A historic international effort to reduce emissions from the global shipping industry has been derailed after talks collapsed under pressure from Saudi Arabia and the United States. Over 100 countries had convened in London with the goal of approving a landmark agreement originally reached in April, which would have made shipping the first industry worldwide to adopt legally binding targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. However, the negotiations ended abruptly after Saudi Arabia successfully motioned to delay the talks for a year, a move supported by the US and a few other nations, effectively halting the process.
The proposed deal represented a major breakthrough in climate diplomacy. After a decade of discussions, countries had finally agreed on a framework that would require ship owners to use cleaner fuels starting in 2028 or face financial penalties. Given that shipping currently accounts for around 3% of global carbon emissions—a figure expected to rise alongside increasing global trade—this agreement was seen as a critical step toward curbing the sector’s environmental impact. Unlike many other industries, shipping has struggled to reduce emissions due to the lack of economic incentives and the dominance of cheap fossil fuels such as diesel.
The agreement’s significance was underscored by the fact that 90% of goods worldwide are transported by sea, making shipping a vital component of global commerce. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the UN agency responsible for regulating shipping, had projected that without intervention, the sector’s emissions could increase by 10% to 150% by 2050. The April framework aimed to reverse this trend by setting clear, enforceable targets on emissions reductions, encouraging investment in cleaner technologies and fuels.
Despite widespread support from the shipping industry and many governments, the talks faced stiff opposition, primarily from the United States. President Donald Trump publicly denounced the deal as a “green scam,” warning that it would lead to higher prices for American consumers. His administration reportedly threatened countries considering support for the agreement with punitive tariffs, leveraging economic pressure to stall progress. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio hailed the outcome as a “huge win” for the Trump administration, signaling Washington’s firm stance against the deal.
Saudi Arabia, a major oil exporter with vested interests in fossil fuel markets, played a pivotal role in ending the talks. During the final session when countries were expected to vote on approving the deal, Saudi Arabia introduced a motion to adjourn the negotiations for an entire year. The chairperson warned that such a delay would effectively prevent the agreement’s approval and necessitate revising critical timelines for implementation. The motion passed by a narrow margin, reflecting a divided international community.
The decision was met with disappointment and frustration from many delegates, particularly from island nations and climate-vulnerable countries. Hon. Ralph Regenvanu, Minister for Climate Change for Vanuatu, condemned Saudi Arabia’s move as “unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.” He acknowledged that while the original framework lacked the ambition demanded by climate science, it nonetheless represented a meaningful step forward.
Industry representatives also expressed regret over the collapse of the talks. Thomas Kazakos, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping, emphasized the need for clarity and consistency in regulations to enable the industry to make the necessary investments in cleaner technology. He described the failure to reach consensus as a setback that would create uncertainty for ship owners and investors alike.
The voting revealed significant geopolitical divisions. While the United Kingdom and most European Union countries supported continuing negotiations, some EU members, including Greece, abstained. Other countries siding with the US and Saudi Arabia in favor of adjourning the talks included Russia and China, the latter having initially supported the deal back in April but later opting to delay proceedings. Several small island nations, which heavily depend on trade with the US and have traditionally been vocal advocates for climate action, changed their positions under apparent pressure from Washington. Delegates from these island states told the BBC that their governments were “leaned on heavily” by the US administration to alter their votes.
The collapse of these talks has significant implications for global climate efforts. The original agreement had set a clear timeline for implementing emission reduction measures by 2028, a deadline now in jeopardy. Environmental advocates warn that the delay could undermine years of painstaking negotiations and result in a weaker, less effective framework. Blánaid Sheeran, a policy officer at the environmental NGO Opportunity Green and an observer at the talks, cautioned that “a delay in action may require changes to the text of the agreement that undermine the planned timeline, and