Countries have agreed a global deal to tackle shipping emissions, after nearly ten years of negotiations. The agreement covers the vast majority of the world's commercial shipping and means that starting in 2028, ship owners will have to use increasingly cleaner fuels or face fines. The deal was nearly derailed after Saudi Arabia forced a last minute vote and the US pulled out of talks in London – but it eventually passed on Friday. Small island states and environmental groups were angry that a blanket tax was not agreed to and called the deal "unfit for purpose". Shipping accounts foraround 3% of global emissions. But unlike many other sectors it has struggled to reduce its carbon footprint over the last decade and is reliant on fossil fuels like diesel. But the agreement means it is now the first industry in the world with internationally mandated targets to reduce emissions. The agreement was passed at the UN's International Maritime Organisation (IMO) meeting. It will require owners of large international vessels to increase their use of less carbon intensive fuels or face a penalty of up to $380 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions they emit from burning fuel. Although the final agreement was passed, it had to be put to a vote - an unusual move for UN bodies that usually agree measures by consensus. The vote was requested by Saudi Arabia, who did not support the agreement, and this position was shared by a dozen other oil-producing nations, including Russia. Although they opposed the proposal, they will be bound to implement it because they are members of the IMO. There have been moves to improve the efficiency of ships, but emissions have continued to increase in line with global trade - 90% of which is carried by ships. The most effective measure would be to switch ships away from fossil fuels to green fuels, but that would be very expensive. "There is no fuel as cheap as diesel that ships use today because when we take crude oil out of the ground, we take out all the nice bits, that's the kerosene for aviation, diesel and petrol for cars," said Faig Abbasov, programme director for maritime transport at think tank Transport and Environment. "Whatever is left at the bottom, that's what ships burn. So no fuel will be as cheap as this because not much energy goes into its production," he said. In comparison, the most environmentally friendly fuels like e-kerosene and ammonia are created from initially splitting water molecules to obtain hydrogen, which is a very energy-intensive and costly process. Figures vary depending on the fuel type butthe World Economic Forum estimatesthat these green fuels are 3-4 times more expensive to produce. "There's still a huge cost gap between the fossil fuels and the zero emission fuels and we need to close this gap. So you need carrots and sticks and in shipping the stick is not that big yet to use sustainable fuels," said Refke Gunnewijk, manager for clean industry & transport at the Port of Rotterdam. Some island states also abstained and said the deal was a watered down version of what they hoped for. An earlier proposal to apply a blanket carbon tax or levy - which would have been a world first - was dropped. "Let us be clear about who has abandoned 1.5°C. Saudi Arabia, the US and fossil fuel allies pushed down the numbers to an untenable level and blocked progress at every turn," said Ralph Regenvanu, minister of energy and climate change for Vanuatu. Their disappointment was shared by environmental groups. "This week, IMO member states squandered a golden opportunity for the global shipping sector to show the world how it can turn the tide on catastrophic climate heating, putting their own goals out of reach", said Delaine McCullough, president of the Clean Shipping Coalition. It is estimated that the agreement could achieve an 8% reduction in emissions for the sector by 2030, according to the maritime consultancy UMAS. This would be short of the IMO's target agreed two years ago to cut emissions by 20% by the end of the decade. But China and Brazil had previously raised concerns that a levy could result in a significant price increase for basic goods like food. Both countries backed the final deal. Jesse Fahnestock, director of decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said that the deal was a compromise. "It is a difficult set of decisions, but it is the first regulation of its kind and that is to be celebrated," he said. Fahnestock added it was unclear if the penalties were enough to close the cost gap between the fuel types. "You may have incentivised shipowners to prepare a bit for the future fuels but whether the signal is strong enough to get the billions of dollars of investment into the production facilities for these fuels - I don't think these regulations will overcome that. I think more will need to be done," he said. Any money raised from the penalties will be put into a "Net Zero" fund, with money spent on scaling up greener fuels and supporting developing countries. It is this "redistribution" that prompted the US delegation to pull out of the talks on Tuesday night. A letter was sent by the US to all countries at the IMO negotiations saying any levy would cause inflation and if it was passed then "reciprocal measures" would be taken. Although the US move was at odds with its long-held position at the IMO, it was in keeping with President Trump's push back on climate action seen over the last few months - such as withdrawing the US from the Paris Climate Agreement. But industry and country delegates appeared unperturbed when speaking to the BBC on Wednesday and continued with negotiations. The US only flags 178 cargo ships that represent 0.57% of worldwide commercial shipping tonnage. So if it took the decision not to implement the new proposals it is unlikely to make a significant difference to the funds raised. Now the committee have agreed the measure, it is expected to be formally adopted in October. Sign up for our Future Earth newsletterto get exclusive insight on the latest climate and environment news from the BBC's Climate Editor Justin Rowlatt, delivered to your inbox every week. Outside the UK?Sign up to our international newsletter here.
Global breakthrough to tackle shipping emissions
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Countries Reach Agreement to Reduce Shipping Emissions by 2028"
Bbc News
8.1
TruthLens AI Summary
After nearly a decade of negotiations, countries have reached a landmark agreement aimed at reducing shipping emissions, which account for approximately 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions. This deal, finalized at the United Nations' International Maritime Organization (IMO) meeting, mandates that starting in 2028, ship owners will be required to transition to cleaner fuels. Failure to comply will result in fines of up to $380 for each ton of carbon dioxide emitted from fuel combustion. The agreement faced significant hurdles, including a last-minute vote requested by Saudi Arabia, which opposed the proposal, and the withdrawal of the United States from talks. Despite these challenges, the agreement ultimately passed, marking the shipping industry as the first to have internationally mandated emissions reduction targets. However, many small island states and environmental advocates criticized the absence of a blanket carbon tax, labeling the agreement as inadequate and expressing disappointment over the compromise reached.
The new regulations will push ship owners to adopt less carbon-intensive fuels, although experts warn that the transition may be costly. Current fossil fuels used in shipping, primarily diesel, are significantly cheaper compared to emerging green fuels like e-kerosene and ammonia, which are expected to cost three to four times more to produce. Advocates for the environment have voiced concerns that the penalties outlined in the agreement may not be sufficient to drive the necessary investments in cleaner fuel production. While projections suggest that the agreement could lead to an 8% reduction in emissions by 2030, this falls short of the IMO's previous goal of a 20% reduction. The deal also includes provisions for a “Net Zero” fund, which will utilize penalties collected to support the scaling up of greener fuels and assist developing nations. Despite the compromises made, industry insiders recognize the importance of this agreement as a foundational step toward regulating emissions in the maritime sector, although further actions will be essential to close the cost gap between traditional and sustainable fuels.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The recent agreement aiming to reduce shipping emissions marks a significant milestone in global environmental negotiations. After nearly a decade of discussions, countries reached a consensus that requires ship owners to gradually transition to cleaner fuels starting in 2028. However, the journey to this agreement has been tumultuous, with some nations expressing dissatisfaction regarding the absence of a universal tax on emissions.
Implications of the Agreement
This agreement is notable because it establishes international targets for emissions reductions in the shipping sector, which has historically struggled to decrease its carbon footprint. The requirement for owners of large vessels to adopt less carbon-intensive fuels or face substantial penalties is a critical step toward addressing the shipping industry's contribution to climate change. Nevertheless, the fact that a vote was necessary—prompted by opposition from oil-producing countries—highlights the contentious nature of climate negotiations.
Public Perception and Reactions
The article suggests that the deal may not satisfy all stakeholders, particularly small island states and environmental groups, who view the agreement as inadequate. This dissatisfaction may influence public perception, creating a narrative that while some progress has been made, it is insufficient to meet the urgent demands of climate action. The frustration expressed by these groups indicates a potential disconnect between governmental agreements and grassroots environmental activism.
Hidden Agendas or Overlooked Aspects
While the article primarily focuses on the agreement and its implications, it does not delve into the broader geopolitical dynamics that may have influenced the negotiations. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Russia, who opposed the agreement, are major oil producers, and their resistance raises questions about the extent to which economic interests may overshadow environmental commitments.
Comparison with Other News
When viewed in the context of ongoing global discussions about climate change, this agreement could be seen as a part of a larger trend toward stricter environmental regulations across various sectors. However, the specific challenges faced by the shipping industry, such as reliance on fossil fuels and the costs associated with transitioning to greener alternatives, make this case distinct.
Potential Economic and Political Consequences
The agreement could have significant ramifications for the shipping industry and related sectors. As companies adapt to the new regulations, there may be shifts in market dynamics, particularly for fuel producers. The potential for increased costs associated with cleaner fuels could influence shipping rates and subsequently affect global trade.
Supportive Communities
Environmental advocacy groups and nations particularly vulnerable to climate change are likely to support the agreement, as it represents a step toward more rigorous climate action. Conversely, oil-producing nations and industries reliant on fossil fuels may resist such measures, highlighting a divide in the communities affected by and interested in the agreement's outcomes.
Impact on Financial Markets
The implications of this agreement may resonate in financial markets, especially for companies operating in the shipping sector and those involved in fuel production. Investors might need to reassess their portfolios based on how well companies adapt to these new regulations.
Geopolitical Significance
The agreement’s passage reflects ongoing tensions in global climate policy, particularly among industrialized and developing nations. This aligns with current international discussions about the roles of different countries in combating climate change and may shift the power dynamics in future negotiations.
Artificial Intelligence Involvement
While the article does not explicitly indicate AI involvement in its creation, the structured presentation of facts and balanced viewpoints may suggest the influence of AI-driven content generation tools. These technologies could have assisted in synthesizing complex information into a digestible format.
The overall reliability of this news piece appears solid, presenting factual information about the agreement while also acknowledging dissenting voices. However, the absence of deeper analysis regarding the geopolitical ramifications and reactions from various stakeholders leaves some questions unanswered.