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The United States has withdrawn from talks in London looking at advancing decarbonisation in the shipping sector and Washington will consider “reciprocal measures” to offset any fees charged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.
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.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY