Under intense lobbying, pressure and threats from US officials, delegates to the International Maritime Organization last month delayed the carbon price decision by a year.
—
By Michael Ethan Gold
The ships that keep global trade afloat face a complex path toward decarbonization. Accounting for roughly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, the maritime sector needs a bold strategy to reach net zero – a reality that the International Maritime Organization (IMO) appeared set to acknowledge with the introduction of a carbon pricing framework, the first-ever for the sector. As a vote to approve the framework inched closer last month, climate advocates were cautiously optimistic that it would set a new milestone for the industry.
They did not account for intervention of the climate-denying Trump administration.
Under intense lobbying, pressure and threats from US officials, delegates to the IMO ultimately delayed the carbon price decision by a year. The vote, 57 to 49, followed what diplomats described as an unprecedented campaign of bullying tactics by the Trump administration. According to a New York Times investigation, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio personally called officials in small and developing countries, threatening tariffs, visa bans and sanctions if they supported the measure.
For the maritime community gathered in Barcelona at the Tomorrow.Blue Economy World Congress in early November, the reaction was one of shock and frustration, mixed with determination to press ahead nonetheless.
“It came to a screeching halt,” said Stewart Sarkozy-Banoczy, CEO of the World Ocean Council, whose members include major shipping lines and port authorities. “We’re disappointed, but cities, ports and corporations now have to step in. We’ve seen this before, when the US walked out of the Paris Agreement. Subnational actors kept the work going.”
That subnational momentum, from ports, cities and coastal states, has become a lifeline for maritime climate progress, according to Allyson Browne, CEO of the High Ambition Climate Collective.
“The US is not a monolith,” Browne told Earth.Org in Barcelona. “Individual ports are still pushing ahead. The real work is happening on the ground.”
Browne emphasized, however, that local initiatives cannot replace an international framework. “Shipping is inherently international,” she said. “Without standardized rules and a collective fund for a just and equitable transition, we’ll get a patchwork of policies that makes it harder for developing nations to keep up.”
The tension between global ambition and fractured national politics has long defined shipping’s struggle to decarbonize. London-based IMO is a UN agency founded in 1948 to improve maritime safety after the Titanic disaster. It began addressing climate change in the 2010s, with a set of mandatory measures to improve energy efficiency. While a 2018 commitment to cut shipping’s emissions by at least 50% by 2050 earned plaudits, it was only with the proposed carbon price that the body made concrete moves toward decarbonization.
Under the plan, ships would pay fees as high as $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent for emissions above set thresholds, with the revenues supporting green innovation and climate adaptation in Small Island and Developing States.
It had the makings of “excellent regulation,” Tristan Smith, Professor at University College London focused on the decarbonization of international shipping, said on the Cleaning Up podcast. Smith called the US pressure campaign “an appalling deployment of pressure” and believes the move reflected a gross distortion of the normal rules of international diplomacy, to the extent that long-held principles became all but meaningless. “It felt apocalyptic,” he said.
Panelists at the Barcelona summit agreed that while the delay was political, it should not derail progress. Hector Calls, Director of Environmental Sustainability and Energy Transition at the Port of Barcelona, called it “disappointing, but not a stop. We’ll keep the course, because clarity and regulation are good for the sector.”
Patrik Benrick, Head of Strategic Development and Innovation at the Port of Gothenburg, echoed Calls’s sentiment: “Better to postpone and keep working than to get a rejection. The risk is that others lose courage, so the EU must stay firm and show leadership.”
Despite the setback, green shipping remains a growing trend. Global shipping giant Maersk sails methanol-powered vessels, and several ports, from Los Angeles to Singapore, are building green corridors to support zero-emission trade routes. Browne said such examples can help build the confidence of member states to resist continued US pressure ahead of next year’s postponed vote. Whether that will be enough to garner majority support remains uncertain, but for many in the maritime community, retreat is not an option.
“We know what our goals are and we need to meet them,” said Sarkozy-Banoczy. “Ports and shipping lines are moving towards greener fuels. I’m hopeful that’s the direction.”
Featured image: International Maritime Organization/Flickr.
—
About the author: Michael Ethan Gold is a climate and energy communications strategist, helping innovators and mission-driven organizations craft stories that earn trust and mobilize change. Drawing on a background that spans journalism, thought leadership and messaging strategy, he specializes in turning complex science and systems thinking into resonant narratives. He was previously a Taiwan correspondent at Reuters and managing editor at The Economist Intelligence Unit, based in Hong Kong and San Francisco. He is now based in Barcelona and speaks English, Mandarin and Spanish.
This story is funded by readers like you
Our non-profit newsroom provides climate coverage free of charge and advertising. Your one-off or monthly donations play a crucial role in supporting our operations, expanding our reach, and maintaining our editorial independence.
About EO | Mission Statement | Impact & Reach | Write for us
