Plans for a levy on the carbon produced by ships are being opposed by the US government, on the apparent basis they would “impose substantial economic burdens” and “drive inflation”.
There will be fierce debate in London this week on the future of global shipping over the proposals to charge up to $150 (£117) a tonne for the greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Those in support say the measure will be crucial to generating billions of dollars of climate finance a year to help poor countries cope with the impact of the climate crisis.
But now the US appears to have joined China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and at least a dozen other states in opposing the levy at the International Maritime Organization negotiations. A leaked document seen by the Guardian, which has not yet been verified by the US government, purports to threaten countries with “reciprocal measures” if they agree to any levy.
The document appears to have been sent to governments at the talks to urge them to “reconsider any support for the GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions measures under consideration”.
However, sources suggest the US is still present and taking part in the talks, which are scheduled to carry on until late afternoon on Friday.
The leaked document alleges the levy would be “blatantly unfair” and “inconsistent” with current international law of the sea. It states: “The IMO’s effort to achieve absolute greenhouse gas emission reduction targets for international shipping, including net zero emissions by or around 2050, would unwisely promote the use of hypothetical, expensive, and unproven fuels at the expense of existing and proven technologies that fuel global shipping fleets. These measures would impose substantial economic burdens on the sector and drive inflation globally.”
The text continues: “A plain reading of these measures is that they are foremost, an effort to redistribute wealth under the guise of environmental protection. Accordingly, we must be clear: the United States rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice.”
According to sources, many countries have been bemused over the US being concerned about the impacts of the proposed levy – which would raise about $60bn (£47bn) a year, if fixed at $100 a tonne of carbon dioxide – while it is engaged in a global trade war, caused by Donald Trump’s imposition of tariffs on all countries except Russia and North Korea, which has already wiped trillions from the value of stock markets.
Other participants said the IMO talks would continue, with signs that the voices of developing nations – which are concerned that rich countries have been “backsliding” on their commitments to tackle greenhouse gas emissions from shipping – were having an impact.
Emma Fenton, the senior director for climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, a campaigning organisation, said: “The IMO negotiations resumed as normal this morning, with countries focusing on reaching an ambitious outcome. If anything, a strong pricing mechanism could create stability and predictability in volatile markets. If the IMO fails to achieve an ambitious outcome this week, it’s because of the people in the room – not those trying to bully from the sidelines.”
A levy on shipping, with the proceeds to help poor countries afflicted by climate breakdown, has been under discussion for several years, but progress has been stalled by disagreement over the impacts on trade, and whether the proceeds should be re-invested in shipping. One rival proposal is for a system of carbon trading, which critics fear would prioritise short-term and harmful measures such as biofuel, rather than drive shipowners to re-engineer their fleets. The IMO has been accused of moving too slowly to reduce emissions from shipping, after taking more than a decade to agree to a roadmap on reaching net zero by 2050.
The US did not deny authorship of the leaked document. A Department of State spokesperson said: “The US will not be engaging in negotiations at the IMO’s 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee. Consistent with President Trump’s executive orders on international environmental agreements and on energy dominance, it is the administration’s policy to put the interests of the United States and the American people first in the development and negotiation of any international agreements.”
