Global Shipping Emissions Deal Collapses After U.S. and Saudi Arabia Block Agreement
A landmark international agreement aimed at cutting global shipping emissions has collapsed after Saudi Arabia and the United States succeeded in halting negotiations, dealing a major setback to climate efforts.
More than 100 nations gathered in London this week to finalize what would have been a historic treaty — the first to impose legally binding emission reduction targets on the global shipping industry. But the talks broke down dramatically after Saudi Arabia tabled a motion to adjourn discussions for a year, a move narrowly passed by a handful of votes.
How the Deal Fell Apart
The agreement, initially reached in April after more than a decade of negotiations, was expected to transform the shipping sector into the first industry with internationally mandated climate goals. The proposal required shipping companies to transition to cleaner fuels starting in 2028 or face significant financial penalties.
However, last-minute political pressure, particularly from Washington and Riyadh, led to the deal’s collapse. U.S. President Donald Trump denounced the plan as a “green scam,” warning that any country voting in favor could face tariffs. Representatives from the Trump administration reportedly pressured several nations to withdraw their support.
In the final moments of the conference, Saudi Arabia introduced a motion to delay the talks by 12 months, effectively killing the deal’s momentum. The session chair confirmed that this adjournment meant the agreement could not proceed, as key timelines for implementation would have to be rewritten.
Outrage From Climate Advocates
Island nations and environmental advocates reacted angrily to the decision. Hon. Ralph Regenvanu, Minister for Climate Change for the Republic of Vanuatu, called the move “unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.”
“We came to London in reluctant support of the IMO’s Net-Zero Framework. While it lacked the ambition climate science demands, it still represented a significant step forward,” Regenvanu said.
The failure of the talks drew condemnation from environmental groups and industry leaders alike. Thomas Kazakos, secretary-general of the International Chamber of Shipping, expressed frustration at the outcome. “We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree on a way forward at this meeting,” he said. “Industry needs clarity to make long-term investments in clean technologies.”
Divisions Among Nations
While the United Kingdom and most European Union members voted to continue discussions, a few key players — including Greece — broke ranks with the EU bloc and abstained. The motion to delay was supported by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and Russia, while China and several island nations, such as the Bahamas and Antigua and Barbuda, also shifted their positions after reportedly facing strong diplomatic pressure from Washington.
A delegate from Vanuatu told the BBC that these small island nations depend heavily on U.S. trade and were “leaned on heavily” by the Trump administration to change their stance.
What the Abandoned Deal Would Have Meant
Had the agreement been ratified, it would have marked a turning point for the global shipping industry — which currently accounts for roughly 3% of worldwide carbon emissions. With 90% of global goods transported by sea, emissions have continued to rise alongside global trade, making shipping one of the few sectors yet to make meaningful progress toward decarbonization.
The proposed framework required shipowners to adopt cleaner fuels and greener technologies by 2028. Companies that failed to comply would face fines or operational restrictions.
According to Faig Abbasov, the maritime transport program director at the think tank Transport and Environment, the sector’s dependence on cheap diesel remains a major obstacle. “There is no fuel as cheap as the diesel ships use today,” Abbasov told the BBC during previous IMO talks. “When we refine crude oil, we remove all the high-value products like kerosene for aviation and petrol for cars — leaving what ships burn as the cheapest residue.”
Without strong international intervention, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) previously warned that shipping emissions could increase by 10% to 150% by 2050, jeopardizing global climate targets.
U.S. Opposition and Economic Concerns
In recent months, the Trump administration has become increasingly vocal in opposing the deal, arguing that it could raise costs for American consumers by driving up import prices.
Posting on Truth Social ahead of the vote, President Trump wrote:
“The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping. We will not tolerate increased prices on American consumers.”
This rhetoric echoed throughout the talks, with U.S. delegates emphasizing domestic economic priorities over international climate cooperation. The aggressive stance effectively discouraged several allies from supporting the deal.
Industry Frustration and Next Steps
For many in the shipping industry, the failure to finalize the agreement leaves a cloud of uncertainty. The proposed framework would have provided consistent global standards, giving companies the confidence to invest in green technologies such as hydrogen and ammonia-fueled ships.
Now, those plans are on hold. The delay means that the 2028 target for cleaner fuels may no longer be achievable. When talks resume next April, nations will not be voting to approve the deal but will instead have to re-negotiate key elements from scratch, further pushing back any potential implementation.
IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez issued a plea to member states, urging them to avoid political interference and pressure tactics in future discussions. “We must allow countries to negotiate freely and in the spirit of shared responsibility for our planet,” he said.
A Setback for Climate Action
The collapse of the shipping emissions deal represents a serious blow to global climate efforts. Shipping remains one of the hardest sectors to decarbonize, yet one of the most essential for international trade. The industry’s carbon footprint rivals that of major developed nations, making it a critical area for climate reform.
With global temperatures continuing to rise and extreme weather events becoming more frequent, experts warn that time is running out to curb emissions from all major industries. Environmental groups have called on governments to recommit to the 2026 negotiations and resist external political pressure.
For now, however, the future of global shipping emissions regulation remains uncertain — and the planet’s climate goals hang in the balance.