International Maritime Organization Reaches Agreement On Shipping Emissions

Sign up for CleanTechnica’s Weekly Substack for Zach and Scott’s in-depth analyses and high level summaries, sign up for our daily newsletter, and/or follow us on Google News!

Last Updated on: 13th April 2025, 04:05 pm

After a decade of trying, the International Maritime Organization has agreed to a plan that it says will move the shipping industry toward net zero emissions by 2050. Is it a perfect agreement? No, it is not. Transport & Environment has criticized the deal for a number of reasons, primarily because it will promote the use of more palm oil, which means many thousands of acres will be clear cut to plant palm trees. Clear cutting, if you haven’t noticed, has its own set of negative impacts on the environment. “Given their impact on deforestation, reliance on these fuels would likely limit emissions savings and may even increase total shipping emissions,” T&E says.

At the 83rd meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee, the delegates agreed to binding targets for reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from ocean shipping, which amount to about 3 percent of all emissions globally. Those targets call for a reduction of between 20 and 30 percent in greenhouse emission from shipping by 2030, a 70 to 80 percent reduction by 2040, and net-zero by 2050. Those targets will be made possible by a tiered system of fees and compliance levels, and not all emissions will be taxed.

An Agreement On Shipping Emissions

According to The Maritime Executive, the heart of the plan is a levy of $380 per ton of carbon dioxide that ships will have to pay if they exceed a maximum level of emissions intensity. The target levels will get stricter over time. Ships that stay under the specified intensity level will pay a fee of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide for emissions in excess of a second “direct compliance” level. Ships that emit even less than the “direct compliance” standard will earn carbon credits for outperforming the requirements. Those credits can be saved or sold to under-performing ships. All ships under 5,000 gross tons, which includes most coastal vessels and work boats, will be exempt. The new framework will be the first UN-administered carbon revenue system of any kind.

The agreement leaves room for ship operators to use any alternative fuels that meet emissions criteria, including first generation biofuels made from food crops like palm and soybean oil. These are the cheapest “green” fuels available, but they come with a significant environmental cost, as large-scale increases in production which will require more clearing of forests, which is the reason T&E is tepid in its endorsement of the plan. “The IMO deal creates a momentum for alternative marine fuels, but unfortunately it is the forest destroying first generation biofuels that will get the biggest push for the next decade,” said Faig Abbasov, shipping program director for Transport & Environment.

Climate advocates and industry groups agreed that the fee structure falls short of what would be needed to compel an industry-wide transition to high-cost green methanol and green ammonia in the near term. However, based on an analysis by T&E, the IMO’s schedule will result in a substantial reduction in emissions from about 2030 onward — a profound cut compared to the increases expected under a no-regulation, business-as-usual scenario. The schedule suggests that the industry will not reach net zero until some years after 2050.

“This adoption is a first step in the right direction, with now a part — although small — of shipping emissions being subject to what is effectively a global levy. However, with an expected fall in emissions of around 10% by 2030 compared to 2008, the level of ambition is largely insufficient to meet the IMO target of emission reduction, let alone to meet a 1.5 C trajectory,” said Dr. Marie Fricaudet, a senior research fellow at UCL Energy Institute.

US Gives The World The Finger

Advocates of a stricter emissions regime blamed longtime opponents of climate action for the outcome. The current US administration trotted out its patented list of grievances. In a statement, the White House wailed, “Should such a blatantly unfair measure go forward, our government will consider reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to US ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures. We must be clear the US rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice.”

Just before the final vote, the US delegation walked out to wait for other nations to plead for a chance to kiss the so-called president’s ass, as he is so fond of saying. Such a classy guy. The IMO agreement could boost shipbuilding activity in East Asia. The US wants to reduce the power of Chinese shipyards, which would benefit from any IMO incentives for green retrofits and new ship-building contracts. China’s state-owned CSSC is the world’s largest commercial shipbuilder. Any additional merchant vessel orders would subsidize its warship deliveries for the Chinese Navy.

Despite the US delegation behaving badly, not everyone seemed to be cowed by its boorishness. “Let’s not get dazzled by the drama. This isn’t the United States of Shipping,” Seas at Risk shipping policy officer Anais Rios told Politico. “There are 175 countries in the room, and delegates are rolling up their sleeves to find the best path forward. One country trying to play the disruptor doesn’t change the fact that global cooperation is the real headline here.” Minister Ralph Regenvanu of Vanuatu added, “Let us be clear about who has abandoned 1.5°C. Saudi Arabia, the US, and fossil fuel allies pushed down the numbers to an untenable level and blocked progress at every turn.”

Industry groups praised the agreement — flawed as it might be — as a step in the right direction. “We recognize that this may not be the agreement which all sections of the industry would have preferred, and we are concerned that this may not yet go far enough in providing the necessary certainty. But it is a framework which we can build upon,” the International Chamber of Shipping’s Guy Platten said in a statement. “This is a major milestone for climate policy and a turning point for shipping. Our industry has long been labelled as ‘hard to abate,’ but record industry investment and a new global measure can turn the tide on that,” said Joe Kramek, CEO of the World Shipping Council.

The UCL Energy Institute cautioned that without a high-revenue IMO levy to support the multi-billion-dollar investments in need for green shipping fuels, support from national governments will now determine who wins from shipping’s green transition, much as China has done with its investments in solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, EVs, and shipbuilding. “A significant risk now exists that the future of shipping will, like renewable energy and battery electric vehicles, be significantly owned and driven by nations with strong industrial policy,” warned UCL.

Ay, there’s the rub. The US is like Robert Downey Jr., who once told a judge his addiction to drugs was like having “a loaded gun in my mouth and I like the taste of metal.” In its unquenchable thirst for fossil fuels, the US is taking a sledgehammer to all renewable energy and electric vehicle initiatives while cancelling billions of dollars worth of research grants. It is making the position of foreign researchers so toxic that many are leaving to pursue opportunities in other countries.

When the Soviet Union put Sputnik in orbit, the United States responded with a national program to promote education in math and science. Today, the country is putting boulders in the path of STEM education and gloating about how it is combating a “woke mind virus.” Woke means different things to different people, but one thing it definitely means is not using the Earth as a toilet for humanity’s waste products. It’s hard to believe anyone thinks that is a good idea, but the current administration certainly thinks it is.