{"id":408780,"date":"2025-10-17T15:25:08","date_gmt":"2025-10-17T13:25:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=408780"},"modified":"2025-10-17T15:25:11","modified_gmt":"2025-10-17T13:25:11","slug":"un-doing-chinas-bidding-trump-officials-go-all-out-to-block-un-carbon-tax-on-shipping-un-proposal-stands-to-benefit-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=408780","title":{"rendered":"UN doing China\u2019s bidding: Trump officials go all out to block UN carbon tax on shipping \u2013 UN proposal \u2018stands to benefit China\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Climate Depot<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

https:\/\/www.eenews.net\/articles\/trump-officials-go-all-out-to-block-carbon-tax-on-shipping<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

By SARA SCHONHARDT<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. tried to strong-arm nations into rejecting the measure. Now, the administration is pushing to make adoption harder.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Countries are on the verge of approving global rules to curb shipping pollution \u2014 but the Trump administration hasn\u2019t given up on throwing a wrench in the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The International Maritime Organization is meeting this week and expected to sign off on a proposal that nations endorsed in April. The U.N. agency sets binding regulations for the global maritime industry, and the measure would ultimately put a tax on shipping emissions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Several Trump officials have called the proposal a \u201cEuropean-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations\u201d and have sought to strong-arm nations into rejecting it by threatening tariffs and other trade barriers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal<\/em><\/a> on Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio<\/del> says the plan is \u201can attempt by \u201cclimate-obsessed politicians to entrench their agenda before voters in democracies can kill it.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But with the measure still headed for passage, the U.S. is making a last-minute push to change the rules of adoption, according to nonprofit observers. Under the U.S. proposal, which would still require a vote, even if the measure passes at this week\u2019s meeting, it wouldn\u2019t be finalized unless enough countries reiterated their support in the coming months.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe are actively engaging with countries on the extremely flawed proposal, as well as exploring and preparing to act on remedies including tariffs, visa restrictions, and\/or port levies,\u201d a State Department spokesperson said in an email to POLITICO\u2019s E&E News ahead of the meeting. \u201cWe will also be engaging our like-minded partners and allies to propose they take similar measures.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s the latest move by President Donald Trump to not just abandon U.S. efforts to combat rising temperatures but to try and coerce other countries to follow suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How we got here<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The IMO regulates the shipping industry and is a rare example of a U.N. body that can issue binding regulations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The measure up for approval is known as the IMO Net-Zero Framework. It is part of the IMO\u2019s efforts to zero out shipping emissions by around 2050 \u2014 a commitment the organization\u2019s 176 member countries agreed to in 2023. The U.S. was among those countries, agreeing to the goal during the Biden administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The framework \u2014 which 63 countries endorsed in April 2025 \u2014 would amend an international treaty known as MARPOL to enact a carbon intensity standard. That standard would get stricter over time, encouraging forcing industry to switch from polluting fossil fuels to lower-emission alternatives. Ships that don\u2019t meet the standard would need to pay a fee, which would go to a fund aimed in part at helping industry make the transition.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Among the countries that supported the proposal were Brazil and China. Saudi Arabia and several other Gulf oil nations voted against it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a statement issued<\/a> last week, Rubio, Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the proposal would be \u201cdisastrous\u201d for industry and raise the price of goods for consumers. They threatened nations that vote for it with possible sanctions, \u201ccommercial penalties,\u201d port fees and visa restrictions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This week\u2019s vote is being closely watched as a measure of how successful the U.S. is in getting countries to bend to its will. If the U.S. fails, it may be forced to the negotiating table. If it succeeds, that could set a worrying precedent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How much it will cost<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration\u2019s most prominent argument is that the IMO agreement will raise shipping costs globally and make goods more expensive.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It might also be the least convincing, said James Lightbourn, founder of Cavalier Shipping, a maritime industry consultancy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s because the types of retaliation the Trump administration is suggesting, such as tariffs and port fees, would likely have the same effect, he said. The threats also come as the U.S. rolls out port fees on Chinese ships in an effort to counter that country\u2019s shipbuilding dominance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Making the switch to low-carbon fuels will be expensive, say industry analysts. But the exact impact of the regulations \u2014 if they pass \u2014 is still uncertain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The LNG angle<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cI think it comes down to the Trump administration\u2019s antipathy toward climate beneficial technologies,\u201d Lewis said. \u201cThey don\u2019t see that as something that the United States should pursue.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The IMO agreement would also frustrate a transition within the maritime sector toward natural gas as a primary shipping fuel, he added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The agreement wouldn\u2019t ban liquefied natural gas or biofuels, but ships that run purely on LNG would eventually have to pay a penalty. That would likely lead to less LNG use than the Trump administration \u2014 and a cohort of prominent shipping companies \u2014 would like, said Lightbourn of Cavalier Shipping.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis is something that is important to the U.S. given that the country has an abundance of natural gas that could be sold as a marine fuel to commercial cargo vessels and be supportive of the domestic oil and gas industry,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another point of opposition: the measure stands to benefit China at a time when the U.S. and China \u2014 the world\u2019s two largest economies and carbon polluters \u2014 are in an ongoing battle over trade and supply chains.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s because the net zero measures are expected to stimulate demand for new vessels that can comply with the new regulations, or retrofits of ships to allow for emission-reducing technologies. And China is the world\u2019s largest shipbuilding nation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s next<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Climate groups observing the meetings say they expect the measure to pass regardless of U.S. tactics. And, they say, the U.S. knows it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That has prompted the U.S. delegation to make a last-minute push to alter the rules of adoption.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s how it would work. For the agreement to be adopted, two-thirds of the countries present need to vote in its favor. Over the following months, before the agreement enters into force, those countries can choose to opt out. The IMO considers countries that don\u2019t actively opt out to remain behind the agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S., however, is pushing for \u201cexplicit\u201d adoption, where countries will need to come back and voice their support for the agreement before it can take effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat is the Achilles heel,\u201d said Faig Abbasov, shipping program director for Brussels-based clean energy advocacy group Transport & Environment. The change would give the U.S. time, he said, to bully enough countries into not sending their acceptance to the IMO.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, many companies see them as necessary for an industry that accounts for around 3 percent of global emissions and growing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Without them, \u201cshipping would risk a growing patchwork of unilateral regulations, increasing costs without effectively contributing to decarbonization,\u201d a coalition of shipping associations, including the World Shipping Council and the International Chamber of Shipping, said in a letter last week.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Brazil, the host country for next month\u2019s COP30 climate talks, once opposed the IMO agreement. But now the country is hoping the measure will pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWe would very much like to see the agreement go forward,\u201d Tatiana Rosito, secretary of international affairs at Brazil\u2019s Ministry of Finance, said in an interview with E&E News. \u201cThis would be a very good signal for COP30.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

#<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Related:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump called it back in 2012!<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\n

The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.<\/p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 6, 2012<\/a><\/blockquote>