American influence is being challenged as the Trump administration intensifies its efforts, using significant trade and visa threats, to block a proposed global tax aimed at curbing pollution from the shipping industry.
The controversy centers on a pending vote among the 176 member nations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN agency. The proposal seeks to mandate that cargo ships reduce their greenhouse gas emissions below a set limit or face a fee. This measure has widespread support from the leading shipping lobby and many key US allies, including Britain, Canada, the European Union, and Japan. Even China backs the initiative.
The vote is anticipated to take place this Friday.
In an attempt to sway countries against the measure, the Trump administration has issued various warnings, such as visa restrictions and imposing additional fees on vessels from supporting nations docking at US ports.
On Thursday, President Trump publicly expressed his “outrage” over the organization’s consideration of a carbon emissions charge on global shipping. He declared via social media, “The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape or form.”
Last week, a joint statement from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy indicated that the United States is contemplating antitrust investigations into countries that back the measure, as well as “blocking vessels registered in those countries from U.S. ports.”
The statement denounced the proposed fee as a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations,” asserting that it would inflate shipping costs.
In response, the European Union promptly released a brief statement reaffirming its support for the tax proposal, emphasizing that it would “ensure a global level playing field.”
This dispute at the IMO highlights how the high seas have become a critical arena for American power. The president’s policies have already disrupted global trade with a series of unpredictable tariffs, and both the US and China are currently levying extra fees on each other’s ships in their ports.
Sam Hargreaves, a spokesperson for Transport and Environment, an advocacy group monitoring global shipping negotiations, commented that the Trump administration’s tariffs would have a much larger financial impact than the proposed emissions fees. He stated, “The additional costs to shipping companies and consumers they are concerned about are likely minimal compared to the potential impact of tariffs or other sanctions being threatened against supportive I.M.O. member states.”
When asked for comment, the State Department simply referred back to its joint statement.
Traditional shipping fuel, often called bunker fuel, is a heavy oil that releases carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide when combusted. Newer, cleaner alternatives, such as ammonia and hydrogen-based fuels, are currently under development.
The proposed “Net-Zero Framework” would mandate that cargo ships of 5,000 tons or more pay a fee if their carbon dioxide emissions surpass a specified level, effectively incentivizing the use of cleaner fuels.
If approved, this levy would commence in 2028, marking the first instance of an entire industry paying for its climate pollution. The revenue generated would primarily support the industry’s transition to less polluting fuels.
The World Shipping Council described it as a “carefully balanced regulatory package.” The International Chamber of Shipping, another industry lobby, also endorsed the measure, asserting that “Only global rules will decarbonize a global industry.” They had previously estimated that the carbon fee’s effect on goods prices would be negligible.
The emissions threshold is designed to become stricter over time, potentially allowing the industry to adopt biofuels to meet standards. However, using biofuels is controversial, as increased crop cultivation for fuel could lead to deforestation. Many environmental groups argue that the proposed targets are insufficient.
This week’s scheduled vote follows a 2023 agreement by the International Maritime Organization to largely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions by around 2050. Last year, the organization introduced a more concrete plan, including an industry-wide carbon price. In April, countries voted on a draft, during which the United States withdrew from proceedings, and both Russia and Saudi Arabia voted against it.