When former President Donald Trump attempted to buy Greenland, it stirred shockwaves in Denmark and among U.S. allies. This kind of bold behavior isn’t new; the Trump administration often used tactics of pressure and intimidation. Just weeks earlier, the U.S. had backed out of an important international shipping agreement accepted by many nations. This move showcased a pattern of prioritizing power over fairness.
A key issue that arose from these actions was greenhouse gas emissions from shipping, which accounts for about 3% of global emissions and is increasing. The shipping sector recognized the need to cut emissions as early as the 1990s, and most countries agreed. However, the global and complex nature of shipping made it difficult to establish clear regulations. Often, the shipping industry needs straightforward rules to manage fuel and operations effectively.
Fast forward to April 2025, when delegates from the International Maritime Organization (IMO) came together for negotiations in London. Over 1,200 attendees discussed a binding treaty aimed at reducing emissions. Despite differing national interests, all parties understood that action was necessary. Some delegates were aware that the U.S. would likely resist any agreements on greenhouse gases, especially since Trump had dismissed climate change as a hoax.
During discussions, the U.S. delegation abruptly walked out, sending a message that rejected any economic measures tied to greenhouse gases. They warned of potential repercussions for countries supporting the emission reduction plans, signaling a hard-line stance.
Despite this, negotiations continued, and by the end of five days, an agreement was reached. Ships would need to lower their greenhouse gas fuel intensity, and those with higher emissions would participate in carbon trading, while those emitting less would receive financial incentives. A majority of nations—including the EU and China—backed the agreement, representing a shift in shipping regulations.
Joe Kramek, president of the World Shipping Council, hailed this milestone as a significant step for climate policy. The industry, often labeled as difficult to decarbonize, now had a clear path forward.
However, the U.S. did not relent. In August, several cabinet members reiterated that the U.S. would not accept an agreement perceived as harmful to American interests, denouncing the treaty as a “global carbon tax.” Shortly after, leaked documents revealed plans to pressure countries against voting for the treaty.
When the IMO assembly convened later that fall, the U.S. continued to exert pressure, threatening nations with visa restrictions and trade repercussions. Ultimately, a motion to delay the vote on the emissions treaty passed, effectively halting the agreement, despite the urgent need for action on climate change.
The global push for emission reductions won’t fade, though. Guy Platten, former secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping, emphasized that shipping can still decarbonize despite the stalled treaty. Regional initiatives, such as the EU’s carbon trading scheme, could emerge as countries seek solutions without relying on U.S. participation.
While the U.S. may have sidelined a unified global approach for now, the reality of climate change remains persistent. As shipping continues, new solutions will rise to meet the challenge—demonstrating that the world is moving forward, with or without the United States.
Source link
climate change,donald trump,homepage_regional_americas,trade policy & agreements,united states
