The first-ever global policy on mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in the shipping industry has started to create tensions between the U.S. and EU. The tension shows a split in economic climate policy priorities. The International Maritime Organization, a UN specialized agency for regulating shipping, has recently gone ahead and approved a “zero network framework” to decarbonize the industry by 2050.
Net zero framework – what does the plan require to succeed?
This plan requires the implementation of mandatory emissions reporting, carbon pricing, and the use of incentives for cleaner fuels and technology. The EU has supported this policy, considering it the first step in achieving global climate objectives, and the U.S. is countering them by saying it harms economic interests in shipping.
According to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the U.S. delegation to the IMO has claimed that the framework attempts to shift the cost of compliance to developing nations and small shipping nations.
Washington has also expressed concerns about the International Peace reports, the U.S. delegation to the IMO has claimed that the framework attempts to shift the cost of compliance to developing nations and small shipping nations.
Washington expresses concerns about the potential for trade distortion, amongst others
The U.S. expressed concerns about the potential for trade distortions and regulatory overreach with the implementation of global carbon pricing, making the U.S. reluctant to engage. A Carnegie maritime policy analyst also noted that the Biden administration is responding to political pressure domestically to not pursue international obligations that could be construed to undermine U.S. competitiveness.
“The U.S. position reflects a broader unease with multilateral climate governance.”
US tensions escalated when the U.S. threatened visa restrictions and financial sanctions on pivotal European negotiators of the IMO framework.
American officials alleged a lack of consultation and transparency in the process on the part of European Union representatives. This has been met with fierce backlash from European leaders, who claim that the U.S. response is an attempt to sabotage international climate collaboration.
An EU diplomat quoted in the Yahoo article put it best:
“This is not just about shipping. It’s about whether the world’s largest economies are willing to work together to tackle the climate crisis. The U.S. is sending the wrong message.”
A challenging time for global climate diplomacy
As for global climate diplomacy, this could be the most challenging time yet. The shipping industry contributes a little under 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change targets set by the Paris Agreement are simply unachievable without reform in this sector. The net-zero framework by the International Maritime Organization is ambitious. However, it is likely to fail without consensus among the global community.
European diplomats have stressed the friendliness of the net-zero framework. They find the proposed payment, assistance, and technology change to develop work equitably.
They sink climate change costs with inaction over time and diminish the global diplomacy community.
Conversely, U.S. diplomats are in mitigation mode
The U.S. diplomats wish to have a less regulated “market-driven” strategy and voluntary governance on the approach to climate diplomacy. The contrasting arguments show the tension between the U.S. and Europe on global change diplomacy, where Europe leans toward climate regulation and the U.S. toward economic freedom associated with regulation.
With the U.S. and the EU involved, some observers might be on the more optimistic side.
The IMO’s next negotiations will focus on the U.S. and the EU. Together, they could enable a new standard for emissions control within the shipping industry. This would set the tone for global shipping emissions control efforts. This means that possibly, the emissions control goals for other transport sectors.