![\"Shipping](\"https:\/\/media.breitbart.com\/media\/2025\/04\/AP25101437338074-640x480.jpg\")
By John Hayward<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The International Maritime Organization (IMO) held a meeting in London on Friday at which member nations agreed to impose the world\u2019s first global carbon tax, a fee of $380 per metric ton on \u201cgreenhouse gases\u201d emitted by ships up to a certain limit and $100 per ton beyond that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The IMO estimated<\/a> the new tax would bring about $10 billion per year into the organization\u2019s \u201cnet zero fund\u201d for green energy transitions. The limit on untaxed greenhouse gas emissions is scheduled to reduce over the years, beginning in 2027 and ending with \u201cnet zero\u201d around 2050.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The IMO meeting also established an \u201cemissions control area\u201d in the northeastern Atlantic, where ships would be required to observe tougher regulations on carbon emissions. Most shipping traffic between the U.S. and Europe would pass through this control zone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The carbon tax was a \u201cconsensus\u201d agreement that did not seem to please anyone. Environmentalists predictably railed that the tax was too low, so shipping companies would be more likely to pay it than reduce their emissions dramatically. The more optimistic environmental groups hoped the relatively modest current tax would be a foot in the door for more draconian policies down the line.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBy approving a global fuel standard and greenhouse gas pricing mechanism, the International Maritime Organization took a crucial step to reduce climate impacts from shipping,\u201d said Natacha Stamatiou of the Environmental Defense Fund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMember states must now deliver on strengthening the fuel standard over time to more effectively incentivize the sector\u2019s adoption of zero and near-zero fuels, and to ensure a just and equitable energy transition,\u201d Stamatiou said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Developing nations, particularly island nations, argued the agreed-upon tax was too low to compensate them for the effects of climate change. A group of about 60 \u201cdeveloping\u201d countries wanted the income from the carbon tax to go into a general climate fund, not a fund reserved solely for the shipping industry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe developing countries with the greatest need came here and offered a solution. How can the other major economies ask us to take a weak deal home to our people, who are suffering as a result of the climate crisis? And how can they take it back to their constituents?\u201d said<\/a> Minister Antony Derjacques of the Seychelles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the other hand, many of the major shipping nations objected to paying a carbon tax, instead pushing for a credit system that would let them do some trading to minimize the financial impact. Some form of carbon credit trading will evidently<\/a> be part of the final agreement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oil-producing countries also objected to the global carbon tax agreement, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Russia, and Venezuela.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Much of global trade is accomplished through maritime shipping, and those huge cargo ships are said to produce about three percent of the world\u2019s industrial carbon emissions. A heavy tax on emissions would increase the price of virtually everything. Forcing cargo haulers to use the current generation of \u201cgreen energy\u201d technology would end worldwide commerce as we know it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n