Essay by Eric Worrall
The UN has just announced an agreement to impose a global carbon tax on shipping.
A historic course correction: How the world’s shipping sector is setting sail for net zero
By Laura Quinones14 May 2025 Climate and Environment
Long overlooked as a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, the shipping industry is now at the forefront of a unique display of international cooperation. The shift signals that even the world’s largest transport sector can be steered toward climate accountability.
Every day, tens of thousands of massive ships criss-cross the world’s oceans, transporting grain, clothing, electronics, cars, and countless other products. Nearly 90 per cent of global cargo is moved this way. But this vital industry comes with an added cost: international shipping is responsible for three per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which are heating the planet.
For years, ship emissions were a complex and often postponed topic in international climate discussions. But that changed in April 2025 when the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body overseeing global shipping regulations, approved a historic plan to make the industry net-zero by around mid-century.
“This demonstrates that multilateralism and the United Nations are still relevant and important in these particular times,” Arsenio Dominguez, IMO’s Secretary-General, told UN News. He reflected on the tense and often emotional negotiations at the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s 83rd session, calling the approval a commitment by IMO and the shipping sector to combat climate change.
The deal, dubbed the IMO Net-Zero Framework, marked the culmination of years of painstaking talks between member States, including small island nations at risk from rising seas and the world’s largest shipping nations.
“I could spend hours just telling you in detail all those great moments working very closely with the delegates of all the member states at IMO in order to get this agreement,” Mr. Dominguez recalled. “That collaborative approach, to see all the member states gathering and rallying each other to get this deal in place, is something that I will always remember.”
…
Polluters will need to purchase ‘remedial units’ or offset their excess emissions by investing in the IMO Net-Zero Fund. Ships adopting zero or near-zero emissions technologies can earn surplus credits, creating an incentive to clean up. A shipowner exceeding their emissions limit might buy credits from another ship that has outperformed its targets or contribute to the fund.
…
Innovation will play a major role, and some promising technologies include ammonia and hydrogen fuels, wind propulsion, solar-assisted shipping, and onboard carbon capture. “Our rules are there to foster innovation and not to limit it,” Mr. Dominguez said, explaining that the Organization is carrying out an initial analysis. “We are rediscovering the existence of wind in the shipping industry, if I may say it like that…We have to be open to everything that’s happening out there. There’s a lot of work going on alternative fuels.”
This transition will also require investment in training and safety measures for seafarers as these alternative fuels are adopted, he warned. “We have to pay paramount importance when it comes to the people.”
…
Read more: https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/05/1163241
Will the USA be compelled to pay this new UN carbon tax?
Not so fast.
US against plan for levy on carbon emissions from ships, leak suggests
Document says levy would be ‘blatantly unfair’ and inconsistent with international law of the sea
Plans for a levy on the carbon produced by ships are being opposed by the US government, on the apparent basis they would “impose substantial economic burdens” and “drive inflation”.
There will be fierce debate in London this week on the future of global shipping over the proposals to charge up to $150 (£117) a tonne for the greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Those in support say the measure will be crucial to generating billions of dollars of climate finance a year to help poor countries cope with the impact of the climate crisis.
But now the US appears to have joined China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and at least a dozen other states in opposing the levy at the International Maritime Organization negotiations. A leaked document seen by the Guardian, which has not yet been verified by the US government, purports to threaten countries with “reciprocal measures” if they agree to any levy.
…
The US did not deny authorship of the leaked document. A Department of State spokesperson said: “The US will not be engaging in negotiations at the IMO’s 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee. Consistent with President Trump’s executive orders on international environmental agreements and on energy dominance, it is the administration’s policy to put the interests of the United States and the American people first in the development and negotiation of any international agreements.”
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/09/us-say-plan-for-levy-on-ships-producing-carbon-emissions-will-drive-inflation
Unfortunately it is not all good news. The situation is complicated by the fact most US cargo is carried on non-US flagged ships. Although President Trump has tried to sweeten the deal, for example by negotiating a better deal on the Panama Canal, the US merchant fleet is tiny – there are only 80 US flagged ships carrying cargo on today’s seas. If the cost of paying this global tax is hidden inside an opaque shipping fee presented to US exporters and importers by foreign ship owners, it may be difficult to shield US companies from this new global UN carbon tax.
It gets worse. Three of the UN proposed solutions, ammonia, hydrogen or carbon capture, read more like potential terrorist attacks than genuine maritime propulsion options.
Out of those three proposed nightmares, a catastrophic carbon capture CO2 release might actually be the most dangerous. Hydrogen can explode, and Ammonia is hideously toxic, but both Hydrogen and Ammonia are lighter than air – the range of the kill zone would be limited to a few square miles.
CO2 is heavier than air, so a major release of ship stored captured CO2 on a still wind day could roll a blanket of suffocating, unbreathable gas over a large area, resulting in substantial mass casualties miles from the site of the release. If the catastrophic accidental or intentional release occurred in the port of a major low laying city with geography which prevented the gas from dissipating, 10s of thousands of people could die.
When Lake Nyos belched 100-300,000 tons of CO2 in 1986, people died up to 16 miles from the concentrated source of CO2, because the heavy CO2 gas hugged the ground, displacing breathable air.
Obviously insurance companies would move to squash this idiocy after a few mass casualty events, but it would be nice to get ahead of the curve for once in the race to embrace lethal green “solutions”, and stop this nonsense before 10s of thousands of people are sacrificed on the altar of engineering ignorance.
The UN spokesman Mr. Dominguez admitted “This transition will also require investment in training and safety measures for seafarers as these alternative fuels are adopted” – so there must be some awareness in UN circles of the enhanced danger of the proposed green alternatives, even if those voices are currently being mostly ignored by the people in charge.
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.