Under intense pressure from Donald Trump’s government, countries have postponed plans to force shipowners to start paying for the damage they do to the climate.
US officials were accused of “bullying” and “intimidation”, as nations met in London for what should have been the rubber-stamping of a decision made months ago to place a small levy on the greenhouse gases from global shipping.
Instead, after four days of intense wrangling, the US efforts appeared to pay off in a decisive vote late on Friday afternoon at the International Maritime Organisation headquarters in London.
A majority of countries present voted to put the plans for an emissions pricing mechanism on hold for a year. While this means the measure survives, and could still be imposed, it also gives the US and its allies – including Russia, Saudi Arabia and other petrostates – an opportunity to step up their pressure on other countries to ditch the charge.
Arsenio Dominguez, the IMO secretary general, said the outcome was not a cause for celebration. Taking aim at the fractious nature of the discussions, he chided delegates: “It is the time to really look back at how we have approached this meeting. My plea to you is not to repeat the way we have approached this meeting for future discussions.”
The measure, which would mean shipowners pay a small charge on the CO2 produced by their vessels and have incentives to seek cleaner fuels and upgrade their ships, was passed in a majority vote in April. But under the complex rules of the world’s shipping regulator, that vote had to be reaffirmed at a further meeting this week.
For months, the US – which walked out of the April talks – put pressure on other countries to reject the move. In the past fortnight, this was stepped up to what some countries said amounted to an unprecedented campaign against them.
The US threatened countries, and individual officials, with tariffs, penalties and visa revocations if they supported the pricing mechanism.
Dr Simon Bullock, a research fellow at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, said: “Yet again, powerful fossil fuel states are successfully blocking global efforts to cooperate on climate change. This is not the result the industry wanted, nor one the world’s people can afford. Progressive shipping businesses and nations can still chart a course to a clean shipping future, but Mr Trump’s aggressive, destructive lobbying has their made their job much harder.”
Meanwhile, some petrostates including Saudi Arabia held out the offer of sweeteners to countries that voted against the plan, which has been several years in the making.
In the final tally, 57 countries voted favour of delay, with 49 countries against delaying, and 21 abstentions. In April, the measure had passed with the support of 63 member states and 16 countries against, though the US walked out and 24 countries abstained.
Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu’s climate minister, expressed the frustration of many small developing nations: “This is unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.”
After Friday’s vote, countries will have to reconvene in a year to consider the proposal again. The delay means uncertainty and confusion for companies involved in shipping and in the global trade in many key commodities.
John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, said: “By delaying adoption of its net zero framework, the IMO has today squandered an important opportunity to tackle global shipping’s contribution to climate breakdown. With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality. Governments serious about climate action must spend the next 12 months rallying every nation that supports the framework, convincing those who are on the fence, or opposing, that its adoption is the only sane way forward.”
The planet’s most important stories. Get all the week’s environment news – the good, the bad and the essential
Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
after newsletter promotion
Even if the measure is agreed next year, it will take years to come into force, as IMO rules mean it must be subject to a further period of technical assessment and review of how it can be implemented. That could mean a delay until near the end of this decade, at least.
Experts estimate the carbon levy as planned could raise $10bn a year, but to the disappointment of many small countries most of any potential revenues would remain within the shipping industry. Much of the money would be used to help companies upgrade their vessels and move to lower carbon fuels, and pay for modifications to ports, rather than be allocated to poor countries to help them cope with the impacts of the climate crisis, as many had hoped.
If it is eventually passed, the measure is not likely to place significant costs on imported goods, despite the concerns of some exporting countries.
Shipping represents about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, but that is forecast to rise to 10% by mid-century. The IMO has been working on various plans to reduce carbon from shipping for the last two decades, but progress has been slow.
The extraordinary scenes at the IMO, where discussions are normally staid and highly technical, bodes ill for further talks on ways to raise the revenues needed for poor countries to deal with the impacts of extreme weather, which will be continued at the Cop30 UN climate summit in Brazil next month.
Anaïs Rios, senior shipping policy officer at the green campaigning organisation Seas at Risk, said: “Emotions have run high this week at the IMO, with once high-ambitious alliances wavering and strategies eclipsing reason. No single flag should dictate the world’s climate course. With countries like Saudi Arabia leading efforts to delay, few expected a postponement to prevail, but here we are. What matters now is that countries rise up and come back to the IMO with a louder and more confident yes vote that cannot be silenced. The planet does not have time to waste.”
