With rich countries failing to deliver promised amounts of their taxpayers’ money to help developing countries tackle warming, global attention has turned to so-called “innovative” sources of climate finance – like levies on ships, planes or fossil fuel firms – to make up the shortfall.

But at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the United Nations’ shipping arm, governments have made clear they want the bulk of the revenue from a shipping emissions levy to go towards making it cheaper and easier for companies to put clean fuel in their vessels.

Sitting in the 7th-floor boardroom of the IMO’s riverside London headquarters, Arsenio Dominguez, the IMO’s new head, said “we need to focus on shipping as a sector, as that is what we regulate and that’s where we need to focus the efforts”.

IMO secretary general Arsenio Dominguez (March 18/IMO)

Asked if the money could go into a new UN fund to repair and reduce loss and damage from climate change, Dominguez told Climate Home: “That’s another UN agency – we have no remit there.” The fund, set up under UN climate change talks, is set to be hosted by the World Bank.

While conversations are at an early stage, Dominguez’s view is broadly echoed by the shipping industry – as well as by most governments that have so far submitted formal proposals at the IMO, although Pacific nations want some of the funds to be used outside of shipping.

Loss and damage fund board member Avinash Persaud, from Barbados, urged finance and environment ministers to intervene at the IMO to secure a share of any future shipping levy for addressing the harm caused by worsening extreme weather and rising seas.

Big-emitting sector

As it moves goods around the world, the international shipping industry emits a similar amount of greenhouse gases to Germany but has lagged behind when it comes to setting targets to reduce that pollution.

In July last year, governments at the IMO agreed to aim for net zero emissions in the sector “by or around, i.e. close to 2050” – with interim targets for 2030 and 2040.

At the same time, they agreed to look into putting a price on the industry’s emissions. On Monday, Dominguez said he was confident such a levy would be agreed by this time next year, although the details are still to be fought over.

While nations are split on how high the charge should be – with a group of island nations arguing for the highest tax of $150 per tonne of greenhouse gas emissions – submissions from governments, industry and campaign groups all specify that the funds should be used mainly for cleaning up shipping.

Climate protesters dressed as mermaids lie on the floor at an IMO drinks reception last year (Photo credit: Guy Reece)

Kept in house?

A joint submission from the European Union, South Korea, the International Chamber of Shipping, the Environmental Defense Fund and others says a portion of the money should go to cleaning up shipping through investments, research funding and rewards for using clean fuels. 

The money should also address “disproportionate negative impacts” of the transition to clean shipping through training, technical advice and finance for green investments, it adds. An impact assessment is currently being carried out by experts under the guidance of the IMO.

Another joint submission from eight Pacific nations and Belize says the funds should be collected and spent using the principle of “the polluter pays”. That would require the shipping industry as the polluter to stop burning planet-heating fossil fuels “whilst making reparation for the impact on the environment, including people and communities”, the submission specifies.

A shipping negotiator from the climate-threatened Marshall Islands, Albon Ishoda, said the money should be “reinvested in the shipping industry to trigger research, development and deployment into zero-emission maritime technologies and to address climate mitigation efforts”, as well as in “an equitable transition” for small islands and the world’s poorest countries.

How to hold shipping financially accountable for its climate impacts

A Pacific negotiator, who was not authorised to speak to the media, told Climate Home that this transition funding should go to projects both in and outside of the shipping sector according to “the priority needs of the climate most vulnerable”.

A Canadian proposal says each ship’s operator should decide, within certain limits, where the money it pays should go.

International climate finance sought

Loss and damage expert Persaud said shipping industry executives – and even maritime ministers – could not be expected to support a plan to spend money raised from the sector outside the industry. “It’s almost beyond their remit,” he said.

Rather, finance and environment ministers “would need to be part of the push to get the world’s most significant economic system – the trading system – to contribute to the loss and damage caused by current and past emissions in the production, consumption and transportation of goods”, he added.

Friederike Roder from Global Citizen, an anti-poverty campaign group, agreed it is “not surprising” that the IMO and the shipping sector “are trying to retain the proceeds for themselves”. But, she said, the polluter pays principle should apply more broadly to at least part of the proceeds raised from a shipping emissions levy.

Aoife O’Leary, head of shipping-focused environmental think-tank Opportunity Green, also called for some of the money to be spent on protection from climate impacts, such as projects to help flood-hit communities in Bangladesh or build sea walls on Pacific islands.

In Somalia, Green Climate Fund tests new approach for left-out communities

A global finance summit in Paris last year, attended by about 50 heads of state, came to a similar conclusion and led to the launch of a taskforce by France and Kenya to explore “innovative sources” of climate finance ahead of the Cop30 climate summit in late 2025.

Danish climate minister Dan Jorgensen, meanwhile, has called a shipping tax “a potential global source” of “international climate finance”.  

At the IMO, a working group of government shipping negotiators has been formed to hammer out how to raise and spend the money, with a decision expected by this time next year.

The post Shipping sector pushes to keep emissions-tax cash for itself appeared first on Climate Home News.

But holding only countries accountable for the damage done to our planet lets other polluters, often much larger than some major economies, off the hook.

We have a unique opportunity to rethink the whole approach, and set an important precedent where a major emitting industry – for the first time ever – pays for its greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the global level.

This industry is international shipping, whose global climate regulator, the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO), is meeting on March 11-22 to negotiate on policies to achieve its climate commitments and cut GHG emissions from ships.

This includes putting a price on shipping emissions, which the IMO has agreed to adopt in 2025.

Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals 

A multi-billion dollar sector powered by cheap fossil fuels, shipping has reached the point of emitting more pollution than all but the top five emitting countries worldwide. This is roughly the same amount as Germany or Japan in a year, and yet it remains almost tax-free.

Last year, the IMO reached a historic agreement to cut emissions 30% by 2030 and 80% by 2040, in order to reach net-zero by mid-century. This was in great part due to the valiant efforts of the Pacific Island delegations, who have for years now led the push for the highest ambition possible at the IMO.

Even though these targets fall short of what climate scientists say is necessary to limit global temperature rise to the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal, it is in of itself the first deal of its kind. If achieved, it will help avoid over 10 billion tonnes of emissions cumulatively from now to 2050.

Polluters must pay their fair share

A growing number of governments and industry players back putting a price on international shipping emissions, so that polluters pay their fair share for the transition through a levy.

But the devil is in the details, and all eyes must be on the IMO, where the final decisions will be taken.

A well-designed levy will speed up the phase out of GHG emissions, help close the price gap between fossil and sustainable alternative fuels, and send a strong market signal to move towards zero emission solutions. But this must be done in a way that is just and equitable,  particularly for those in the developing countries most impacted by the climate crisis.

Dozens of oil & industry lobbyists attended secretive shipping emissions talks

Crucially, a good levy will also generate significant revenues – between $1 trillion to $3.7 trillion could be raised by 2050. As called for by the Pacific islands at IMO, and supported by analysis from the World Bank, these funds ought to be allocated first and foremost towards supporting climate-vulnerable countries.

These revenues are new and additional, and completely separate from developed countries’ climate finance commitments negotiated at the COP summits. This is of paramount importance – otherwise we would be shifting the historic responsibility for climate change from developed countries, and their commitments under the UN climate convention, to industry.

These are two completely distinct and independent sources of funding.

The push for an ambitious levy

There are several levy proposals the IMO can choose from. The most ambitious one – which could secure a just and equitable transition – is a levy put forward by Belize, Fiji, Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, Nauru, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu of $150/tonne of greenhouse emissions. A significant part of the revenues from this levy would go towards helping climate-vulnerable poorer countries fund shipping’s renewable energy transition, compensate for any rise in transport costs, and adapt to climate change.

The European Union has also recently reiterated its support for pricing GHG emissions, but is yet to support any specific proposal on the table. As the biggest negotiating bloc at the IMO, it is absolutely crucial that EU member states support a truly ambitious proposal, such as the one put forward by the Pacific Islands and Belize. Not doing so risks allowing momentum to grow around proposals that do not live up to the level of ambition we need at the IMO.

Other proposals currently on the table pose serious risks of incentivising the use of fossil fuels, such as LNG, and do not prioritise funds to support climate-vulnerable countries, which stand to lose the most from this transition without the right supportive measures in place.

We are at a crossroads – not just when it comes to shipping‘s climate action but also the way countries approach new and additional financial flows, and the March talks need to lead us in the right direction.

I urge governments not to miss this important opportunity, and make their voice heard at the IMO in support of an ambitious levy, such as the Pacific and Belize proposal, to get ships off fossil fuels and secure a globally just and equitable transition that leaves no country behind.

Ana Laranjeira is senior international shipping policy manager with Opportunity Green, an NGO working to unlock the opportunities from tackling climate change using law, economics, and policy. Since 2022, Opportunity Green has been working bilaterally with a number of ambitious climate-vulnerable IMO Member States towards building their capacity to actively participate in negotiations.

The post How to hold shipping financially accountable for its climate impacts appeared first on Climate Home News.

Climate Home identified ten oil and gas company lobbyists and over 50 employees of the shipping industry on the participant list of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) talks, which the media and public were barred from.

Shipping uses the dirtiest part of a barrel of oil to fuel its vessels and oil companies are likely to struggle to sell that part elsewhere if the industry moves to cleaner fuels based on green hydrogen.

Lack of transparency

Aoife O’Leary is the director of the Sasha Coalition and was among the 44-strong delegation of climate campaigners at the talks, which took place in London at the end of June.

Under record heatwave, US and China “unstick” climate talks

She said that the IMO, the UN’s shipping arm, “violates international standards on transparency in environmental decision making”.

“There are too few climate vulnerable countries participating in the room due to resource limitations while other delegations are overloaded with industry representatives,” said O’Leary.

The cost of attending several weeks of talks in London is too much for many poorer, smaller and more distant governments.

O’Leary said that there are “many interests looking not to fuels that can solve the climate crisis, but rather to expand their sales of fossil fuels by pushing gas as a ‘transition fuel’ for shipping”.

Rasmus Bjerring Larsen is a policy officer at Green Transition Denmark who was at the talks. He told Climate Home: “Industry involvement at the IMO is overwhelming, particularly from big oil and ship owners. Meanwhile civil society and especially media representation is marginal.”

Crunch talks

The week-long meeting, known as the inter-sessional working group, was the behind-closed-doors precursor to a more public week of government discussions about shipping’s climate strategy.

At stake were the questions of what net zero target to set for the industry and whether to set interim 2030 and 2040 targets and consider a tax on ships’ emissions. The shipping industry contributes 3% of global emissions – more than Japan.

Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals

At the end of the two weeks, governments agreed to target net zero “by or around, ie close to 2050” and cut emissions by 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040, compared to 2008 levels.

Lobbyists on the guestlist

Governments bring delegations to the meeting, usually made up of government staff but sometimes including corporate lobbyists or climate campaigners.

Several nations brought lobbyists from oil and gas companies based in their countries. Norway’s delegation included two advisers from Equinor, that of Canada had a regulatory affairs analyst from Irving Oil, and Indonesia brought someone from Pertamina.

The Swiss delegation featured no government employees. Its only representative was Claudio Abbate, the vice-president for government affairs of the Swiss-headquartered Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC), which is investing in ships powered by fossil gas.

EU and Argentina strike gas, hydrogen & renewables deal

MSC’s biggest competitors were also there. CMA CGM was a guest of the French government, Cosco of the Chinese delegation and Maersk – the most climate-ambitious container shipping company – was part of the Danish delegation.

A host of governments, including Japan, Greece and Germany, brought representatives of their domestic shipping industry trade associations.

The Cook Islands was represented by an Englishman called Ian Finley, who has worked for a trade association representing the chemical shipping industry.

Observer groups

Other industry representatives attended as observers. Shell lobbyist Alex Revans, ExxonMobil’s Christophe Pouts and Saudi Aramco scientist Hassan Alzain were part of the delegation from the oil industry’s environmental lobby group Ipieca.

At the meeting, Ipieca argued in a written submission that the term “lower [greenhouse gas] emissions energies” should be used instead of stricter terms such as “zero-emission fuels”.

Australia will update the ‘fantasy’ net zero plan it inherited

They added that carbon offsets from outside the shipping sector should be allowed to contribute to industry’s emissions targets.

As at previous shipping talks, Brazil’s delegation included lobbyists from Brazilian mining company Vale.

Brazil was the strongest opponent of a tax on shipping emissions, labelling it a “tax on distance”. Such a tax is likely to harm the competitiveness of Vale’s metal exports to distant markets like China.

Cruise lines were represented by their CLIA association, which included chief Carnival lobbyist Anna Ziou. While container shipping companies have widely varying levels of support for the clean transition, cruise shipping companies are more consistently resistant to green fuel.

Kerry rejects “climate reparations” but praises loss and damage fund

The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents the entire industry, brought an eight-strong delegation and trade associations representing smaller niches of the industry were represented too.

Opaque talks

These talks were closed to the media and to the public. The talks the following week were partly open to the media but were not live-streamed for the public to watch like the UN climate talks are.

Even where journalists are allowed into talks, they are not allowed to name individual government speakers without their permission – a restriction that does not govern other UN talks.

With corporate climate cheats on the chopping block, net zero is growing up

Tristan Smith attended the talks for the trade association IMarEST. He told Climate Home that “sometimes it can be hard to know how industry’s preference affects outcomes”.

But, he said that the “IMO’s processes need the expertise and direct input of industry stakeholders for the design of effective policy. It would be odd to try and operate without this.”

Larsen said that “technical knowledge from industry can be valuable” but “stricter conflict-of-interest safeguards and better representation of climate vulnerable countries, marginalized groups and media are key for the IMO to drive a fair and transparent process.”

He added: “It is crucial to set clear boundaries for when and how technical contributions from industry should be made use of, and when the floor should be reserved for state representatives and civil society.”

Reponding to O’Leary’s criticism, an IMO spokesperson said that a fund had been created to support delegates from developing countries, especially small islands and least developed countries, to attend meetings. They said the fund allowed 12 people to attend the talks, half of them from Pacific islands.

The spokesperson added that the IMO had trialled hybrid participation, allowing delegates to talk to the meeting room remotely.

Larsen’s comments were added on July 20

The post Dozens of oil & industry lobbyists attended secretive shipping emissions talks appeared first on Climate Home News.

As the chair of this week’s International Maritime Organisation talks asked negotiators to rise in applause, they signed off on targets to cut emissions 20% by 2030, 70% by 2040 and 100% “by or around, ie close to 2050”.

For an industry with the same volume of emissions as Germany, it’s much better than the status quo. Before today there were no 2030 and 2040 targets and a goal to just halve emissions by 2050.

But is it good enough? No one could argue it’s compatible with 1.5C but negotiators from the US and the Marshall Islands claimed it kept that temperature limit “within reach”. For Stretch Armstrong maybe.

And what about that much-hyped tax on shipping emissions? World leaders discussed it in Paris two weeks ago, Latin American nations railed against it on Monday but it barely got a mention today.

Governments quietly agreed to study it with a view to implementing it by 2027. But what level it will be set at and what it will be spent on are the next issues to be fought over.

Convincing shipping negotiators to spend it on anything other than cleaning up the sector and compensating for the measure’s economic impacts will be a tough sell.

So any wealthy nation hoping it will absolve them of the need to pay into a loss and damage fund are likely to be disappointed.

This week’s news:

• UAE’s al Jaber says Cop28 will fast-track phase down of fossil fuels
• Developing nations decry risk of UK breaking climate finance pledge
• Threat of EU carbon tax prompts dubious “green aluminium” claims in Mozambique

…from shipping talks

• Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals
• Governments set to fail to plot shipping industry course for 1.5C
• Shipping set to boost climate targets

…and comment

• The UK’s retreat from climate leadership is not in its national interest
• Identifying loss and damage is tough – we need a pragmatic but science-based approach

If you stand on the balcony of the IMO’s fourth-floor canteen, you can see across the Thames to the parliament in Westminster – with its Big Ben and riverside beer-drinking tents.

That’s where environment minister Zac Goldsmith drafted his resignation letter last Friday and where the fall-out from that has played out this week.

Goldsmith, who was close to former prime minister Boris Johnson, accused new prime minister Rishi Sunak of “apathy” on climate change, partying with Rupert Murdoch instead of discussing global financial reform with Mia Mottley and abandoning the UK’s flagship climate finance pledge.

The doubt cast on that pledge has worried developing countries. An African negotiator told us it was “disappointing” while Senegal’s Madeleine Diouf Sarr said it echoed the failed $100 billion pledge.

Former Cop26 speechwriter Alex Urwin writes that it’s not just bad for the developing world but for the UK too.

This article originally stated in the first sentence that Bhutan set the world’s first net zero target in 2015. This was based on a claim by the World Resources Institute. But a 2015 study says that New Zealand was the first country to set a carbon neutral target in 2007.

The post Shipping catches up – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

After two weeks of negotiations which Kiribati’s negotiator described as “challenging and distressing” for everyone, negotiators at the headquarters of the United Nations shipping arm rose to applaud the agreement of the shipping industry’s new climate strategy today.

At the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), they agreed that the sector will aim to cut emissions 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and reach net zero “by or around, ie close to 2050”.

The targets are less ambitious than those that international bodies including the Science Based Targets initiative (SBTi) consider compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

While not legally binding, the agreement sends a signal to the industry on the direction of travel. Future work is planned to set out concrete measures that aim to reduce emissions, for example by introducing more climate-friendly fuel standards.

In the final evening of the talks, the Pacific island nations managed to include provisions for the sector to "striv[e]" for a 30% reduction by 2030 and an 80% cut by 2040. It was a last-minute victory that allowed them to claim that the global temperature limit of 1.5C was kept "in reach".

Despite resistance, the meeting agreed to look into a tax on shipping emissions - although how much the tax should be and how the money should be spent will be fought over at future meetings.

Chasm bridged

The meeting was marked by divisions between Pacific islands and developed countries that wanted more ambition and big emerging economies, especially in South America, that expressed concern about making shipping more expensive and damaging global trade and their economies.

In final comments, after the deal was agreed, Tuvalu's negotiator said he was “very disappointed with a strategy which falls short of what we needed".

The Marshall Islands negotiator said he had "mixed feelings" and there was "much work to do to make sure 1.5 remains not just within reach but a reality”.

Constructive talks

On the other hand, India's negotiator said he remained concerned about "unrealistic targets” while the USA said the targets were "ambitious but also feasible”.

Governments on both sides of the debate repeatedly praised the constructive nature of talks. Brazil thanked "friends in the Pacific islands", while Tuvalu gave "thanks to Latin America and developing countries of the global south for the spirit of compromise”.

Threat of EU carbon tax prompts dubious “green aluminium” claims in Mozambique

But Vanuatu's negotiator complained that small groups of states had hashed out deals in closed rooms.

As it was his first IMO meeting, he said "it strikes me that there needs to be better transparency and open decision-making".

https://twitter.com/RRegenvanu/status/1677012808632786953

The IMO rules ban journalists from reporting negotiators' names without their permission.

Playing catch up

As they transport goods around the world, ships burn huge amounts of polluting fuel. This contributes around 3% of the world's total emissions, more than major nations like Germany.

But, like plane travel, international shipping is not included in countries' climate plans, so they gather at the United Nations shipping arm, the IMO, in London to set the rules.

UAE’s al Jaber says Cop28 will fast-track phase down of fossil fuels

Most big emitters already have net zero targets and the body governing international plane travel set an "aspirational" net zero by 2050 goal last year.

But, before negotiators gathered in London, the shipping sector only had a target, set in 2018, to cut emissions in half on 2008 levels by 2050. The sector had no targets for 2030 or 2040.

Road to net zero

Since that target was set in 2018, momentum has grown towards setting a net zero goal. Big developing countries like Nigeria, Chile and Vietnam had joined developed countries and climate vulnerable Pacific islands in calling for such an outcome.

After a week of behind closed door talks in London, the chair produced a draft agreement this Monday which included a goal to reach net zero "by 2050 at the latest" or "by or around 2050".

In an open meeting on Monday, the “2050 at the latest” goal was supported mainly by Pacific islands and developed countries.

On the other hand, several big developing countries like China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia called for the weaker “around 2050”.

Saudi Arabia’s representative called for a “flexible and adaptable approach” while China’s said that shipping enabled economic growth which gave the world more money to spend battling climate change.

Delegates attending the opening session of the IMO meeting in London. Photo: International Maritime Organization

After two days of talks in a large IMO meeting room that was closed to the press, the chair produced a new draft which compromised on "by or around, ie close to 2050".

The US negotiator said this was a "clear signal to all stakeholders that we need to take decisive action".

As ships usually last for decades, some being built now will still be in use around 2050.

Indicative checkpoints

As the prospect of a 2050 net zero goal increased over the last few years, campaigners and some governments turned their focus to more immediate targets.

The industry's emissions are currently rising and are predicted to keep doing so until 2050, unless shipping changes.

Pacific islands, the US and the UK went to London calling for cuts of 36% by 2030 and 96% by 2040, which stem from what the SBTi judged compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

Six main proposals for new shipping GHG targets on deck @IMOHQ this week... China leading charge against as apparently tougher targets in line with 1.5C would undermine UN #climate talks. Work that one out. pic.twitter.com/2D7fcCbLyd

— Ed King (@edking_I) July 2, 2023

The European Union called for slightly less ambitious figures of 29% and 83% while sources involved in last week’s closed talks, said some countries like China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia didn’t want 2030 or 2040 targets at all.

China’s negotiator argued in open talks on Monday that the targets should be “practical, reasonable and feasible” and their impact should be assessed. He described trade and development, as well as climate, as “existential” issues.

Developing nations decry risk of UK breaking climate finance pledge

A draft strategy on Monday included targets of 20% and 70% and, despite a lobbying campaign from Pacific islands, these remained unchanged throughout the week's talks.

But Pacific islands did win a last-minute improvement in an additional goal on what to "striv[e]" for. Monday and Thursday's draft strategies included goals of 25% by 2030 and 75% by 2040.

Quoting Confucius

After talks on Thursday evening though, these were upped to 30% and 80% respectively. The Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda told journalists "these higher targets are the result of relentless, unceasing lobbying by ambitious Pacific islands, against the odds."

After the deal was struck, Malaysia’s negotiator quoted the Chinese philosopher Confucius: “It does not matter how slowly you go, as long as you don’t stop”.

But Vanuatu’s negotiator expressed more urgency. He said that, as the smashing of global temperature records recently showed, “none of us have time”.

The post Pacific “mixed feelings” after compromise on shipping’s climate goals appeared first on Climate Home News.

With just over a day of negotiations left at the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO), the latest draft strategy does not significantly improve on targets that were branded “not ambitious enough” and “devastating” when they were first proposed on Monday.

Vanuatu’s climate minister Ralph Regenvanu told Climate Home at the time that he and counterparts from other Pacific island nations were “going to fight” to improve targets to reduce emissions on 2008 levels by 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040.

“That’s what we’re here for, we’re here to lobby”, he said, hours after the talks’ chair drew up the roadmap after listening to governments debate the strategy behind-closed-doors the week before.

No improvement

But a new draft strategy was released this morning which did not substantially improve on those goals. The only increase in ambition was that additional targets to “striv[e]” for 25% by 2030 and 75% by 2040 were made a more definite part of the draft strategy.

The document has yet to be made public so negotiators and campaigners have not commented. But the 2030 and 2040 targets were slammed on Monday with Australia’s negotiator labelling them “not ambitious enough”.

Shipping contributes to around 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Identifying loss and damage is tough – we need a pragmatic but science-based approach

The Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda told journalists that “the science already told us” that “anything less than 36% by 2030 and 96% by 2040 will be detrimental” to limiting global warming to 1.5C and that will “have a devastating impact”.

The targets Ishoda called for have also been supported by the USA and UK and stem from what the Science-Based Targets Initiative judged compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C.

Six main proposals for new shipping GHG targets on deck @IMOHQ this week… China leading charge against as apparently tougher targets in line with 1.5C would undermine UN #climate talks. Work that one out. pic.twitter.com/2D7fcCbLyd

— Ed King (@edking_I) July 2, 2023

The European Union called for slightly less ambitious figures of 29% and 83% while sources involved in last week’s closed talks, said some countries like China, South Africa and Saudi Arabia didn’t want 2030 or 2040 targets at all.

China’s negotiator argued in open talks on Monday that the targets should be “practical, reasonable and feasible” and their impact should be assessed. He described trade and development, as well as climate, as “existential” issues.

Close to 2050

A debate over whether to target net zero “by” or “by or around” 2050 is set to be resolved with a compromise leaning more towards the weaker option. The new draft proposes targeting net zero “by or around, ie close to 2050, taking into account different national circumstances”.

In their speeches to the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) talks this week, the “2050 at the latest” goal was supported mainly by Pacific islands and developed countries.

Developing nations decry risk of UK breaking climate finance pledge

The UK’s negotiator said 2050 should be “the absolute latest” and that the targets should be “in terms that can not be misunderstood”.

On the other hand, several big developing countries like China, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia called for the weaker “around 2050” target and the inclusion of language about “different national circumstances”.

The draft deal contains a target to get “zero or near-zero” fuel sources to represent at least 5% of the energy used by international shipping by 2030, while pledging to “striv[e]” for 10%.

Shipping is currently powered almost completely by fossil fuels. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), “low-carbon fuels” represent near to 0% of shipping fuel.

A controversial proposal to put a tax on ships’ emissions is included in the draft document, although that would just mean it is considered in the coming years.

Not a done deal

Although the document is understood to have been agreed by major economies like the US, EU and China, it is not a done deal yet.

Any country can call for a vote on any aspect of the agreement and change it with the support of more than half of the nations.

In the IMO, governments are often unwilling to do this. But Vanuatu’s Regenvanu said on Monday that he and others would think about calling a vote if a “minority group of countries” were going to stop a “high ambition outcome” against the will of an “overwhelming majority, and I mean like two-thirds”.

The document will be debated in talks, which are closed to the media, on Thursday afternoon.  It will then be discussed publicly by governments on Friday when talks are set to end.

The post Governments set to fail to plot shipping industry course for 1.5C appeared first on Climate Home News.

After years as a low-profile proposal made by tiny Pacific nations in obscure shipping talks, the idea hit the big-time last week as French president Emmanuel Macron and US treasury secretary Janet Yellen discussed it in front of the world’s press.

But, speaking to Climate Home in the lobby of the International Maritime Organisation’s (IMO) London headquarters this week, one of the tax’s key proponents had a message for the likes of Macron and Yellen.

“This money is not to fill in the gap where you failed,” said Marshall Islands shipping talk negotiator Albon Ishoda, a sentiment with support across the developing world.

The $60-80 billion a year should be spent on cleaning up shipping and dealing with any negative economic effects of the tax, he said.

But fear of those negative effects is causing resistance to the proposal.

Levy opposition

At the IMO this week, Brazil led a Latin American rebellion against the measure. The continent is concerned that any rise in shipping costs will affect its exports, much of which are cheap, heavy things like soybeans which are shipped to faraway places like China.

And while Europe backs the measure, other wealthy nations like the US and UK are sitting on the fence.

Negotiators at the IMO will decide next week whether to put the levy on a list of measures to deal with climate change. Talks on how much it should be and what it should be spent on would come later.

Other issues include what 2050 emissions reduction goal to set and whether to have 2030 and 2040 goals.

This week’s news:

• EU set to propose mass exit from Energy Charter Treaty
• Spain proposes improved 2030 climate target as it awaits Supreme Court ruling
• Norway approves oil and gas fields despite Cop fossil phase-out push
• UK off course for net zero, its advisers say
• US ‘still on the fence’ as nations debate global shipping emission tax
• Public banks agree to check investments against countries’ climate plans

…and analysis

•  What does “unabated” fossil fuels mean?

…and comment

• Morocco’s centuries-old irrigation system under threat from climate change
• Senegal shows African countries are not passive beneficiaries of climate finance
• Unfinished paperwork is kneecapping solar’s potential in China
• Dreaming big on climate action means finding the money to pay for it

The post Shipping tax hits stormy waters – Climate Weekly appeared first on Climate Home News.

The media is not allowed to watch the talks, hosted by the United Nation’s shipping arm in London, but six sources in the room said Latin American countries were most vocal against the measure.

A Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson told Climate Home they opposed the levy, claiming it would distort trade, could push up the price of food and harm developing countries.

Germany-sized emissions

Global shipping produces about 3% of the world’s emissions, a similar amount to Germany, and the emissions from burning its fuel are currently only untaxed.

Pacific nations like the Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands, which are extremely vulnerable to climate change, have led the push for nations to agree to a tax, also known as a levy, on emissions.

Senegal shows African countries are not passive beneficiaries of climate finance

They want that price to start at $100 per tonne of greenhouse gas produced from burning ships’ fuel, which they say would raise $60-80bn a year. This amount would decline as shipping cleans up.

With journalists banned from the venue, the Marshall Islands lead shipping talks negotiator Albon Ishoda, spoke to Climate Home in the lobby of the International Maritime Organisation.

He said that shipping has a “dirty past” and has “a responsibility, as the servant of global trade to transition and to ensure a 1.5C future”.

Governments now have until July 7 to decide whether to tax emissions from the shipping sector, which are not included in the UN climate change talks.

Discomfort

Ishoda from the Marshall Islands said that a levy causes “discomfort” among many states. There has been a lot of “misinformation guided by disinformation” and developing countries think a levy will hurt them disproportionately more, he said.

“Fair enough, we’re not saying a levy will be great all round”, he said, but the $60-80 billion a year their proposal will raise could be used to decarbonise shipping and to address any negative economic effects.

Spain proposes improved 2030 climate target as it awaits Supreme Court ruling

As the talks are secret, Ishoda would not disclose who opposed the tax.

But six sources present told Climate Home that Brazil had led the resistance, joined by Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Guatemala, Ecuador, China and South Africa

At a summit in Paris last week, none of these countries signed a statement in support of the levy. 

On the other side, sources said, several European nations and Vietnam spoke in support of a levy while the US, UK, India and others neither supported nor opposed it.

“Unpredictable consequences”

A spokesperson for Brazil’s foreign ministry told Climate Home by email that they oppose a levy as it “would pose greater risks than other measures, especially for developing countries”.

They said a University of Sao Paulo study had shown that developing countries that export low value-added products to far away places are “likely to be negatively affected” by the measure.

Brazil’s main exports are iron ore, soybeans, crude petroleum and sugar. The countries which take the most of its exports are China and the USA.

The study suggests that a levy would decrease exports across the world, boost some economies mainly in developed countries and harm others mainly in developing countries, particularly in Africa.

Impacts on GDP in % – red is a hit of more than 1% while blue is a gain (Photo credit: Pereda et al)

The Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson continued to say that the levy “could have unpredictable consequences” like changes to contracts and the substitution of agricultural crops and could increase food prices “with harmful effects for the poorest populations”.

Supporters of the $100 a tonne levy point out that the price of shipping fuel swings drastically over time. Over the last few years, it has varied from $200 a tonne to $600 a tonne, largely depending on the price of oil.

While Ishoda said the levy’s revenues could compensate for any negative effects, the Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson said that this money was a problem too.

They said that governments could come to rely on these revenues and then have to find substitute sources of income as the shipping sector decarbonises and the money stops coming in.

Not a climate finance fix

Over the last year, the idea of a tax on shipping emissions has shot from obscurity onto the agenda of some of the world’s most powerful people.

Hosting a summit in Paris of nearly 40 heads of state last week, French president Emmanuel Macron said he was “in favor of an international taxation” to finance climate action and later mentioned a tax on maritime transport as an option. US treasury sectretary Janet Yellen said at the summit that it was “something the United States will look at”.

Norway approves oil and gas fields despite Cop fossil phase-out push

Ishoda said he was at the Paris summit too. But “my message was simply to inform them – this money is not to fill in the gap where you failed”, he said.

The Brazilian foreign ministry spokesperson said they were also concerned  that the levy “may have the effect of partly releasing developed countries of their [climate finance] commitments”.

The levy “introduces a debate on climate financing that should not be undertook at the IMO”, the spokesperson added.

Rich nations have failed to provide the developing world with the level of climate finance they promised, a failure large developing countries often hold up as a reason they can’t cut emissions faster.

Over this week and next, governments will decide whether to include a levy on shipping emissions in their list of potential measures to reduce shipping’s emissions.

The level of the levy and what the money will be user for will be decided at future meetings.

This article was updated on 30 June 2023 to include the Brazilian foreign ministry’s comments, to add China to the list of countries opposing the tax and to correct the proposal from $100 a tonne of fuel to $100 a tonne of greenhouse gas (carbon dioxide equivalent) produced by burning the fuel. 

The post Latin America leads resistance to global shipping emission tax appeared first on Climate Home News.

When asked about the tax during a press conference in Paris on Friday, US treasury secretary Janet Yellen said it was a “very constructive suggestion” and “something the United States will look at”.

But the US was not among the 22 countries who put their names to a statement backing the idea at the Paris summit.

A State Department spokesperson told Climate Home by email that “the United States has supported a greenhouse gas fuel standard, although an economic measure such as a maritime emissions pricing mechanism could complement this standard.”

They added: “The United States is open to consideration of a maritime pricing mechanism, although it would be necessary to work through a number of important design and policy issues that would not be resolved this year.”

Pacific push

A group of Pacific islands and others have been pushing for a levy for several years at the UN shipping agency, known as the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Public banks agree to check investments against countries’ climate plans

Over the next two weeks, government negotiators are meeting at the IMO’s London headquarters to decide whether to include a levy on shipping emissions in their list of measures to respond to climate change.

Most of the world’s products are moved abroad by ship, often using very polluting bunker fuels. The sector is responsible for around 3% of the world’s emissions, roughly the same as Germany.

The group of nations signing up to support a levy in Paris includes the European Union, several small island states, Vietnam, Kenya and major shipbuilder South Korea. More countries have indicated support in the IMO but were not at the meeting in Paris.

The US government has not explained its stance, either in public or at the behind-closed-door IMO talks this week. The State Department did not reply to Climate Home’s request for comment.

Unfinished paperwork is kneecapping solar’s potential in China

One delegate to the IMO talks, from a nation that supports the levy, told Climate Home the US was “still on the fence”.

Political reasons

E3G analyst Ronan Palmer said the US was not opposed to a tax but, with presidential elections next November, it “is just not going to move for it’s own political reasons”.

“If Biden gets up and says we need this tax for climate, imagine what [leading Republican presidential candidate Ron] De Santis is going to say,” Palmer said.

Aoife O’Leary, head of the shipping think tank Opportunity Green, said US concerns that a tax would have to be put to Congress were unfounded. The US’s domestic law to prevent pollution from ships, signed in 1980, allows amendments to the international convention which governs shipping emissions without approval from Congress, she said.

World Bank to suspend debt repayments for disaster-hit countries

As a major polluter, O’Leary added, “the US has a large moral responsibility to support this levy”.

Delaine McCullough, shipping lead at US-based campaign group Ocean Conservancy, said she thought the US would only support a levy if it was combined with a fuel standard, which tells shipping companies they have to make their fuel cleaner each year.

She said her understanding was that the US government felt that shipping companies would just pay the levy and not change to cleaner ways of operating.

But a levy high enough to change their behaviour would be difficult to get agreement on for “political” reasons, she said.

Rich nations pledge $2.7 billion for Senegal’s renewable rollout

Different options

Last year, governments agreed that they would put a price on shipping emissions. But they have not agreed what form this would take or how much should be paid.

Alternatives to a levy include a system where emissions are capped and anything above that cap is traded or a reward system for reducing emissions.

A group of Pacific islands are calling for a levy with a carbon price of $100 a tonne on bunker fuels, while the world’s biggest container shipping company Maersk has called for a $150 a tonne levy.

But the shipping industry’s trade association has previously supported a levy of just $2 a tonne of fuel to fund research and development of clean shipping technology.

Some nations, particularly in the developing world, are calling for the money to be spent not just on cleaning up the industry but on other climate projects.

This article was updated on 30 June to include the State Department’s comment

The post US ‘still on the fence’ as nations debate global shipping emission tax appeared first on Climate Home News.

According to four sources in the room, the UAE was one of around a dozen countries which argued against more ambitious climate targets at the International Maritime Organisation (IMO) last week.

Their representative to the IMO Mohamed Khamis Saeed AlKaabi joined nations like China, India and Brazil in opposing a 2050 zero emissions target and pushing for the target to be to “aim for net zero, preferably by mid-century, and to phase-out emissions before the end of the century”. He also opposed setting interim targets for 2030 and 2040.

A spokesperson for the UAE’s Cop28 presidency told Climate Home that IMO negotiations were outside of their scope but “the Cop28 UAE presidency sees a substantial and important role for industries, including shipping, to deliver action to keep 1.5 alive”.

In a seeming rebuke to their negotiator’s oppostion to a 2030 target, the spokesperson added that the Cop28 presidency echoes the IPCC scientists’ finding that carbon emissions must fall 43% between 2019 and 2030.

A big emitter

The ships that carry goods and people around the world burn large amounts of dirty fuel. The industry is responsible for 3% of global emissions. If it was a nation, it would be the fifth most polluting in the world, ahead of Japan.

Like international air travel, international shipping is not mentioned in the Paris Agreement and is not covered by most countries’ climate plans.

Greens stop blocking Australia’s new fossil fuel projects

A broad group of countries, led by climate vulnerable Pacific nations, has called for the industry to set a zero emissions by 2050 target at its next marine environment protection committee meeting in July.

But a group, mainly made up of big emerging economies opposed this at the last meeting in December, arguing that clean fuels are technologically unproven and are likely to cost more and those costs will be passed on to consumers.

Leading the opposition

Last week, intersessional talks were held at the headquarters of the IMO, the UN’s shipping arm, on the banks of the river Thames in London. Journalists were unable to watch proceedings but campaigners and other observers were allowed in the room.

John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, was among them. He said the UAE repeatedly emphasised the “end of the century” part of their proposed net zero target. “It was ‘their baby'”, he said, “they took the floor early on to state this and when the languaage disappeared form the draft they took the floor to support it going back in.”

Mexico launches global push for geoengineering restrictions

Three other observers said the UAE was among the group opposing zero emissions by 2050 and pushing for a weaker target. One was Faig Abbasov, shipping lead at the Transport and Environment NGO, who added that the UAE also opposed adding new 2030 and 2040 targets.

Abbasov said the UAE’s stance was “baffling given the country hosts Cop28 later this year”. He added: “If the UAE does not align itself with this goal, including for shipping, then COP28 risks being an official “climate oilwashing” event.”

Aoife O’Leary, CEO of Opportunity Green, also watched proceedings. She told Climate Home: “It is alarming to witness the upcoming Cop President, UAE, being one of the leading voices for lower ambition at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) meetings”.

Governments battle over carbon removal and renewables in IPCC report

UAE command respect

Another observer, who did not want to be named, said that, while the UAE has “excellent potential” to bring climate leadership into the IMO, “there were no signs of that at [the intersessional talks last week], instead they were working against those calling for progress.”

O’Leary and the Clean Shipping Coalition both compiled lists of which countries opposed the net zero by 2050 target. Since there was no voting, they judged on comments and formal submissions, so the lists differ slightly. But both feature China, India, Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa.

The Clean Shipping Coalition’s list of countries which voiced support for zero emissions by 2050 last week includes several Pacific island nations, most European governments, the US, Canada, Mexico, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, Japan and the Bahamas. Most also voiced support for 2030 and 2040 targets.

The post Cop28 host UAE tried to weaken global shipping’s climate ambition appeared first on Climate Home News.

Nigeria, Chile and Vietnam were among the countries calling for a net zero or zero carbon goal at the International Maritime Organization’s environmental committee meeting.

Campaign group Seas at Risk said there is now a clear majority in favour, which gives a good chance of getting the target agreed at the next meeting in June 2023.

Shipping is responsible for around 3% of global emissions. This share is expected to grow under the industry’s target to halve emissions from 2008 levels by 2050, as sectors like electricity generation clean up faster.

Like international air travel, international shipping is not mentioned in the Paris Agreement and is not covered by most countries’ climate plans.

Dwindling opposition

According to the Seas at Risk campaign, 32 countries spoke in favour of net zero or zero-carbon and 10 spoke against. The group said in a statement this represents a “dwindling opposition” as,  at the last meeting in May 2022, 24 countries were opposed.

Developed countries like the USA and most of Europe supported zero carbon. So did several island nations that are threatened by sea level rise like the Maldives and Marshall Islands.

Marshall Islands negotiator Albon Ishoda said: “We are the world’s most climate vulnerable state and we are calling for a 1.5[C]-aligned policy. We are among the many, many that will be sacrificed as collateral damage in this emergency which we have neither asked for or caused.”

He added that an 80% reduction by 2040 and zero emissions by 2050 were “the limits science is telling us are the minimum needed to keep a 1.5 agenda on the timetable. All the science and the progressive industry are telling us this is technically achievable and feasible.”

Cop15 global nature deal passes despite DR Congo’s objection

Large emerging economies like China, Argentina and the United Arab Emirates warned against adopting the target.

South Africa’s negotiator, who cannot be named without prior consent under IMO rules, said it could increase shipping costs and distort trade, particularly for developing countries. These costs would likely be passed on to consumers, they said.

India’s negotiator highlighted uncertainty around what green fuels will replace fossil fuels in ships. “We should not get carried away with mere global calls without any scientific evidence to back it or actionable solutions to achieve it,” their representative said.

Brazil’s negotiator told the IMO meeting room that “setting a very ambitious goal is not analogous to achieving it” and “such levels of ambition seem technically fragile and politically risky”.

Higher costs

A report commissioned by the UK government found that switching to cleaner fuel will increase costs, especially in the short term. By 2050, costs will be about a third higher. The report says that  this increase is no higher than those caused by fluctuations in the price of fossil fuels.

The energy-related cost of shipping per unit of transport supply if all the carbon costs are reinvested in the industry and shipping goes to near zero emissions by 2050 (Photo: Umas/E4tech/Screenshot)

One of the report’s authors is Tristan Smith from University College London. He told Climate Home that the cost increase means there’s “a good case for some support for developing countries and especially small island developing states and least developed countries during the transition”.

An October 2021 report by McKinsey found that meeting a target was technically possible but which clean fuel to use was not clear. Any low-carbon fuel, like hydrogen or ammonia, is likely to raise costs for shipowners. “With low prices and already established supply chains, fossil fuels are tough competitors to beat,” it found.

Compromise zone

One delegate, who did not want to be named, told Climate Home the holdouts were looking for concessions that could include exemptions or discounts from carbon prices for ships calling at their ports. Finance to upgrade ports or a priority share of carbon market revenues are other options to sweeten the deal.

Destruction of Brazil’s Cerrado savanna soars for third year in a row

At the IMO, the chair tries to reach consensus. If he’s unable to then countries vote and the position with the most votes wins.

The 2050 target could be to emit zero greenhouse gases or to emit net zero greenhouse gases. Net zero means that gases could be emitted but would have to be made up for by carbon offsets. Most countries preferred absolute zero.

Other topics for debate at June’s environmental committee meeting include interim targets for 2030 and 2040, and whether and how to impose a carbon price on ship emissions.

This article was amended on 20 December to more accurately reflect the method of voting in the IMO

The post Momentum grows towards 2050 zero carbon shipping target appeared first on Climate Home News.

At the International Maritime Organization (IMO) last week, countries broke a deadlock on mid-term measures to decarbonise the industry.

The meeting concluded that there was consensus to price shipping emissions “as part of a basket of mid-term measures,” according to a summary by the University Maritime Advisory Services (UMAS), which is partnered with University College London’s (UCL) Energy Institute. There was general support for adopting a “well-to-wake” approach and pricing emissions from fuel production to consumption onboard a ship, UMAS said.

“[Pricing shipping emissions] is not a new concept to the IMO, but previous attempts to progress it have failed. It is therefore a huge step forward that there is now consensus on this,” said Tristan Smith, director of UMAS. 

Market-based, decarbonisation measures on the table include technical ones, like introducing a fuel standard, as well as economical ones, like setting a global carbon tax for the industry. They will be discussed at a meeting of the IMO’s environment committee (MEPC) next month.

“Pricing needs to be complemented with a mandatory measure like a fuel standard, but there is now a much improved potential for strong IMO incentivisation of shipping’s decarbonisation,” Smith said.

Responsible for nearly 3% of global emissions, ships emit around one billion tonnes of CO2 every year. Without further action, shipping emissions are projected to reach 90-130% of their 2008 levels by 2050.

Extinction Rebellion inspires Shell safety consultant to jump ship 

Major emerging economies have heavily resisted carbon tax proposals in the past. A proposal put forward by Pacific Island nations for a carbon price of $100 per tonne on bunker fuels previously got tepid support from EU nations and the US.

But at the working group meeting last week, all EU countries and the US spoke in favour of carbon pricing, with the UK, New Zealand and the Bahamas backing the measure for the first time. 

“There can finally be no doubt we will put a carbon price on shipping,” Aoife O’Leary, a long-time IMO observer and head of Opportunity Green, a non-profit focusing on international climate issues, told Climate Home News.

The price must be high enough to transition to zero-emission fuels quickly, as well as offering a mechanism to support developing countries, O’Leary said. Countries must move to next month’s MEPC with “ambition, equity and urgency,” she said.

“The IMO meeting last week is a major breakthrough,” said Diane Gilpin, CEO of the Smart Green Shipping Alliance, which develops tech solutions to help the industry decarbonise. “Obviously there’s a lot more detail to agree but in our experience ship owners are moving to the shadow of the whip.”

Rich countries seek coal-to-clean energy deals with Indonesia and Vietnam

The Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands have proposed a carbon price of $100 a tonne on bunker fuels, while the world’s biggest container shipping company Maersk has called for a $150/t levy to encourage the industry to switch to greener fuels.

But the shipping industry’s trade association has previously supported a levy of just $2 a tonne of fuel to fund research and development of clean shipping technology. That translates to a carbon price of $0.64/t.

Progress at the IMO came as the European Parliament approved its Fit For 55 package, which includes incorporating shipping in the bloc’s emissions trading scheme (ETS).

This means that all ships transporting goods to and from EU, regardless of the flag they fly, will be taxed on their emissions. As of 2024, ships will have to buy carbon allowances to cover all emissions during voyages in the EU and half of those generated by international voyages that start or finish at an EU port. Three quarters of the revenues generated from the auctioning of allowances will be put into an Ocean Fund to support the industry’s decarbonisation efforts.

“We need ambitious action at every level if we are to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement,” said O’Leary. 

“The IMO has only given provisional agreement to a carbon price, which hopefully will move ambitiously forward but it is definitely not at the stage where it could be said that it will achieve a reduction in shipping emissions in line with 1.5C on its own,” she said.

The post UN body makes ‘breakthrough’ on carbon price proposal for shipping appeared first on Climate Home News.

When burned, heavy fuel oil emits black carbon – sooty particles that absorb sunlight and trap heat in the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. It is a particular problem in the Arctic, where it darkens the ice so it reflects less light back into space. Between 2015 and 2019, black carbon emissions from ships increased by 85% in the Arctic, according to the Clean Arctic Alliance.

Campaigners welcomed the move, which they said could significantly cut pollution, but noted it was a voluntary measure and relied on governments to introduce supportive policies.

“If all shipping currently using heavy fuel oils while in the Arctic were to switch to distillate fuel, there would be an immediate reduction of around 44% in black carbon emissions from these ships,” said Sian Prior, from the Clean Arctic Alliance. 

“If particulate filters were installed on board these vessels, black carbon emissions could be reduced by over 90%”, she added.

“It is questionable how many private companies will act as a result,” John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, told Climate Home News.

Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Russia resisted binding action on black carbon, according to Maggs. “There is likely to be ongoing hostility towards and blocking of the much needed mandatory measures at IMO, but now individual states have been given a green light to take action themselves,” he said. 

Kenyan forest communities sidelined as government misses two billion tree target

Despite mounting pressure during Cop26, little headway was made on decarbonising the shipping industry – which emits around one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. The agreed IMO target is to halve that by 2050 – and without further action, shipping emissions are projected to reach 90-130% of their 2008 levels.

Countries considered strengthening a global climate goal to reduce shipping emissions, but deferred a decision until 2023, when the IMO is set to review its long-term strategy.

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

While countries including the UK, US and Panama – which has the biggest flag registry – backed the Pacific resolution, major emerging economies including India and South Africa objected on equity grounds. They said rich countries should act first and provide finance to help them transition to cleaner fuels.

Despite the pushback, campaigners said the parameters of ambition were shifting. Several years ago, there was strong resistance to setting an absolute emissions goal for industry. At last week’s meeting, the debate centred on whether the target should be zero or net zero emissions. 

Morocco accused of “greenwashing occupation” of Western Sahara 

“Most of those who spoke were talking about absolute zero by 2050 and not net zero with ‘get out of jail free’ offsets,” said Maggs. 

India, the UAE, Bahamas and Liberia were among the countries wanting to leave the door open to carbon offsets.

“It’s important that the IMO moves forward, focused on real in-sector emission reductions and not think it can instead use accountants to spirit away its climate impact,” said Maggs.

The post UN shipping body agrees voluntary measures to cut black carbon in the Arctic appeared first on Climate Home News.

That was the upshot of talks in the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) environment committee on Monday and Tuesday.

There was no consensus behind a specific proposal by three Pacific island nations – the Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands and Kiribati – to make international shipping emissions-free by 2050.

While countries including the UK, US, Canada, Japan and Panama, which has the world’s largest flag registry, backed the resolution, major emerging economies including India, China, South Africa and Turkey, objected on equity grounds. They said the strategy needed to reflect differentiated responsibilities for climate change and deliver finance to help them decarbonise, with targets based on scientific data.

There were signs of broader support in principle for setting a zero, or net zero, target for the sector, which is responsible for nearly 3% of global emissions. This was influenced by the latest science and pressure emerging from this month’s Cop26 climate summit to do more.

“We have a clear majority for zero by 2050,” said Aoife O’Leary, a long-time observer of IMO negotiations and head of Opportunity Green, a non-profit focusing on international climate issues, including shipping. “I’m pleasantly surprised that the Cop26 momentum is holding, although it could be better and stronger.”

Comment: After Cop26, countries must turn climate promises into action on global shipping

Ships emit around one billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent every year. Without further action, shipping emissions are projected to reach 90-130% of their 2008 levels by 2050.

The IMO has a target of reducing international shipping’s emissions by at least 50% by 2050, compared to 2008 levels, which campaigners say is woefully inadequate and far from what is needed to limit global heating to 1.5C.

In the run-up to Cop26, UN chief Antonio Guterres singled out the shipping and aviation sectors for failing to set global targets consistent with meeting the 1.5C goal and called for shipping to be zero emissions by 2050.  “[These sectors’ targets] are more consistent with warming way above 3 degrees,” he said. 

At the summit in Glasgow, 14 nations, including the US, UK and several European countries, endorsed a declaration calling for zero emission shipping by 2050.

However some EU countries that signed the Cop declaration did not support the Pacific islands’ proposal, describing it as “waste of time”. They said efforts should instead be directed towards defining clear short-term targets and mandatory measures to implement these.

Nigeria commits to annual carbon budgets to reach net zero under climate law

“We believe it is not only important to highlight the need for an ambitious target for 2050 but also for absolute emission targets for 2030 and 2040,” one of Germany’s delegates at the IMO told Climate Home News.

“We are in favour of the adoption of a dedicated work plan for the revision of the initial strategy which includes [absolute 2030 and 2040] targets,” said the German delegate. Delegates for Spain and France told Climate Home that they opposed the resolution on similar grounds.

The IMO has a goal of reducing the sector’s carbon intensity – rather than its absolute emissions – by 40% by 2030, on 2008 levels. This translates to just a 2% reduction each year, whereas a 6–7% annual reduction is needed to be compatible with 1.5C, according to analysis by the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT).

While supportive of short term action, campaigners said a review of long term ambition could not wait until 2023.

“That’s two years lost during which a clearly stated new higher level of IMO ambition could have been influencing the development of appropriate new measures to cut shipping’s climate impact,”  John Maggs, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition, told Climate Home News. 

“In those two years the industry will have emitted around 20% of its total 1.5C carbon budget,” he said. 

Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up for free to get our weekly newsletter and occasional extra bulletins

The main barrier to action is the belief that the transition can take place in the 2030s, said Maggs. “It has to happen in the 2020s. Shifting to zero by 2050 will help with this but only make a big difference if the logic of 1.5 degrees is translated into an ambitious 2030 target.”

“At the moment there are too many shipowners passing the buck and waiting for alternative fuels,” he said.

There was debate over whether a target should be for net zero or absolute zero emissions. India, the UAE, Bahamas and Liberia were among countries wanting to leave the door open to carbon offsets.

“The language regarding increased ambition and getting to zero by 2050 is very muddled at this point and, so far, has no teeth. There are references to net zero and carbon neutrality which are worrying, but currently countries are only making general comments about their positions,” Jim Gamble, the Arctic programme director at non-profit Pacific Environment, told Climate Home News,

The post UN shipping body considers zero emissions goal, defers decision to 2023 appeared first on Climate Home News.

The post How the shipping industry can halve climate-warming black carbon in the Arctic appeared first on Climate Home News.

Japan, China, South Korea, Norway and several EU member states are among 14 countries to agree on a package of energy efficiency measures for existing ships, ahead of next week’s IMO environmental committee meeting. The International Chamber of Shipping also backs the submission.

In the proposal, seen by Climate Home, they suggest imposing a combination of mandatory short-term technical and operational measures on the world’s 60,000 vessels, from reducing engine power to introducing ship-level carbon intensity targets. These measures would not be enforced until 2030 – a decade too late, green groups say.

Bryan Comer, a senior researcher at the International Council on Clean Transportation, told Climate Home that the proposal ignores scientific and technical recommendations made by climate campaigners. “What’s on the table now may not even be enough to achieve the IMO’s minimum 2030 target. It’s certainly not Paris-aligned,” said Comer. 

“Every year that we allow shipping emissions to go up, it is eating up more of the carbon budget. More drastic actions will need to be taken later,” Comer said.

EU considers crackdown on methane leaks from imported oil and gas

The proposal is modelled on Japan’s Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (EEXI) which would impose energy efficiency targets on existing ships based on their type and size, and is supported by Norway, Greece and Panama. 

Limiting engine power to reduce emissions is the easiest way for ships to comply with EEXI, according to a report by the ICCT. EEXI would only make ‘a small contribution’ to the IMO’s climate goals and reduce CO2 emissions from the existing fleet by just 0.8-1.6% by 2030, the ICCT concluded. 

In the new IMO proposal, the countries suggest combining EEXI with other operational measures, including a carbon intensity indicator, proposed by Denmark, Germany and France, which would set individual targets for every ship. 

Campaigners describe it as a compromise, which lacks urgency and commitment to address the scale of the problem. International shipping produces around one billion tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions every year, accounting for 3% of annual global emissions. Without further action, ship emissions in 2050 are expected to reach 90-130% of 2008 levels. 

Faig Abbasov, shipping programme director at Brussels-based think-tank Transport & Environment, told Climate Home that many of the measures, including limiting engine power, are “empty shell” pledges. “Ships aren’t using their engine power to the maximum anyway,” he said. 

“The measures are voluntary for the next decade. There is no reason for member states to go beyond what the regulation says. They will just wait until then,” Abbasov said.

Major ship emissions study flags a bigger role for governments

The IMO has set the target of cutting CO2 emissions from international shipping by at least 50% by 2050, compared to 2008 levels, with carbon intensity reduced 40% by 2030. When the IMO announced these targets in 2018, it said it was  pursuing “a pathway of CO2 emissions reduction consistent with the Paris Agreement temperature goals.” But experts say the IMO targets are not in line with the strongest Paris Agreement goal to limit global warming to 1.5C. “This requires full decarbonisation by 2050,” said Abbasov.

“Leaving the efficiency of ships unregulated for another decade, the clear and intended result of this proposal, is certain to allow shipping’s huge 1 billion tonnes of annual GHG emissions to keep rising for the next 10 years and beyond,” said Kate Young, a campaigner for Generation Climate Europe, the largest coalition of youth-led NGOs in Europe.

The IMO’s 2018 strategy said it would prioritise short-term measures that achieved emissions reductions before 2023.

“The countries trying to push enforcement back until 2030, and for some ships only, are simply hoping no-one will notice they are removing all the ambitious bits of a major international climate agreement reached by over 100 countries just two years ago,” Young said. 

The proposal came a few days after the EU Parliament voted to include maritime CO2 emissions in the EU carbon market from 2022, following criticism that shipping is the only sector to not face emissions reduction targets. The decision will force shipowners to buy carbon permits to cover emissions during voyages in Europe or international voyages which start or finish at a European port. 

The EU decision could force the IMO to ramp up its climate ambition, campaigners say. “By going first, the EU is putting pressure on the IMO to act,” Abbasov said.

The post Ships to get free pass on emissions until 2030, under compromise proposal appeared first on Climate Home News.

On the face of it, this is a welcome addition to existing plans to clean up shipping. However, the timing and the public spin of the proposal left many wondering whether the IMRF is a Trojan Horse.

I hope that this is not the case because part of the industry seems to be genuine about the need for such a fund to accelerate the deployment of carbon-free fuels. Let me explain our worries.

In brief, the IMRF proposes to levy €0.6 ($0.7) on each tonne of CO2 that ships emit ($2 per tonne of fuel). Ostensibly, the goal is to generate about $5 billion in funds over the next 10 years. These resources would fund research and development (R&D) into carbon-free marine technologies that would help decarbonise the sector.

Comment: Today, shipping is taking responsibility for our role in the climate crisis

For pure R&D and pilot tests, this amount might arguably be adequate so long as the money is spent efficiently. Together with other funding streams, including the EU Innovation Fund, a possible future EU Maritime Climate Fund under the emissions trading system (ETS), private investments by the individual shipping companies and shipyards, the IMRF could be sufficient to develop and test new marine technologies.

In that respect, I welcome this proposal and the efforts of the parts of the industry that have genuine intentions in developing it.

And here is where the Trojan Horse enters the “battlefield”.

Firstly, certain voices within the industry seem to have taken the opportunity to spin this proposal as (a precursor of) a global market-based measure (MBM), a carbon pricing system, for shipping. MBMs intend to guide the industry towards environmentally sustainable technologies by making CO2 emissions increasingly expensive.

For example, EU sectors covered by its ETS, including power plants and airlines, pay around €25 ($28) per tonne of CO2 emitted. While in itself insufficient to nudge the maritime sector to carbon-free fuels, the EU carbon price is a whopping 40 times bigger than the IMRF carbon/fuel levy. In that context, it would be ridiculous to suggest that the IRMF is an MBM and that we should all lie back and expect miracles in the next 10 years.

Given such a mediocre starting point, expecting IMRF in the future to evolve into a proper carbon pricing mechanism would be akin to expecting a hen chick to evolve into a fully grown ostrich.

2019 second warmest year on record, ends hottest decade yet, says EU observatory

And that’s precisely where the second problem lies. Industry’s IMRF proposal comes in a particular political context.

A week before it was released, the new European Commission published a European Green Deal, a strategy paper laying out its plans for regulatory and policy actions to ensure that Europe becomes the first carbon-neutral continent by 2050.

As part of the Green Deal, the Commission committed to extend the EU ETS to cover international maritime transport and implement further measures to accelerate the uptake of zero-carbon fuels, such as hydrogen, by the sector.

EU shipping in the ETS would initially generate about €4 billion/year in revenues, while having a negligible impact on consumer prices, measured in less than a cent on a kilo of bananas shipped to Europe. Given that the shipping industry has long been resisting European measures on shipping, it is quite hard to shake off the feeling that the release of the IMRF was, in part, calculated by some to dissuade Europe from acting on maritime emissions.

Hear it from the horse’s mouth. Following the release of IMRF proposal, Simon Bennett, deputy secretary-general of the ICS, was quoted in Politico Europe as saying: “If you believe in a market-based mechanisms, the place to do that is at the IMO. […] This is a global problem and it’s only going to be solved at the global level.” [18 December 2019].

It is strikingly obvious that at least parts of the industry are keen to nip the EU ETS in the bud by giving the misguided promises that everything is under control at the IMO.

We need your help… Climate Home News is an independent news outlet dedicated to the most important global stories. If you can spare even a few dollars each month, it would make a huge difference to us. Our Patreon account is a safe and easy way to support our work.

This wouldn’t be the first time the industry is resorting to such a tactic. Every time Europeans lose their cool about the lack of IMO progress, industry has been quick in encouraging IMO to make some cosmetic progress and then shout from the rooftops that shipping’s global regulator is making ‘great’ progress on climate – if only to buy themselves more time.

It is good to be hopeful about global climate negotiations, but that does not mean being naive. IMO and other UN agencies, like Icao, are notorious in their appallingly poor track record in curbing the sector’s climate pollution. Relying solely on the IMO to solve shipping’s climate impacts is akin to relying on (mostly) coal development ministries and coal miners to eliminate coal-power plants.

Therefore, even though the industry’s IMRF proposal is a welcome news, it is not an emissions reduction measure and should not be treated as such. Most importantly, this should not stymie the EU in extending the ETS to cover the maritime sector as a matter of urgency.

The IMRF and EU ETS can actually function in parallel – the latter could even fund the former. There cannot be exclusivity in action against climate change.

The urgency of the crisis is daunting enough to justify efforts at all levels, by ports, national governments, regional and global actors. To suggest otherwise would only mean signing a death penalty to the planet.

Faig Abbasov is shipping programme manager at Transport & Environment, a Brussels-based NGO which campaigns for cleaner transport

The post Is the shipping industry’s R&D climate fund a Trojan Horse? appeared first on Climate Home News.

That is the conclusion of a report by business lobbying watchdog Influence Map on the International Maritime Organization (IMO). The study was released to coincide with a meeting of an IMO working group on greenhouse gases on Monday.

Based on analysis of delegate lists, meeting submissions and outcomes, it finds business interests exert an uncommon degree of influence over decisions. This, campaigners warn, jeopardises the international climate goals adopted in Paris.

“The research proves almost conclusively that the shipping industry has been lobbying aggressively in the UN against climate change regulations,” Ben Youriev, an author of the report, told Climate Home. “They have completely captured policymaking bodies at the IMO.”

Perhaps the most striking discovery is the extent to which business interests infiltrate national delegations. Researchers found 31 out of 100 member states at the last IMO environmental committee meeting brought representatives from business.

Cosco and Vale are regular advisers to China and Brazil respectively, with the opportunity to advance their agenda in multiple subcommittees.

“The IMO appears the only UN agency to allow such extensive corporate representation in the policy making process,” the report said.

Asked for comment, a spokesperson for the IMO said: “Nominating people to its delegation is an internal domestic matter for each member state. The IMO Secretariat is not involved in those decisions.”

Special report: The tax-free shipping company that took control of a country’s UN mission

Five national delegations were led by commercial flag registries, not government officials. As Climate Home has previously reported, the Marshall Islands former foreign minister Tony de Brum faced resistance from registry figures when he sought to claim his seat at the forum. While the low-lying Pacific island state is known for advocating ambitious climate action, its ship registry – the second largest in the world – is based in Virginia, US and has little accountability to the country’s elected leaders.

Registry president Bill Gallagher said in an interview with Maritime Reporter in July: “We used to send a taxi over to IMO and now we send a bus. And that’s true. I mean, we really spend a lot of money as a flag state, sending the right people to IMO. Our regulatory guys say, ‘If you’re not in the working groups, you’re not impacting what happened’. Where you really make a difference is at the working groups. So we’re not only just sending a couple guys to sit in a chair; we actually are very active in the working groups.”

On top of these discreet channels of influence, the industry is visibly represented through trade associations like the International Chamber of Shipping, which have official observer status. Representing 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, the ICS brought a bigger team to the last environmental committee meeting than 85% of national delegations.

As an example of its sway, Influence Map points to last October’s environment meeting, when 13 countries explicitly endorsed the ICS proposal. In the end, member states adopted a timetable for setting climate targets very similar to that suggested by industry, deferring implementation of greenhouse gas curbs to 2023 at the earliest.

Shipping Watch reports that industry voices are also expected to prevail at this week’s meeting, occupying a middle ground between ambitious European states and more conservative emerging economies.

ICS, along with Bimco, Intertanko and Intercargo, are proposing an “aspirational” target to cap the sector’s emissions at 2008 levels (the pre-financial crash peak) and halve its carbon intensity by 2050. They oppose absolute emissions cuts, on the basis this could constrain growth in world trade.

Climate advocates say that is not nearly enough to align with the Paris Agreement goal to hold global warming “well below 2C”.

Shipping has a carbon footprint roughly the size of Germany. Without intervention, the IMO’s own research predicts that to grow 50-250% by 2050.

The latest available data, published by the International Council on Clean Transportation last week, showed emissions increasing 2.4% between 2013 and 2015. Fuel efficiency improved for many ship classes over the period, but the gains were outweighed by increased demand.

Christiana Figueres, former UN climate chief and founder of Mission 2020, urged the sector to up its game. “The Paris Agreement committed the world to ambitious action on climate change, yet the shipping industry is not up to speed,” she said in a statement. “It’s time to raise the anchor and seize the opportunity between now and 2020 to align with other industries and chart the course to well below 2C pathway”.

Report: Gas tanker crosses thawing Arctic without icebreaker for first time

Influence Map director Dylan Tanner told Climate Home he hoped the report would inspire progressive businesses and investors to intervene.

“We need the silent majority of companies to step up and address the difficult issues,” he said. “Investors hate the lack of transparency and they hate not having risks disclosed to them… that is a big target audience, for them to address this not just with ship owners but the shipping value chain as a whole.”

The report praised AP Moller-Maersk as one of the only shipping companies to have a transparent – and relatively ambitious – position on climate policy. Some Scandinavian shipowners associations also support stronger action.

Johannah Christensen of Global Maritime Forum, a Copenhagen-based body promoting collaboration on disruptive trends for the industry, said: “A low-carbon future is achievable if private and public stakeholders work together and must necessarily be based on facts and improved information transparency.”

Investors in the shipping sector may be failing in their fiduciary duties if they ignore “such damning evidence” of lobbying to obstruct climate action, said Alice Garton of environmental law firm Client Earth.

“These findings reveal an industry so resistant to climate progress that it has negotiated a sector-wide free pass on emissions. But no business is exempt from the effects of climate change and it’s time for these firms to be held to account.”

The post UN shipping climate talks ‘captured’ by industry lobbyists appeared first on Climate Home News.