New Pact Would Require Ships to Cut Emissions or Pay a Fee
A draft global agreement sets a fee for cargo ships, which carry the vast majority of world trade, to pay for their greenhouse gas emissions
" United States pulled out of the talks earlier in the week. "
Of course we did.
There are links in the seed.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The industry produces about 3 percent of planet-warming emissions globally, on par with aviation.
A cargo ship near Vancouver, British Columbia.
Alana Paterson for The New York Times
Amid the turmoil over global trade, countries around the world reached a remarkable, though modest, agreement Friday to reduce the climate pollution that comes from shipping those goods worldwide — with what is essentially a tax, no less.
An accord reached in London under the auspices of the International Maritime Organization, a United Nations agency, would require every ship that ferries goods across the oceans to lower their greenhouse gas emissions or pay a fee.
The targets fall short of what many had hoped. Still, it’s the first time a global industry would face a price on its climate pollution no matter where in the world it operates. The proceeds would be used mainly to help the industry move to cleaner fuels. Some of it could also go to developing countries most vulnerable to climate hazards. The accord would come into effect in 2028, pending approval by country representatives at the agency’s next meeting in October.
Given the widespread support for Friday’s terms, the head of the organization expressed hope it would be adopted in October with few or no changes.
The agreement marks a rare bit of international cooperation that’s all the more remarkable because it was reached even after the United States pulled out of the talks earlier in the week. No other countries followed suit.
“The U.S. is just one country and that one country cannot derail this entire process,” said Faig Abbasov, shipping director for Transport and Environment, a European advocacy group that has pushed to clean up the maritime industry. The agreement is the “first binding decision that will force shipping companies to decarbonize and switch to alternative fuels.”
The agreement applies to all ships, no matter whose flag they fly, including ships registered in the United States, although the vast majority of ships are flagged in other countries. It remained unclear whether or how Washington might respond to the fee agreement.
A State Department official said only that the U.S. didn’t participate in the negotiations.
Ships mostly run on heavy fuel oil, sometimes called bunker fuel and more than 80 percent of global goods move by ships. The industry accounts for around 3 percent of global greenhouse emissions, comparable to the emissions from aviation.
The agreement reached Friday is far less ambitious than one initially proposed by a group of island nations that had suggested a universal assessment on emissions.
After two years of negotiations, the proposal sets out a complicated two-tiered system of fees. It sets carbon intensity targets, which are like clean-fuel standards for cars and trucks. Ships using conventional shipping oil would have to pay a higher fee ($380 per metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent produced) while ships that use a less carbon-intensive fuel mix would have to pay a lower fee ($100 for every metric ton that exceeds the fuel standard threshold).
It is expected to raise $11 billion to $13 billion a year, according to the Organization’s estimates.
“It is a positive outcome,” said Arsenio Dominguez, the organization’s secretary-general. “This is a long journey. This is not going to happen overnight. There are many concerns, particularly from developing countries.”
The threshold would get stricter over time. It could allow the industry to switch to biofuels to meet the standards. That is a contentious approach, since biofuels are made from crops, and growing more crops to make fuel could contribute to deforestation.
The new shipping-fuel standards are meant to spur the development of alternative fuels, including hydrogen.
There were objections from many quarters. Developing countries with maritime fleets said they would be unfairly punished because they have older fleets. Countries like Saudi Arabia, which ship huge quantities of oil, and China, which exports everything from plastic toys to electric cars worldwide, balked at proposals to set a higher price, according to people familiar with the negotiations.
“They turned away a proposal for a reliable source of revenue for those of us in dire need of finance to help with climate impacts,” said Ralph Regenvanu, the climate minister for Vanuatu, in a statement after the vote.
In the end, countries that voted in favor of the compromise agreement included China and the European Union. Saudi Arabia and Russia voted against it.
The United States pulled out of the talks entirely.
The global shipping industry agreed in 2023 to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by around 2050 . Last year, it followed up on that commitment with a more concrete plan, taking the first steps toward establishing an industrywide carbon price.
Projections by the International Chamber of Shipping, an industry body, found that it would have a negligible effect on prices. “We recognize that this may not be the agreement which all sections of the industry would have preferred, and we are concerned that this may not yet go far enough in providing the necessary certainty,” said Guy Platten, the council’s secretary general. “But it is a framework which we can build upon.”
Whatever
Tags
Who is online
38 visitors
America is actively preventing any measures that might help save the planet.
Or course.
So who would pay the fees? The ship owners, the shipping companies or the country? Isn't this like a tariff in that it would be added to the cost of the good delivered and the customer would just pay a higher price?
With a simple Google search, there are between 50,000 and 60,000 cargo ships in the world but only 185 of them are registered in the US. With missing information on who and how these fees would be handled added to the fact that according to the article total emissions from cargo ships is only 3% of the emissions from aviation, it seems to me that it would be smart to pull out until all that information is known.
Lol. All it would do is make people poorer.
It would absolutely be passed to on to customers. All taxes on businesses are.
Another dumb idea from the climate change cult. Not enforceable anyway
Would the Chinese Navy be exempt?
While they're at it, might as well tax railroad locomotives too.
Seriously? Can you really not figure out a way to make ships pay a tax?
Many of the major carriers are experimenting with alternative mode of fuel. Google it there is good information not bullshit guesswork.
But... but... but...
It's s-o-o-o much easier to just pull "facts" out of your ass...
CAFE standards for cargo ships? CAFE standards are considered a stupid idea in some circles.
BTW, the de-fossilization (eliminating oil and coal fuels) will help make American manufacturing competitive. The actual cost of getting imports from foreign factories to US store shelve will increase. It's going to be a lot cheaper to ship goods inside the US than shipping goods half way around the world.
Here's a really complicated idea: put a tax on bunker oil at it's pumping stations.
Duh!
Well, duh, a carbon tax was the whole point of the exercise. The progressive left believes taxes solve any problem and that means it's really about the money instead of the environment (or climate, in the is case). Who's going to pay that tax? Excise taxes on freight work the same way as tariffs. Just another cost to be passed on to consumers.
Just imagine what the monkey wrench gang will do when someone finally builds a nuclear powered cargo ship.
These environmentally woke politicians are trying to bring back the slow boat to China. That's just another reason to revitalize manufacturing in the United States.
Never mind...