The United Nations exceeds carbon.

Unlock the publisher's digest free

Roula Khalaf, editor -in -chief of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Diplomats have adopted a United Nations plan to charge ships at least $ 100 for each ton of Co₂ which they emit above a target of decarbonization, defying a threat from the United States to retaliate against such a measure.

The agreement to the UN international maritime organization represents a compromise between the polarized member states – but will also disappoint those which had requested that high costs be imposed on each ton of shipping emissions.

The agreement is also likely to cause reprisals from the United States, which withdrew from policy negotiations this week and have threatened “reciprocal measures” against all costs imposed on its ships. We do not know what form these measures could take.

The OMI said that the agreement, which should be officially adopted in October before being put into action by 2028, was adopted by 63 member states on Friday. About 16 voted against and 24 abstained, with a delegation of large energy exporters, including Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, opposing the agreement.

Shipping energy analysts claim that the plan was unlikely to reduce industry emissions fairly quickly to reach the OMI's goal of hitting zero “or around” 2050.

“This agreement is not able to offer the delivery of the own net zero and intermediate targets of IMO,” said Faïg Abbasov, director of the delivery program at Environmental Group Transport and Environment.

But he added: “Multilateralism is not dead. Despite a tumultuous geopolitical environment, the agreement of the OMI creates a momentum for alternative sea fuels.”

After almost two years of difficult negotiations, the agreement is a complex compromise between the countries which requested a simple levy on each ton of emissions and others which supported a less punitive credit negotiation system.

The Nations of the Pacific Island, which are particularly exposed to the increase in sea level, had argued that a sample was the most effective way to encourage shipowners to move to more expensive green fuels.

But large exporters and, more recently, the United States has protested the additional costs that could be passed on to the price of goods such as food, especially while low-carbon fuels remain rare.

The maritime transport industry offers around 80% of international trade and depends almost entirely on fossil fuels, which makes it responsible for around 3% of global emissions according to the OECD.

The proposal, which would be examined after three years, sets two decarbonization objectives for all ships with a volume greater than 5,000 raw tonnes, which would increase regularly over time.

Those who are missing the more difficult goal should initially pay $ 100 per year for each tonne of CO₂ emissions or equivalent greenhouse gases that exceed this goal.

Those who fall below the lower lens should pay up to $ 380 for each tonne of emissions higher than this level. These ships could pay this money to IMO, or buy credits from ships that reach the two targets by operating on lower carbon fuels.

The strictest target obliges ships to reduce their intensity of greenhouse gas fuel by 17% by 2028, compared to 2008, going to 21% by 2030. The less strict objective is 4% to 8% over the same period.

The IMO can use these income to compensate ships using low carbon fuel, while investing in the decarbonization of the maritime sector and approaching any negative impact of food security measures. These investments will be made with “particular attention to the needs of developing countries,” said the plan, a result between the United States.

As part of their previous agreement to reach Net Zero around 2050, OMI member states had agreed to reduce annual shipping emissions by at least 20% by 2030.

Prices per tonne are much higher than those paid by large EU polluters as part of the largest compulsory carbon payment scheme in the world, which amounted to € 62 on Friday.

But observers such as the Danish shipowner AP Møller-Maersk warned during negotiations that industry may not be encouraged to invest in the most sustainable fuels compared to other alternatives such as liquefied natural gas.

Abbasov warned that “first generation biofuels destructive forest (would have) the greatest push for the next decade” as part of the plan.