chamber of Shipping, backed the measure too. “We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree a way forward at this meeting,” Thomas A. Kazakos, the International Chamber’s Secretary General said in a statement Friday after the vote. “Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonise the maritime sector.”

Thanks to Alaric Bond for contributing to this post.