Essay by Eric Worrall
Last year Trump successfully lobbied for deferral of a global carbon tax on maritime CO2 emissions. But with 10s of billions of dollars at stake, the fight isn’t over.
China’s massive shipping industry is poised to lead green transition
by Mao Xiaoli | Jan 14, 2026
UN treaty on emissions, now delayed, would provide a tailwind for the market
Later this year, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will resume negotiations on whether to adopt an agreed plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.
China had originally supported the approval of the plan, known as the Net-zero Framework, at an IMO meeting in April 2025. However, about six months later, at talks on whether to sign off the framework formally, the country sided with the majority of member states to postpone the decision for a year.
…
Building readiness in China
Although China voted to delay adoption, it’s still in the country’s interest to prepare its domestic industry for the inevitable transition.
Internationally, China could directly benefit from becoming a refuelling, or “bunkering,” hub for future sustainable marine fuel. Not currently one of the world’s largest such hubs, it could leapfrog some of the competition by supplying sustainable marine fuel. China is especially well-positioned to supply the likes of methanol and ammonia, which require cheap renewable electricity to synthesize.
…
That said, leading ports in China — especially those that have already positioned themselves to become major bunkering ports — are already acting. In 2025, Shanghai’s port completed the nation’s first ship-to-ship methanol bunkering. And the port of Tianjin completed the first methanol bunkering for a car-carrier ship; while that ship was on its maiden voyage to Hong Kong, the government announced it will provide tax incentives for outbound ships using methanol as fuel.
Read more: https://www.climateandcapitalmedia.com/chinas-massive-shipping-industry-is-poised-to-lead-green-transition/
…
From last year;
Oct 17, 2025
US-led alliance wins a year’s delay in adoption of green shipping deal
The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework will be up for approval again in October 2026, after the US and Saudi Arabia persuaded countries not to vote on it as planned
Joe Lo
News editor…
In April 2025, governments provisionally agreed the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net-Zero Framework (NZF), which would penalise high-emitting ships around the world and use the money to fund the transition to cleaner vessels and fuels.
…
The NZF was scheduled to set emissions reduction targets for ships starting in 2028. But this – and the rest of the framework’s timeline – have now been plunged into doubt. Although some technical work can continue, political progress will have to wait until October 2026 when delegates will next take up the issue of whether to adopt the NZF.
…
Trump’s threats
Ahead of the meeting, the US government had threatened a series of measures targeting government officials who supported the NZF and threatening to make it difficult and expensive for those countries’ ships to call at US ports.
A joint statement by the US transport and foreign ministers said: “We will fight hard to protect our economic interests by imposing costs on countries if they support the NZF. Our fellow IMO members should be on notice.”
And on Thursday, President Donald Trump tried to intervene directly in the IMO process, urging countries to vote against what he called “this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping” and “a Green New Scam Bureaucracy”. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he suggested that the NZF would lead to higher prices for American consumers, adding that the US “will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form”.
…
Read more: https://www.climatechangenews.com/2025/10/17/us-led-alliance-delay-year-adoption-green-shipping-deal-nzf-imo-un/
If this treaty passes, ships will be forced to either pay a carbon tax, or convert to “climate friendly” fuels such as synthetic methanol or ammonia.
If ships choose to pay a carbon tax, China wins – as an officially designated developing nation China receives a slice of that carbon tax, which it could legally use to help capitalise its methanol and ammonia business.
If ships choose to convert to methanol or ammonia as fuel, China will be the major supplier of those new fuels. As a developing nation, China will be allowed under the Paris Agreement to increase coal use to cover the industrial inputs and energy required to produce synthetic fuel, a privilege which is not extended to “developed” nations like the USA.
Either way, Effectively China will receive a tithe on all global shipping, regardless of whether ships convert to using Chinese synthetic fuel. All they need to do is keep a few hundred million of their own people in abject poverty, so they can cling on to their “developing nation” status, while Party apparatchiks and Chemical Industry CEOs get rich by convincing the world to pay tribute to China for the passage of all global trade.
Despite President Trump winning a one year deferral, last year this plan is still a threat to US prosperity. Trump won a reprieve last year, but with this kind of money at stake, the plan is still very much on the drawing board, and will be a key agenda item in this year’s IMO meetings. Let’s hope more people wake up to what is really happening.
Blocking this is needed, even if it means making real threats to the EU and third world nations. Not only the PRC can play hardball.
“Heads I win, tails you lose.”
‘cheap renewable electricity’ is an oxymoron.
Who defines developing nation status? It appears to me that a country (China) that uses as much coal as the rest of the world does is well beyond developing status. Just my opinion.
I hope this helps. 🙂 If drivers adhere to traffic regulations (drive in their own lanes, signal turns, and stop at lights) then it is a developed nation. Where drivers unexpectedly change lanes, and jump lights, driving is mentally more taxing. That is a developing country.
Well then. D-bags on motorcycles (I know, that’s redundant) make the US a developing country.
By the JH definition, most of USA is a developing nation.
It is easier to define an undeveloping nation. i.e. one that was fully developed and is now set on a course of reverting back to undeveloped status.
The signs are clear to see, with potholed roads being a daily reminder on the road ahead. The abandonment of common law and adoption of tribal rule being another. The closure of town centre shops, the closure of bars and pubs, the closure of parks, these are all signs of undeveloping societies.
Welcome to Minneapolis, or London, or Paris, or….. welcome to the undeveloping western world.
Their arrogance, feelings of superiority and decades of indoctrination/ propaganda will prevent them from seeing this.
The US thinks it will only concern Europe.
The fools..
Sustainable bunker fuel is an oxymoron. Let’s hope China is so foolish as to go that route
China is not foolish. They are preparing that route only for others to be forced into.
Methylamines are so much better for the environment than CO2
Its not a precursor shipment for Walter White, its bunker fuel?
So to reduce emissions China will produce fuel with coal (thus raising emissions) but with a facade of solar panels and windmills on the brochure. The corrupt from top to bottom UN will gladly manage the whole thing (read skim from the top) while pretending that emissions are going down instead of up.
If China is for it, any country with any self respect will see it for the scam it is.
Are you listening Mr.Carney?
You mean the same countries that destroyed there own auto industries for net zero and ceded it to the Chinese or the same countries that buy billions of dollars of cheap junk solar panels and windmills from the Chinese while destroying their energy industry?
Do you really think the US has any self respect left? It is just using age old bully tactics. Your scam sales pitch has been : Democracy, or: do as i say or else..Millions of people crushed. Self respect, me arse .!
It’s realpolitik. Look it up. America has done more for the rest of the world than any nation. I’d hate to think what the world would be like if America acted saintly. Adults understand this.
USA is gaining its self respect back after the Obummer and Otto-Pen years where it was seen as weak, woke and sinking into the moral quicksand.
Only people being crushed are those that shouldn’t be there in the first place.
Massive self respect, looking after their own country instead of being a toe-rag like under the Otto-pen
“a facade of solar panels and windmills on the brochure”
Reminds me when a solar “farm” was built next to my ‘hood. Their brochure showed a nice looking solar installation teeming with more sunflowers than in a Van Gogh painting. Instead, they didn’t even restore the soil. It had been a gravel harvesting site. It’s still nothing but 20 acres of dead sand covered with 14,000 toxic solar panels made in China.
Another carbon tax that funds more big government/socialism and won’t change anything except more costs passed on to the consumer, more increases in the cost of living.
But, but, but,,,,
You will have nothing and you will be happy!
We are already in WW III. But this time instead of bullets and bombs it’s bring your adversaries to their knees through economic ruin. Those who put the AGW scam together must be proud of their results.
Charge any boat using “Green fuel” extra to dock in US ports..
And use that to refund those boats over taxed for CO2 emissions.
Really? Ammonia is toxic, corrosive, and of low calorific value. It is extremely difficult to achieve complete combustion because it doesn’t burn all that well.
The result is the production of various oxides of nitrogen, which “climate scientists” claim are hundreds of times more “potent” than CO2 (whatever that is supposed to mean).
The people who propose such dimwitted ideas then complain bitterly because the Chinese might figure out a way to make money at the expense of these fools. It’s quite humorous to see “developed” countries whining about being outplayed by the countries they have classified as “undeveloped”. If that’s all it amounts to, America should declare itself an “undeveloped” country, and beat China at its own game!
Am I the only one having a good laugh at all these idiotic goings-on?
For example, Starrett tools (“Made in America”) do have a factory in the US, at least. The majority of their products are imported or manufactured in places like China and Brazil. Obviously, the US company sees more value for money in Chinese, Brazilian, and other foreign manufacturing. Can you blame customers like me for sharing their thinking?
If you don’t think it’s funny, don’t laugh.
Starrett tools is about 2 miles from my home in Athol, Wokeachusetts. I spent most of a day there some years ago when they had an open house- led by one of their engineers. It was fascinating. Not sure about your claim that their products are imported. Can you document that? I saw hundreds of workers- it was like Santa’s workshop. Not an assembly line. Mostly dozens of small shops within their very large factory building. Mostly hand making tiny parts. The engineer said what comes into the building are raw metal and other unfinished materials. That they make everything right there. Their web site says they make everything right there. https://www.starrett.com/
But… they don’t like labor unions. One worker there said they were told that if they create a union, the company will be shut down the next day. Very highly experienced machinists don’t make much money- but they’re happy to have those jobs since just about every other industry that once thrived in central and western Wokeachusetts is gone. The workers aren’t getting rich- but they all have nice big pickup trucks, homes and I hear them talking about their vacations.
So, please document that their products are imported.
Short routes, ferries and river shipping will be electrified. We’ll see where the rest goes. You can’t stop the future with kicking and screaming.
On the contrary, you can’t beat physical laws by wishful thinking.
While it may be possible to electrify short ferry crossings does not mean it is a good idea or that it can be scaled in the future for long duration ship journeys.
It merely proves the stupidity of those who think it is a good idea.
I didn’t say long haul will electrify – but the status quo will be changed. After trumps blunder with Venezuela China will double down on alternatives to oil.
Already sold off one lot of oil, and sent the money to Venezuela. (no way Otto-pen would have done that, would have gone into Democrat slush funds
Tankers want more oil…
Oil companies eye Venezuelan oil
As I said elsewhere, Western Ferries, who run a service on the Firth of Clyde without any subsidies, have just ordered a couple of new vessels and have chosen diesel propulsion rather than electricity on the grounds of cost.
I wonder how long it takes to recharge a ferry battery? And, they must be running back and forth all day- so when it’s time to stop and recharge, it must take days- assuming they can find a charger with enough capability.
I doubt even ferry crossings will be run on “clean and green” energy- especially if those ferrys need to keep running back and forth all day. It’ll probably take days just to charge their batteries. Hopefully they won’t get any leaks in the boat to dampen those batteries. 🙂
They tried that already.. and failed magnificently
You can’t create a fake future by mindless braying and unicorn farts.
How much are you willing to bet that all that shipping will be electrified?
An electric ferry was tried already someplace in the North East US. It failed after a large, yet subsidized partly, expenditure. Last I read about it they reverted back to the diesel ferry.
Like socialism, they are convinced that THIS TIME, it’s gonna work.
I never knew that the future required government mandates and huge subsidies.
The socialist Dystopian future does.
Let’s face it: if it is in the interest of the US or Trump (which does not always run parallel) they will simply brush aside anyone in their path.
This whole spiel about Democracy was always a scam, as witnessed from WW2 and especially since the end of the cold war onwards.
This is undeniable and a historical fact.
Those here supporting it have millions of lives on their ( christian) conscience.
In regards to China and renewables: the US would do the same. In regards to Greenland: as has been pointed out by the likes of Daniel Davis: there is NO threat from either Russia or China. Another scam for the (un) american project of expansion and a personal vanity project from an american President.
You can see it in the spasms: an empire in trouble and its minnions ( Europe) in panic.
The american dream/ hegemony of ruling the world is over. Face the facts like the UK has previously. It’s only a matter of time. A bully can only move lesser objects. In this both the US AND the President ARE running parallel.
Go on: your downvotes will be my badge of honour!!
“there is NO threat from either Russia or China.”
they both have ICBMs which would need to fly OVER Greenland
“This whole spiel about Democracy was always a scam, as witnessed from WW2”
WTF?
“The american dream/ hegemony of ruling the world is over. Face the facts like the UK has previously. It’s only a matter of time.”
You obviously have no clue. The UK is a tiny island off the coast of a peninsula of Asia. America is a vast nation with long coastlines on both the Atlantic and Pacific. It has vast resources of all kinds. It has a mix of people from all over the world. Hitler wasn’t worried about America as he said it was mostly “mongrels”. It has most of the best technology. As for time, we’re all dead and the Earth will be sucked into the Sun when it becomes a red giant. Meanwhile, don’t hold your breath waiting for America to decline. Your comments are so lame, it might be best to ignore you henceforth. Next time do your homework first. Start with a good history course, young man or woman or undecided. 🙂
Do you really think they would publish classified military intelligence in the Guardian or the NYT?
You do not know what is ongoing aside from media headlines.
Wow, you have serious America hatred , don’t you..
Does it come from listening to far-left media like CNN, MS-TDS ?
You hate democracy and prefer dictatorship and socialism/communism…
… which is all we need to know about your state of mind..
“If ships choose to convert to methanol or ammonia as fuel …..”
I asked Grok to give me comparative shipping costs for diesel, methanol and ammonia fuels, with all taxes, subsidies and carbon pricing excluded. It said:
Marine Diesel (VLSFO) $10.5-12.9 per GJ.
Green Methanol (e-methanol) $40-60 (best: ~$35-45)
Green Ammonia $32-54 (best: ~$27-43)
NB. I didn’t ask for “Green”, my wording was as given above. Grok also said:
“To achieve the same sailing range (e.g., energy equivalent for a transoceanic voyage), ships would need significantly larger fuel tanks:
Methanol tanks would need to be roughly 2.3-2.5 times larger than diesel tanks.
Ammonia tanks would need to be about 2.8-3.2 times larger than diesel tanks.”,
but I don’t know if this was factored into its costs. I think probably not.
In any case, surprise surprise, the proposed fuel change would be a dirty great cost increase.
But guess where those larger fuel tanks can be bought….China!
You don’t “buy” fuel tanks for ships, they are built ino the structure of the vessel. To increase the fuel capacity you would just convert a ballast tank into a fuel tank.
To change from normal bunker fuel to those listed is still a silly thing to do, though.
Both methanol and ammonia are going to need better materials for the tanks. They will also need more maintenance to avoid leaks.
If China wants to help save the planet- it’ll immediately stop building new coal power plants and instead build more, much cheaper renewables. /s
Taxation without representation.
Seems we fought a war over that a while back.
And before the trolls start up, we do not elect appointees.
You cannot replace CO2 emitting hydrocarbon fuels for shipping, with ammonia.
This is because liquid ammonia fuel evaporates to ammonia gas NH3, which is a greenhouse gas, having a molecule with 4 non-linear atoms like methane has.
Apologists discount ammonia as a GHG because its chemistry changes after a while, so it is not a forever chemical like CO2 can be framed. However, if a ship leaks ammonia fuel all of the time, then there is a level of GHG ammonia all of the time. How much depends on how many ships and how good the seals are against leakage.
I have worked with ammonia as a fertilizer. It has a smell. Often, it smells even when you think it is fully contained. When it smells, it is an active GHG.
I am not confessing that I agree that all GHG in the air add to global temperatures. They might, for the moment, but then there are known mechanisms to rapidly send that heat to space, maintaining global temperatures within the very narrow boundaries suggested by proxy studies. Geoff S
Stepping back from specific details…
“Thanks to the Maritime Net Zero Framework”
WTF is a “Framework” and how is it supposed to shield a rentseeker from criticism?
Does the “Framewok” have a flag, a European classical instrumental anthem and an Olympic team?
The only thing dumber than government is international government.
Trump always stands up for America.