A landmark international deal aimed at drastically reducing global shipping emissions has collapsed after intense pressure from the United States and Saudi Arabia, marking a major setback in global climate diplomacy. The talks, held over several days at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) summit in London, were poised to finalize the world’s first binding carbon reduction targets for the shipping sector. However, a last-minute motion pushed by Saudi Arabia—backed vocally by the U.S.—to delay the vote by a year effectively ended the agreement.

The proposed deal, initially reached in April and hailed as historic, would have mandated ships worldwide to switch to cleaner fuels by 2028 or face penalties, making shipping the first global industry to adopt legally binding emissions cuts. Over 100 nations were ready to ratify the agreement, which sought to impose emission reduction targets of 20% by 2030 and 70% by 2040, aiming for net-zero emissions from shipping by 2050. The agreement also featured mechanisms for carbon pricing, technology transfers to developing nations, and stricter emission monitoring.

However, the U.S. administration, led by President Donald Trump, launched a fierce diplomatic campaign against the deal. Trump publicly denounced the agreement as a “green scam” and threatened retaliatory tariffs against nations supporting it. Alongside the U.S., Saudi Arabia raised concerns over economic sovereignty and regulatory impacts, particularly emphasizing the risk that uniform carbon pricing could disadvantage their shipping sectors and ports. Their united opposition influenced several countries—including China and small island states—prompting them to withdraw prior support.

“This is a devastating blow to international climate efforts,” said Dr. Elena Marquez, a maritime environmental expert. “The shipping industry accounts for about 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, more than aviation. Without strong regulations now, emissions could increase by 250% by 2050, undermining the Paris Agreement targets.”

The shipping sector is critical, moving over 90% of global trade and consuming roughly 300 million tonnes of heavy fuel oil annually. The consensus failure leaves billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide unaddressed, threatening to accelerate global warming by an estimated 0.1°C by century’s end. Additionally, environmental damage to oceans, marine ecosystems, and coastal communities is expected to worsen without timely emissions controls.

The IMO Secretary-General urged member countries to avoid repeating such setbacks, emphasizing the urgent need for concerted climate action. Despite the collapse, some countries are adopting unilateral measures such as stricter port regulations and fuel standards to spur decarbonization. Still, experts warn that fragmented regional policies risk creating a patchwork regulatory environment that may complicate shipping operations.

Moving forward, the international community faces a critical challenge: reconciling economic interests and climate imperatives to deliver binding global policies for shipping emissions. The fallout from this collapse underscores the persistent geopolitical complexities of climate diplomacy and highlights the need for renewed efforts to align maritime trade with sustainability goals.

In summary, the failure of the landmark deal marks a significant moment of impasse with profound implications for global efforts to address climate change through one of its most emission-intensive sectors. The coming year will test whether international actors can overcome divisions and forge effective cooperation to curb shipping’s carbon footprint. Without such progress, the path to meeting global climate targets grows increasingly precarious.