Trump Withdraws US From International Maritime Organization’s “Decarbonization” Negotiations
If the IMO persists in its Net Zero insanity, it will sail into the FO phase of the FAFO cycle.
President Donald Trump recently issued an executive order targeting state-level climate policies that impose restrictions or penalties on fossil fuel companies. He argued that such regulations “unduly discriminate” against these companies and raise energy costs for Americans.
He is now turning around and ending US involvement in international organizations seeking to impose senseless carbon-based restrictions.
The Trump administration recently announced the country’s withdrawal from the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) negotiations on decarbonization. This decision, made during the MEPC’s 83rd session in London last week, marks a significant shift in U.S. engagement away from global environmental agreements that Americans no longer wish to have imposed on this nation.
The United States has withdrawn from talks in London looking at advancing decarbonisation in the shipping sector and Washington will consider “reciprocal measures” to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships, according to a diplomatic note seen by Reuters.
Delegates are at the U.N. shipping agency’s headquarters this week for negotiations over decarbonisation measures aimed at enabling the global shipping industry to reach net zero by “around 2050”.A State Department spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday that Washington would not be “engaging in negotiations” at the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization (IMO), adding that it was the administration’s policy to put U.S. interests first in the “development and negotiation of any international agreements”.
An initial proposal by a bloc of countries including the European Union, which was submitted to the IMO, had sought to reach agreement for the world’s first carbon levy for shipping on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
“The U.S. rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice,” according to a diplomatic demarche sent to ambassadors by the United States on Tuesday.
The crux of this meeting was deciding what type of carbon tax should be set. Proposals included a tax on shipping emissions through a fuel standard (a carbon credits trading scheme) or a universal levy (a flat-rate tax on emissions).
The Trump administration was not impressed by either.
….[T]he U.S. opposes any carbon tax at all. “Accordingly, we must be clear the U.S. rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice,” the letter said.
“Should such a blatantly unfair measure go forward, our government will consider reciprocal measures so as to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships and compensate the American people for any other economic harm from any adopted GHG emissions measures. The Trump Administration will protect the American people and their economic interests.”
The U.S. tried to convince other countries to join it in objecting to the discussions: “The U.S. is not engaging in negotiations at the IMO 3rd Marine Environment Protection Committee from 7-11 April and urges your government to reconsider its support for the GHG emissions measures under consideration,” the letter said.
Anaïs Rios, shipping policy officer at the Seas at Risk NGO, said a U.S. boycott of IMO talks is “new” for the country. Under the previous Joe Biden administration the country was active in the talks.
I am simply going to tap this sign. pic.twitter.com/FgWqygQIvb
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) April 13, 2025
This withdrawal is completely consistent with Trump’s broader stance on climate agreements, including his earlier decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement for a second time.
In its message, the Trump administration characterized the IMO’s efforts as “an attempt to redistribute wealth under the guise of environmental protection.” The US particularly objected to the IMO’s goal of achieving net-zero emissions by 2050, arguing it would “unwisely promote the use of hypothetical expensive and unproven fuels.”
The IMO’s current strategy further aims for a 40% reduction in shipping’s carbon intensity by 2030 compared to 2008 levels, with 5-10% of shipping’s energy coming from zero or near-zero GHG emission sources by 2030.
If the IMO persists in its Net Zero insanity, it will sail into the FO phase of the FAFO cycle.
“Starting in 2028, ships face fees up to $380 per ton”
Everyone losing their minds over Trump’s 10% tariffs is dead silent about the UN’s “green” tariff hitting every import & export on Earth. If you’re outraged by Trump but not this, you’re not anti-tariff, you’re a hypocrite. https://t.co/W7htxBf0V3
— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) April 13, 2025
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Back to debarnaclization, guys.
Interestingly enough, regular debarnaclization reduces a ship’s carbon emissions.
China won’t do anything. India won’t do anything. Liberia or Panama flagged ships won’t do anything. Neither should we. Let Europe hamstring their people more (and let’s get out of nato).
The third world has leaped on climate as a way to try and pry reparations out of gullible guilty globalist westerners. We should tell them to pound sand.
Our imperialists endeavors were pretty minor and directed more against european powers and while we’ve done some exploitation with exploitation comes investment and jobs which have aided them in moving their communities forward.
Could we have done a better job of it? Of course! Lessons learned. However, I doubt these countries would have done the same and probably worse if they had been in the driver’s seats.
Right now, Europe has made itself the ‘sick man of Europe’. Totally self inflicted by voters who put their leaders in charge. What’s next for them, becoming China’s economic dumping ground?
I’ve been calling the EU the sick man of Europe since for ever because that is exactly what they are.
US-Owned ships, or US-Flagged Ships? The US isn’t a favorable nation to flag ships under, so that is a small percentage of the fleet.
Exactly what I was thinking.
We should be implementing an additional tariff on goods transported in non US Vessels. Start it at 3% then gradually raise it 1% per year until it hits 12%. Excellent incentive for investment into US shipyards. Lots of construction jobs to bring the yards back and then thousands of good paying jobs building ships both Navy and Merchant fleet. Maintaining the tariff will help mitigate backsliding by transport companies. Bottom line is restoring our shipyard capacity is just as much a National Security imperative as domestic capacity to produce steel, pharmaceuticals and CPU chips.
Another money-laundering scheme down the drain!!!
The green movement is where all the communist went when USSR fell. Same goals; i.e. anti-capitalism, authoritarian.
globalism
socialism
collectivism
makes sense
It’s a bit odd for me. When pondering the evils of air pollution from cars, I always wondered how emissions from cars compared to those from the world’s fleet of ships. I’m not talking about carbon emissions per se but sulfur, nitrates, etc, etc. – the things we stop diesel truck from emitting these days.
It just strikes me as hypocritical that we force cars to infinitesimal levels of pollution “to save the planet” but allow ships to burn literally the crudest grade of oil with zero pollution controls.
Most containerships are designed to travel at speeds around 24 knots…a containership of around 8,000 TEU would consume about 225 tons of bunker fuel per day at 24 knots.
https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/fuel-consumption-containerships/
There are 90,000 ocean-going cargo ships
Shipping is responsible for 18-30% of all the world’s nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution and 9% of the global sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution.
One large ship can generate about 5,000 tonnes of sulphur oxide (SOx) pollution in a year
70% of all ship emissions are within 400km of land.
85% of all ship pollution is in the northern hemisphere.
—-
Now, suddenly we care about C02 capture? Oddly we could gradually force ships to clean up emissions of dangerous chemicals without forcing them to change fuels at comparatively small increases in cost of operation.
However, instead the green-crazies want to leap to…to…to…what? Solar powered ships? Sailing ships? We know that nuclear power is off the table- if the claim is we can’t build safe land-based reactors we sure don’t dare trust Liberian flagged ships with them!
As Robert Heinlein might put it – “The roads gotta roll!”
Or, IOW, stuff needs to be transported from point A to point B.
Not just to support modern economies, but to keep folks fed.
Compared to IC vehicles like trucks, trains and ships are VERY economical ways to move stuff. Not very convenient for moving people as such, but for moving mass quantities of stuff you can’t beat them for economy of force/mile AND carbon produced / mile.
Oops, it should be force / mile / pound (or kilogram).
The diesel engines in those things stand several stories high. Think of the amount of DEF those’d have to carry!
Let me check:
Nope still not tired of all the winning.
World Health Organization, your thoughts?
WHO?
WHO=more con artists.
Can we go back to reliable, mechanical diesel engines?
It doesn’t matter how clean and engine burns or what the miles per gallon is when the engine is behind a tow truck. I wish the EPA could figure that out.
My flag gets thrown when I can’t easily find where the supposed “tariff” or “tax” money is going. Where is all that money which is going to be raised from this scheme going? The guy at the NGO no one has heard of? The endless bureaucracy of the UN?
” Where is all that money which is going to be raised from this scheme going?”
Wherever Congress tells it to go. If Congress leaves it to “the discretion of the Secretary”, it goes to the Cabinet Departments that collect it.
Leave a Comment