London: The International Maritime Organization (IMO) is set to convene from October 14 to 17 to make a landmark decision on imposing a carbon emissions levy on the global shipping sector, a move that has intensified tensions between the United States and an EU-led coalition that includes Britain, China, and Japan.
The proposed measure, initially agreed upon in a preliminary deal in April, targets vessels exceeding 5,000 gross tons that surpass prescribed emissions thresholds. Ships exceeding these limits would be required to purchase remedial units or pay penalties, while cleaner vessels could earn surplus credits. Revenue from the initiative would be channeled into a newly established IMO Net-Zero Fund, designed to support the maritime transition to greener fuels and technologies. Early projections indicate that the levy could generate between $11 billion and $12 billion annually from 2028 to 2030.
However, the United States has consistently opposed the measure, pulling out of initial negotiations in April and threatening retaliatory measures against countries supporting the levy. According to the U.S. State Department, these retaliatory actions could include port fees, visa restrictions, and other sanctions against nations perceived to be endorsing a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations.” U.S. officials argue that the levy could create an unapproved global tax framework and harm economic interests.
In contrast, EU member states and allies have urged for the adoption of the IMO measure. The European Commission emphasized the need for a cohesive global strategy to reduce maritime emissions, warning that fragmented national regulations could undermine efforts to combat climate change effectively.
The IMO’s decision in the coming week is being closely watched as a potential precedent for global climate policy. Approval of the carbon levy could catalyze stricter international environmental standards across industries, whereas failure to reach consensus may stall global emission reduction efforts and heighten geopolitical friction.
As the debate unfolds, the world’s maritime and environmental communities remain alert to the outcome, recognizing the far-reaching implications for both international trade and climate action.