A groundbreaking international effort to reduce emissions from the global shipping industry has collapsed after intense opposition led by Saudi Arabia and the United States. Over 100 countries had convened in London with the goal of approving a landmark deal, originally agreed upon in April, which would have made shipping the world’s first industry subject to mandated international targets for cutting emissions. However, the talks ended abruptly with a motion to adjourn the negotiations for a year, effectively halting progress.
The abandoned deal represented a significant milestone in climate action. After a decade of negotiations, the agreement set out a clear pathway for the shipping sector to reduce its carbon footprint. Under the plan, ship owners from 2028 onward would be required to gradually adopt cleaner fuels or face penalties. This was a historic step because shipping is responsible for approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and its emissions have been rising steadily with increased global trade. Since around 90% of goods worldwide are transported by sea, decarbonizing shipping is essential to meeting broader climate goals.
Despite the urgency and the deal’s potential impact, opposition from powerful players derailed the process. US President Donald Trump publicly denounced the plan as a “green scam” and warned that the United States would impose tariffs on countries voting in favor of the measures. The US administration’s hardline stance placed immense pressure on other nations, especially smaller states reliant on American trade. Saudi Arabia, another major oil-exporting nation, also opposed the deal, raising concerns about the economic implications of transitioning to cleaner fuels.
On the final day of the talks, when member states were expected to formally approve the agreement, Saudi Arabia introduced a motion to postpone the negotiations for a year. The chairman of the meeting explained that this adjournment would mean the deal could not be ratified within the intended timeline, necessitating revisions to key deadlines. The motion passed by a narrow margin, effectively killing the agreement for now.
The move sparked strong criticism from climate advocates and vulnerable nations. Ralph Regenvanu, Minister for Climate Change for the Republic of Vanuatu, condemned the adjournment as “unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.” He expressed disappointment that a framework which, while imperfect, represented a meaningful step forward was being shelved.
The shipping industry itself had largely expressed support for the deal due to the clarity and consistency it would have provided. Thomas Kazakos, Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Shipping, voiced his disappointment at the stalled talks, emphasizing that the industry needs regulatory certainty to make the necessary investments in cleaner technologies.
Voting patterns at the meeting reflected geopolitical divisions. Most European Union countries, including the UK, voted to continue the talks. However, some EU members, such as Greece, broke ranks by abstaining. Countries that voted to adjourn included Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the US. These nations argued that the proposed measures could lead to higher costs for consumers, a concern particularly emphasized by the US delegation. China, which had initially supported the agreement in April, also shifted its position to delay the process.
Small island states also altered their stances due to external pressures. The Bahamas and Antigua and Barbuda, initially supportive of the deal, abstained or changed their votes following intense lobbying from the Trump administration, highlighting the complicated dynamics of international diplomacy where economic dependencies influence climate negotiations.
The abandoned agreement aimed to address a critical gap in global climate efforts. Unlike other sectors, shipping had struggled to reduce emissions partly because of the lack of financial incentives to switch from fossil fuels. Currently, ships primarily use diesel fuel, which remains the cheapest option because it is derived from crude oil’s residual fractions after extracting higher-value products like kerosene for aviation and gasoline for cars. This economic reality has made it difficult for the industry to transition to cleaner alternatives without mandatory regulations.
The International Maritime Organisation (IMO), the UN body responsible for regulating shipping, previously warned that without intervention, emissions from shipping could increase by between 10% and 150% by 2050. Such a rise would seriously undermine global efforts to limit warming to safe levels.
The London meeting was intended to finalize the agreement and set in motion the regulatory framework to be enforced from 2028. However, since April, the US has become increasingly vocal in its opposition, citing concerns about potential price increases for American consumers. President Trump’s social media posts underscored this position, framing the deal as a “Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping” that America