Delay in Carbon-Free Shipping Plan Due to Global Divide

Carbon-Free Shipping Latest News

• The International Maritime Organisation has voted to delay the implementation of its global carbon-free shipping plan by one year following opposition led by the United States.

The Global Shipping Industry and Its Carbon Footprint

• International shipping is the backbone of global trade, carrying around 90% of the world’s goods by volume. 
• However, it is also a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for nearly 2-3% of total global CO₂ emissions, equivalent to those of major industrialised nations.
• Unlike land-based industries, shipping operates largely in international waters, making global regulation of its emissions complex. 
• To address this, the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a specialised UN agency, has been leading efforts to reduce the sector’s carbon footprint through collective commitments and standards applicable to all member countries.
• In 2023, the IMO adopted its revised Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Strategy, setting ambitious goals for international shipping to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. 
• The strategy also included a minimum 40% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 (compared to 2008 levels) and encouraged the large-scale adoption of zero or near-zero emission fuels by 2030.
• However, the latest developments suggest that the path toward decarbonising shipping has encountered a major political setback.

‹ ›

News Summary

• At a recent meeting in London, the IMO member states voted to delay the implementation of the global carbon-free shipping framework by one year. 
• This postponement came after intense diplomatic pressure from the United States, which opposed the introduction of a global carbon tax on shipping emissions.
• The proposed framework, approved by an IMO sub-committee in April 2025, included two major components:
  • A new global fuel standard to limit the carbon intensity of ship fuels.
  • A carbon pricing mechanism to make fossil-fuel-based shipping less competitive and incentivise cleaner technologies.
• Originally, the proposal was to be voted on and implemented from 2027, with 63 countries (including the EU, China, India, Japan, Brazil, and Canada) initially supporting it and 16 countries, led by the United States, voting against it.
• In the days preceding the vote, U.S. President Donald Trump publicly denounced the plan on social media, calling it a “Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping”. 
  • He warned that the U.S. would not adhere to any such global carbon tax that could increase costs for American consumers.
• Amid growing tensions, Singapore proposed delaying the decision by one year, which was seconded by Saudi Arabia. In the final vote, 57 countries supported the delay, 49 opposed it, and 21 abstained. It remains unclear which way India voted.
• Climate-vulnerable nations such as Vanuatu expressed deep disappointment, calling the delay “a failure of a United Nations agency to act decisively on climate change.”

Implications of the Delay

• Impact on Climate Goals
  • The IMO’s 2023 GHG strategy aimed to ensure that at least 5% of the total energy used in international shipping by 2030 would come from zero or near-zero emission sources. 
  • The delay could push back investments in renewable fuels and technologies, threatening progress toward this interim goal.
• Economic and Political Divide
  • The U.S. stance exposes the widening North-South divide in global climate negotiations. 
  • Developing countries argue for equitable transition financing and technology transfer, while industrialised nations are reluctant to accept global taxation frameworks. The U.S. opposition also highlights domestic political resistance to global climate taxes.
• India’s Role
  • India, which had initially supported the framework, faces a delicate balance between economic interests and environmental commitments. 
  • As a growing maritime nation, India is both a key shipping hub and a developing economy, advocating for “common but differentiated responsibilities”, the principle that developing nations should not bear disproportionate climate burdens.
• Environmental Consequences
  • Currently, ships above 5,000 gross tonnes, which make up 85% of total shipping emissions, remain largely dependent on heavy fuel oil. 
  • Without stronger policy interventions, the share of global shipping emissions (1.7-2.3%) is projected to rise as global trade expands.

Way Ahead

• Experts believe the delay offers both a challenge and an opportunity. On one hand, it risks slowing international coordination on emission cuts. 
• On the other hand, it gives countries additional time to develop alternative proposals that may ensure broader political consensus and financial feasibility.
• The IMO is expected to revisit the proposal in October 2026, with calls growing for an equitable carbon levy system that supports small island states and developing economies. 
• Parallel initiatives, such as the EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) and private-sector green shipping corridors, may continue advancing decarbonisation independently of the IMO’s delay.
• The global shipping industry, which has traditionally lagged behind aviation and energy sectors in decarbonisation, now faces a crucial test: whether political will can match technological potential in combating climate change.

Source: TH