Environmentalists' Hopes for Shipping Emissions Tax Delayed by U.S. Intervention

Environmental advocates were hopeful this year about the possibility of a global tax on emissions from shipping, aimed at tackling pollution that warms the planet. However, their optimism was challenged by actions from President Donald Trump, who rallied the United States against the measure.

During a recent meeting of the UN’s International Maritime Organization, nations voted to postpone a decision on this significant measure for a year. If passed, it would require large ships to reduce emissions or face fees of $380 per ton.

This outcome was largely influenced by a months-long effort from U.S. officials, including diplomats and cabinet members, who argued against what they called an untenable global carbon tax. White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers stated via email, “President Trump saved America from an outrageous climate scam. Stopping this vote is a huge victory for the American people and countries that cannot afford strict climate demands.”

European countries, including the UK, had initially supported the regulations in April, but they were on the losing side of the recent 57-49 vote to postpone the measure.

The U.S. was not the only nation opposing the emissions charge; countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Russia also voted against it during both the April and recent meetings.

In the months leading to the vote, U.S. officials actively encouraged other countries to reject the measure by presenting arguments related to potential economic costs and national security concerns, shared a senior U.S. State Department official.

In July, the State Department organized a meeting with federal agencies to strategize against the plan. By August, officials had reached out diplomatically to 108 other nations to express U.S. opposition.

U.S. representatives also engaged with European officials to discuss alternative approaches and urged foreign leaders during side meetings at the UN General Assembly in New York.

The Trump administration had also threatened other nations with tariffs and penalties if they supported this net-zero framework. Trump has frequently used tariffs — or the threat of them — to persuade other countries to adjust policies he opposes.

In a joint statement, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy remarked, “We will take action against nations that support this European-led climate regulation.”

A range of cabinet members joined the effort to voice opposition to the initiative, tailoring arguments to address concerns from other countries. Administration officials claimed the emissions fees would lead to economic damage, inflation, and food security issues, despite analysts suggesting a more modest financial impact.

They also expressed skepticism about how the revenue from the emissions charges — projected to exceed $10 billion annually — would be used, arguing it could turn into an “environmental slush fund.”

The U.S. vowed to assure nations with reservations about the measure that they had the option not to participate, which may have eased the way for other hesitant countries to align with the U.S. stance.

Critics of the administration’s tactics labeled the delay as misguided, especially since the shipping industry predominantly relies on oil-derived fuels that contribute over a billion tons of emissions each year.

Additionally, the delay risks creating a confusing mix of regulations and undermines potential economic advantages for the U.S. in producing lower-emission fuels, according to environmentalists. Prior to the vote, some U.S. biofuel companies attempted to persuade the administration to change its position.

Andrew Forrest, an influential billionaire industrialist, criticized what he termed “intimidation tactics” that hampered delegates’ ability to vote freely. He expressed support for anyone facing pressure and committed to ensuring that fair practices prevail.

While discussions were intense, a State Department official claimed there was no actual intimidation involved in the lobbying process, which continued right up until the vote.

The day before the vote, Trump underscored the American position, emphasizing opposition to the proposed tax through a social media post: “The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. We will not accept increased prices or the creation of unnecessary bureaucracies.”