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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I suppose someone has worked out how much the weather will be improved by this nonsense?
-0.0001°C reduction in 100 years or so.
Could go up due to fewer aerosols.
Where’s that old Animal House clip?
ZERO POINT ZERO.
Even Grok acknowledges the futility of this and the net zero schemes. Also what will this new revenue stream be spent on?
Mostly lining the pockets of UN bureaucrats and leftist NGOs, I suspect.
I, as a USA member citizen, would recommend that the US build a Nuclear Powered shipping fleet and tell the UN to Stuff their Carbon Offsets.
We should tell’em to stuff it whether we build nukes or not.
Exactly. Just don’t pay it. Will shippers say they won’t ship to and from America? I doubt it. America could say it now has a tax on all shippers to and from America- equal to that lame UN tax- or larger.
If foreign shippers insist on pushing these new taxes, that is just more incentive for American shippers to buy and operate their own ships.
The UN wind-powered fleet will win easily. 🙂
They certainly produce prodigious quantities of Hot Air
America’s Cup?
That was tried in the 1960’s but eventually anti-nuke fanatics in Japan and elsewhere refused to let the nuclear powered USS Savanna berth and that was the end. I’m thinking the same might happen today.
Not if it were proven the fastest (emissionless) safest option to transport goods across oceans. Sails certainly couldn’t compete nor could rowed galleys and diesel may be disallowed.
You haven’t sussed it yet. They don’t care about emissions. They care about de-industrialization.
I hope Trump will reject it!
I think you can count on that. 🙂
Wait, I’ve got it. Galleys! These are propelled by oars and by sails, all 100% “carbon-free”. And just think of all the green jobs, plus rowing is good exercise. Win-win!
The galleys are not carbon free. Each rower will exhale ca 1 pound of CO2 per day.
Nope. Our breath is “carbon-neutral”, because it is part of a closed loop.
Yeah, I know. All the CO2 produced in the life cycles of the plants and animals is “good CO2”! All CO2 produced by the use of fossil fuels is “bad CO2”!
Unless it’s anything good for humans, such as cattle or sheep, then it’s bad neutral CO2.
Think again. Take a look at the zealots’ attacks on livestock farming. Only one part of the closed loop is counted.
What if they feed them beans?
All those green UNION jobs…. you really need to get with the propaganda.
The UN was one of FDR’s sillier ideas.
Trump should kick the UN out of the United States and stop giving them taxpayer money.
The UN in its inception was chartered to prevent the next world war and hopefully all wars.
I submit it has failed and also it has overreached its charter.
The UN was FDR channeling Woodrow Wilson. Both had their heads up their nether regions when considering that part of foreign policy. NATO a few years earlier would have been more honest.
Never underestimate the Marxists’ ability to tax others to pay for expanding their ideology. Face it, all the Marxist countries stole from the Capitalists to stake their claim. My take? Trump won’t budge on refusing this blatant attempt to expand their realm. It will just be another reason for him to get the US out of the UN. He’ll just instigate another tariff to balance out the grift. America first. That’s why he was elected and the people are loving it whether they openly agree or not.
If it’s not a treaty approved by the US Senate, why would the US be bound?
Also, how is the UN able to enact taxes of any kind? And who would collect the taxes?
That is a good question, probably the country under which flag the ship is sailing…the million dollar question is just: will all the “cheap flag” nations participate in that scam?
It would just take one to spoil the entire UN scam party.
“And who would collect the taxes?”
I’ll do it for 10%
I’ll do it for 9.9%.
From an office in The Bahamas.
The real question is who will be the beneficiaries of such a tax ?
Conspicuously absent in the garbage.
The UNFCCC and the UN COP will collect the carbon taxes and distribute the funds to all the poor countries.
“The UNFCCC and the UN COP will collect the carbon taxes”.. and pocket it !!
With a servicing debit that would go to the UN.
In the poor countries, most of the funds go to administers, bureaucrats, and consultants. The peasants get only a few pennies.
….. And nothing gets built !
Stuff gets built, but then immediately neglected, quickly becomes unusable.
That too ! 🙂
After taking a sizable cut for “administering” the transfers, of course. 🤬
Another case of 10% for the Big Guy, perhaps?
“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.”
*****************
Just 3%? Seriously?
For that, they want to add to the global cost of shipping? It’s a joke to make a big deal out of a mere 3% of global CO2 emissions to begin with. Give me a break.
0.04% (CO2 in the atmosphere) times 3% = 0.0012. I’m not sure whether to laugh or cry.
If the 3% refers to anthropogenic emissions and Nature is responsible for 97% of ALL emissions then the calculation should be:
0.04% x 3% x 3% for the maritime contribution
= 0.000036 – you should definitely cry, not laugh
Not to mention that there’s no evidence CO2 is causing any noticeable warming. The UN wants to charge people money based on nothing but speculation and assumptions.
It’s just one more part of this huge Climate Crisis scam.
>> a catastrophic carbon capture CO2 release might actually be the most dangerous.
That is not the biggest problem of carbon capture (mankind deals with dangerous substances all the time fossil fuels themself are dangerous),
but the fact that you need overall more fossil fuel if you carbon capture.
Three articles back on WUWT hinted that carbon capture can be a net producer of CO2
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2025/05/17/carbon-capture-scam-does-not-even-offset-its-own-emissions/
In which case you would be better off not doing it without any excuse or exception!
Shippers will be filling up in America
It’s a protection racket.
“Nice ship you have there. Be a shame for it not to be allowed to sail. But maybe you would like to donate to our Net Zero Fund.”
Good one!
I wonder if they are going to try to charge military vessels? That ought to be fun!
Who cares? The IMO has no binding regulatory power on anyone or anything. It only has any effect if the various member states agree to adopt it and implement it under their national law.
Trump will just tell any member states that want to enforce this requirement that if they do so, they won’t be able to do business with the United States.
That’s how Trump bankrupted the Mad Mullahs of Iran. He told everyone that if they bought Iranian oil, they could not do business with the United States. Even China stopped buying Iranian oil at the time.
So Trump could put all the pressure he wants on member states, but this UN plan looks more like a joke than a plan, and probably is not going to go as the UN planned.
So the UN solution is a global tax that will be paid to… the UN. We’ve got to fund our phony baloney jobs!
Not sure how they will enforce this. Sounds like they intend to impose it as a fuel tax collected by compliant countries. Which will lead to ships taking on extra fuel in non-compliant ports so they don’t have to fuel up in compliant ports. Or, if the tax becomes onerous, a new service industry will no doubt evolve, loading up fuel in non-compliant countries in order to refuel ships in international waters.
Looks like enough major countries are pushing back on this that it will never happen so not terribly concerned.
The usual suspects have their hands out for free money.
Here we have an unelected body, the UN, openly planning to use pressure on shippers to do dangerous acts.
To be specific, the UN must be aware that an unplanned release of CO2 from a carbon capture and storage facility has a non-trivial probability of causing premature deaths of bystanders.
In what way is this not to be classed as premeditated murder?
In what way should the promoters of this potential for mass murder escape the normal working of the law?
Make the UN aware that their involved officers will be charged with murder if they proceed with this plan when a death results from accidental release.
…….
These green people who invent dangerous plans, ultimately for their own selfish benefit from power and privilege, are out of touch with reality, simply, ask yourself how you would feel if one of your own family was a victim and you are planning a funeral. Who benefits?
Surely, it is way past the time to get serious with these murderous dreamers.
Geoff S
The dangers of their plans are ignored with the fire issues related to BEVs so why would they concern themselves with CO2 releases?
Because they kill. Geoff S
“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
cooperationcoercion. The shift signals that even the world’s largest transport sector can besteeredextorted toward climateaccountabilityoppression.”Fixed!
I thought the reduction in shipping fuel aerosols had increased the planet’s temperature. Does that mean the shipping companies get paid by the UN if they make aerosols again ?
/s
It is time to put the UN in it’s place. The US should inform the UN it will have no part in this scam. If the UN passes it the US will withhold all money to the UN permanently. In addition to that the UN will start being charged the going rate for rent for the UN building and all other property used by the UN in the US. This is not negotiable.
Bob you so remind me of the no-bullshit Ron Swanson character in the “Parks and Recreation” series.
My favorite character.
All politicians should emulate Ron Swanson’s approach to dealing with policy formulation.
Keep ’em coming Bob.
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.
And after the ‘administrative costs/fees’ are taken from those ‘billions, just how much will be left for the ‘poor countries? Probably less than half of what that the country had to pay extra for it’s imports to be shipped in.
A rip-off.
5/8ths of 2/3rds of f*-all.
And even less when they convert it to US dollars.
Sounds more like racketeering. Since tariffs are in vogue, perhaps a tax on ships coming to our shores that offset whatever the UN tax might be. Or perhaps this will make US flagged shipping more profitable again.
Since when does the UN get to impose a tax?
Taxation without representation.
Add in the cost of creating these new and dangerous fuels, the cost of modifying the vessels.
Co2 costs and financial costs.
Oh dear!
“international shipping is responsible for three per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which are heating the planet.”
This seems to be a standard statement to justify any action.
Why is it not being challenged and quantified?
It is being challenged, all the time at WUWT and elsewhere.
The MSM won’t report it though.
A few days ago I used it as an example when talking about EU car manufacturers. When the EU spend time and money on unrealistic tailpipe emissions China used time and money on building better and cheaper cars.
Same will happen with containerships. I heard EU talking about doing something on containerships. My first reaction was putting a tax on it. That’s the west solution for everything. But now it’s from the UN, which basically is the west too.
Carbon taxes doesn’t solve anything when there’s no alternative. We have no commercial working technology. Any engineer will say the above solutions are a dead horse. I don’t know the sale price of a containership but it will be a lot, lifespan is 30 years. Nobody is going to replace a 10 year old containership to avoid a tax.
You could defend such a tax if it went to innovation, but it’s not. They want to slush it to poor countries, achieving nothing outside filling the pockets of corruption.
What will happen? China recently opened the first thorium reactor and are already talking about thorium powered containerships. Don’t be surprised if within 10 or 20 years China is the world leader in clean thorium powered containerships and the west is crying about how China dominates shipping cargo, or rather the supply chain.
Also, I don’t see much shipbuilding in the west anymore. This is how irrelevant you have become. Without industry you have nothing to innovate.So you put a tax on it when there’s no clean technology and who is going to invent it if you don’t have the industry.