Plans for a worldwide shipping carbon levy hit a delay after opposition from the US, UAE, and Saudi Arabia, threatening progress on international decarbonisation efforts and complicating climate targets.
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) had set out with pretty big ambitions — aiming to roll out a global carbon pricing system for shipping. But, unfortunately, those plans recently hit some serious roadblocks, mainly because the U.S. and a few other major oil-producing countries, like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, pushed back hard. Honestly, it’s quite a setback in the worldwide effort to cut greenhouse gases from ships, which, as you probably know, contribute nearly 3% of global CO₂ emissions.
This IMO proposal was pretty well supported—especially by an EU-led coalition that included countries like the UK, China, and Japan. They wanted to impose a carbon levy on ships over 5,000 tons that exceeded certain emission thresholds, but also to give credit or incentives to cleaner vessels. If they’d managed to push it through, it could have brought in around $11-12 billion a year from 2028 to 2030. The idea was to funnel that money into a new IMO Net-Zero Fund, which aimed to speed up decarbonization efforts across international shipping. But, well, these plans are now on hold because of fierce diplomatic opposition and conflicting national interests.
According to reports, the U.S. has been quite vocal in opposing the scheme, calling it a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate rules.” During President Trump’s administration, officially, the U.S. rejected the IMO’s “Net-Zero Framework” back in August 2025, which was designed to set international regulations and incentives to cut shipping emissions. U.S. officials—like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others—raised concerns about how this could hurt American industries and consumers, arguing that it would hike costs unnecessarily and, in their view, create an unauthorized global tax.
Adding to the complexity, the U.S. hasn’t just opposed the plan; it’s also threatened retaliatory measures against supporting nations, including visa restrictions, sanctions on officials, and even port access bans for ships from those countries. This tough stance has really ratcheted up tensions internationally and created a pretty clear divide within the IMO—where there had once been some consensus on the need for a coordinated global approach to shipping emissions.
Meanwhile, the UAE and Saudi Arabia, along with the U.S., have been pressing the Europeans to carve out exemptions for this sector from the EU Emissions Trading System (or ETS) and green fuel mandates if a global carbon price comes into effect. They want sector-specific carve-outs — and, interestingly enough, that’s driven largely by their own interests in maintaining current energy market structures, especially given their oil production.
At the recent IMO environmental committee meeting held in London from October 14-17, 2025, things ended with a delay—specifically, a one-year postponement—on adopting the global carbon pricing system. The motion was pushed forward by Saudi Arabia and received support from 57 countries, including some key players like China—who had previously indicated support for carbon pricing. The vote—49 against, with some countries like Japan, Greece, and South Korea abstaining—was a serious blow to the EU and those pushing for tougher climate measures in shipping.
Many industry experts and environmental advocates have expressed their disappointment over this delay. They warn that the uncertainty could slow down vital investments in cleaner shipping technology. Without clear rules and enforcement, emissions are expected to rise, which undercuts global climate goals, including those in the Paris Agreement. It’s also a concern ahead of upcoming climate summits like COP30.
The shipping sector, which moves about 80% of the world’s trade, is under increasing pressure to do its part in reducing emissions. But, it’s also a highly fragmented industry, with different stakeholders holding divergent views on how to proceed. Major container shipping companies tend to support coordinated climate frameworks, but many tanker operators and some governments remain wary of potential economic impacts, and they oppose certain measures.
This disagreement over the IMO’s carbon pricing approach really shines a light on broader difficulties in reaching international consensus on climate regulations—especially in sectors as complex and globally intertwined as shipping. The U.S.’s aggressive rhetoric, framing the proposal as harmful to the economy and warning of countermeasures, makes it clear how tricky it is to reconcile environmental ambitions with national economic interests.
Looking ahead, the timetable for a global carbon pricing system in shipping remains uncertain. The delay has given opponents a bit more room to push for exemptions or alternative strategies, while supporters are left figuring out how to keep momentum going for decarbonization—an essential goal, considering how hard-to-abate this sector is.
For the UAE, this episode underscores yet another layer of its evolving role in international climate politics. As a major oil producer and regional leader investing in climate tech, the UAE’s approach reflects a delicate balancing act—trying to protect economic interests while recognizing the push for global climate action. Their efforts to seek exemptions and safeguard their interests in shipping emissions regulation show just how complex aligning national policies with international decarbonization targets can be.
Looking forward, stakeholders in the Middle East, especially those involved with vital maritime shipping routes and ports, will need to navigate this shifting regulatory landscape carefully. The delay in global carbon pricing shouldn’t be mistaken for a sign that climate responsibilities are on hold—it’s more a call for renewed dialogue and innovative solutions. The shipping industry, after all, is under close scrutiny, and ultimately, the creation of a robust global framework or effective alternatives will be crucial in motivating investments in clean tech and meeting global climate goals, limiting temperature rise, and protecting ecosystems worldwide.
Source: Noah Wire Services
- https://carbon-pulse.com/445860/ – Please view link – unable to able to access data
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/un-shipping-emissions-deal-pit-us-against-eu-led-bloc-2025-10-13/ – The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is set to decide on implementing a carbon emissions pricing system for global shipping during its October 14-17 environmental committee meeting. The measure, advocated by an EU-led coalition including the UK, China, and Japan, proposes charging ships over 5,000 tons that exceed emissions thresholds, while rewarding cleaner vessels. This initiative could generate $11–12 billion yearly between 2028 and 2030. Proceeds would be collected by a newly proposed IMO Net-Zero Fund. However, the U.S. strongly opposes the plan, having exited early negotiations and threatening “reciprocal measures,” including port fees and visa sanctions against supporting nations. Washington denounces the initiative as a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations,” highlighting significant transatlantic friction over global environmental governance.
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-singapore-call-un-delay-carbon-shipping-price-vote-amid-splits-2025-10-17/ – A majority of countries within the U.N. International Maritime Organization (IMO) have voted to delay by one year the adoption of a global carbon pricing mechanism for international shipping, following strong opposition from the United States and Saudi Arabia. The decision represents a setback for the EU, Brazil, and other countries pushing for greener shipping regulations. A motion led by Saudi Arabia to postpone the talks passed with 57 votes in favor and 49 against. Countries like China, which previously supported carbon pricing, backed the delay, while others including Japan, Greece, and South Korea abstained. U.S. President Donald Trump openly opposed the carbon pricing plan, calling it a “green new scam tax” and reaffirmed the U.S. refusal to comply. The delay creates uncertainty for the maritime industry, which had anticipated regulatory clarity to drive investment in cleaner technologies. Shipping accounts for nearly 3% of global CO₂ emissions, and without regulatory action, emissions are expected to climb. The IMO has 176 member nations tasked with overseeing shipping safety and environmental regulation, and while the carbon tax was expected to be implemented by 2028 if agreed upon, no clear implementation timeline now exists.
- https://apnews.com/article/a5f854e7028d08035689db50814a6519 – At the International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting in London, efforts to adopt the world’s first global carbon fee on shipping emissions were derailed largely due to pressure from the U.S., under President Donald Trump, and supported by countries like Saudi Arabia. The proposed “Net-Zero Framework” aimed to impose a carbon tax on shipping fuels and enforce emission standards, vital for steering the industry—responsible for around 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions—towards decarbonization by 2050. The agreement had been broadly supported and expected to pass, but due to U.S. threats of trade retaliation and political pressure, more than half of the member nations voted to postpone the decision by a year. Environmental advocates and the shipping industry expressed disappointment, warning that the deferral introduces uncertainty and delays critical investments needed to reduce emissions. This development mirrors recent setbacks in international climate agreements and raises concerns ahead of the COP30 summit. Nonetheless, environmental groups remain determined to push forward.
- https://www.reuters.com/world/us-threatens-visa-restrictions-sanctions-against-un-members-that-back-imo-2025-10-11/ – The United States has issued a strong warning against a UN proposal spearheaded by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the global shipping industry. This sector is responsible for about 3% of global emissions and manages around 80% of world trade. The IMO’s Net-Zero Framework seeks to establish a global regulatory structure to decarbonize international shipping. While large container carriers support such a framework, citing the need for coordinated action on climate change, many major oil tanker companies have expressed serious concerns. In response, top U.S. officials, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, collectively condemned the proposal, claiming it could harm economic interests and impose an unapproved global tax regime. The U.S. is threatening retaliatory measures such as visa restrictions, sanctions on officials backing this climate plan, and potentially denying port access to ships from nations that vote for the proposal. Supporters of the IMO plan argue that global regulation is essential to avoid fragmented national policies and effectively tackle emissions.
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-rejects-imos-net-zero-framework-aimed-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2025-08-12/ – On August 12, 2025, the United States officially rejected the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) “Net-Zero Framework,” a proposed initiative aimed at reducing global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the international shipping sector. The decision was announced in a joint statement by key members of the Trump Administration, including Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, Energy Secretary Chris Wright, and Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy. The administration cited concerns over potential increased costs for American citizens, energy providers, shipping companies, and tourists as reasons for rejecting the framework. Meanwhile, IMO member states are expected to deliberate on the adoption of the framework in October 2025.
- https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-exits-carbon-talks-shipping-urges-others-follow-document-2025-04-09/ – The United States has withdrawn from international talks in London on decarbonising the shipping industry, expressing strong opposition to proposed carbon levies on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by ships. The discussions, hosted by the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO), aimed to establish the first global carbon levy for shipping in efforts to help the industry achieve net-zero emissions by around 2050. A diplomatic note from Washington emphasized rejection of economic measures targeting U.S. ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choices. The U.S. also warned of reciprocal responses to offset any potential fees or economic harm to American interests. Furthermore, Washington opposed the use of shipping sector-generated funds for unrelated environmental projects. The move marks a significant setback for proponents of stronger global climate regulations in maritime transport, which accounts for nearly 3% of global CO2 emissions. The IMO has not yet received formal communication from the U.S., and U.S. officials have so far declined to comment.
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
9
Notes:
The narrative is current, with the latest developments reported on October 17, 2025. The decision to delay the global carbon pricing system for shipping was made during the IMO meeting in London. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-singapore-call-un-delay-carbon-shipping-price-vote-amid-splits-2025-10-17/?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
8
Notes:
Direct quotes from U.S. officials, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio, are consistent with previous statements regarding the IMO’s ‘Net-Zero Framework’. For instance, Rubio’s earlier comments in August 2025 align with his recent statements opposing the carbon pricing plan. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-rejects-imos-net-zero-framework-aimed-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2025-08-12/?utm_source=openai))
Source reliability
Score:
10
Notes:
The narrative originates from Carbon Pulse, a reputable source specialising in carbon markets and climate policy. The information is corroborated by multiple reputable outlets, including Reuters and the Associated Press. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-singapore-call-un-delay-carbon-shipping-price-vote-amid-splits-2025-10-17/?utm_source=openai))
Plausability check
Score:
9
Notes:
The claims regarding the delay of the global carbon pricing system are plausible and supported by multiple reputable sources. The narrative accurately reflects the geopolitical dynamics at play, including the opposition from the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and other oil-producing nations. ([reuters.com](https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-singapore-call-un-delay-carbon-shipping-price-vote-amid-splits-2025-10-17/?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH
Summary:
The narrative is current and supported by multiple reputable sources. Direct quotes are consistent with previous statements, and the claims are plausible within the current geopolitical context. No significant issues were identified.
