U.S. Blocks Global Fee on Shipping Emissions at IMO Meeting
Had it been adopted, the measure would have marked the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gas emissions
The United States has successfully blocked a proposal for a global fee on shipping emissions, as the International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting adjourned on Friday without adopting the long-debated regulations.
The United Nations’ shipping agency had been considering a levy on ship emissions as part of its broader climate strategy to steer the global maritime sector away from fossil fuels. The shipping industry currently accounts for nearly 3% of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions.
However, the proposed carbon pricing framework—hailed as the first global levy on any industrial polluter—faced strong opposition from several major oil-producing nations. U.S. President Donald Trump, alongside Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, and Russia, led the resistance against what he termed a “global green new scam tax on shipping.”
In a post on Truth Social, President Trump urged nations to vote “No” at the IMO headquarters in London, stating that the United States “will not stand for this global green new scam tax on shipping.”
The proposal’s delay was formally introduced by Singapore and called to a vote by Saudi Arabia. The motion narrowly passed with 57 countries in favor, 49 against, and 21 abstentions, effectively halting the adoption of the new levy for at least a year.
Under the now-delayed plan, a Net Zero Framework was set to commence in 2028, imposing fees on ships based on their greenhouse gas emissions. Vessels using traditional bunker fuel would have faced a $380 charge for their most intensive emissions, plus an additional $100 per ton of emissions exceeding established limits.
The proposed measure, expected to generate around $10 billion annually, aimed to encourage shipping companies to transition to low-emission fuels and invest in cleaner technologies. However, this was significantly lower than the $60 billion per year that a flat global carbon tax could have produced. Unlike the broader carbon tax proposal, the IMO framework intended to reinvest the revenue within the shipping industry, rather than channeling funds to climate-vulnerable nations.
Supporters of the proposal—a coalition of over 50 countries from Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Caribbean—argued it was crucial for meeting global climate goals. According to projections by a commercial shipping consultancy, the levy could have reduced shipping emissions by 8% by 2030.
The four-day negotiations in London revealed sharp divisions between fossil fuel–exporting nations and countries advocating for stronger climate action. In his closing remarks, IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez called for continued dialogue: “You have one year to negotiate and talk and come to a consensus.”
Had it been adopted, the measure would have marked the first-ever global fee on greenhouse gas emissions. Currently, most ships continue to operate on heavy fuel oil, one of the most carbon-intensive energy sources.
The debate builds on the 2023 IMO Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Strategy, which targets a 40% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 and seeks to ensure that zero or near-zero emission fuels represent at least 5%, striving for 10%, of energy used in international shipping by the end of the decade.
The writer of this article is Dr. Seema Javed, an environmentalist & a communications professional in the field of climate and energy
