Attempts to impose a levy on greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, in order to fund climate action, have been delayed but not extinguished at the conclusion of talks among 175 governments.
Greenhouse gas reduction goals for international shipping were agreed, in a toughening of previous targets, but were criticised as inadequate by campaigners.
Two weeks of talks at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) produced an agreement to reduce the carbon intensity of international shipping by 40% by 2030, compared with 2008 levels. Intensity refers to the emissions produced per cargo and distance travelled.
Governments also resolved to cut the total emissions from international shipping by at least 20% by 2030, with an ambition to reach 30% cuts by that date. The IMO also said international shipping would reach net zero “close to” 2050. Campaigners wanted a 50% cut by 2030 and a firm commitment on net zero by 2050 at the latest.
To spur the uptake of clean technologies for shipping, at least 5% of the energy used for international shipping by 2030 should be zero carbon, or near zero carbon, with an ambition to reach 10% by that date, according to the agreement reached on Friday morning.
These targets were nowhere near enough to put the world on track to stay within 1.5C of global heating above pre-industrial levels, campaigners said.
Bryan Comer, the marine programme lead at the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT), said: “By our estimates, international shipping will exceed its 1.5C carbon budget by approximately 2032 under this agreement.”
Ana Laranjeira, the shipping manager at the NGO Opportunity Green, called the meeting a historic opportunity wasted. “This week had everything to be a historical moment. The last chance for the IMO to align with the Paris agreement temperature goal of 1.5C, vital to secure a just and equitable transition for the world’s most vulnerable nations and protect our global biodiversity, such as the world’s coral reefs which will cease to exist in a world above 1.5C,” she said.
“[But] this agreement does not get us to 1.5C. We need to continue to work to decarbonise international shipping in a just and equitable manner as soon as possible.”
Carrying forward discussions on a potential levy on shipping, the proceeds of which would be used to fund emissions reduction and climate adaptation, and potentially the rescue and rehabilitation of countries stricken by climate disaster, will mean the proposal stays alive despite attempts to block it.
But the failure to adopt it comes as a major blow to attempts to raise climate finance for developing countries.
China, Argentina, Peru, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, Paraguay, Thailand, Cuba, Venezuela, Bangladesh, Belarus, Russia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Colombia and Saudi Arabia all tried to prevent such a levy being adopted at the talks, the Guardian understands.
Countries blocking the tax included some that are outwardly committed to climate action, including Brazil, Australia, South Africa and Indonesia, and the host country of this year’s Cop28 UN climate summit, the United Arab Emirates.
Countries pushing for a levy include EU member states including Greece, as well as South Korea and Japan, which are all major shipping nations. The US has also signalled its willingness to consider a levy, and the World Bank has backed it.
However, it is now unlikely that any levy could be agreed before 2027 at the earliest, which will delay the potential for developing countries to benefit.
Harjeet Singh, of the Climate Action Network, said: “The meeting broached the critical issue of levying shipping to finance capacity building, research and assistance for developing nations grappling with climate change. Unfortunately, the decision has been deferred, pushing this crucial financial mechanism further down the road.”
Campaigners also denounced the IMO as an organisation, saying its processes were slow and opaque. The IMO is a branch of the UN that governs international shipping, which is responsible for more than 2% of global greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions are purposely excluded from the Paris climate agreement, so the IMO is effectively the only forum in which they can be addressed, but over the last two decades the organisation has repeatedly seemed reluctant to grapple with the issue.
John Maggs, the president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, said: “There is no excuse for this wish and a prayer agreement. They knew what the science required, and that a 50% cut in emissions by 2030 was both possible and affordable. Instead the level of ambition agreed is far short of what is needed to be sure of keeping global heating below 1.5C, and the language seemingly contrived to be vague and non-committal.
“The most vulnerable put up an admirable fight for high ambition and significantly improved the agreement but we are still a long way from the IMO treating the climate crisis with the urgency that it deserves and that the public demands.”
