Plans Carbon tax produced by ships It is opposed by the US government, on a clear basis “they will impose large economic burdens” and “pay inflation.”
There will be a fierce discussion in London this week about the future of global charging on proposals to charge up to $ 150 (117 pounds) for ton for greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Those who support the measure will be decisive in generating billions of dollars in climate financing a year to help poor countries overcome the impact of the climate crisis.
But it seems that the United States has now joined China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, and at least for at least one of the other countries In opposition to the tax In the negotiations of the International Maritime Organization. A document leaked by the guardian, which has not yet been verified by the US government, aims to threaten the two countries with “mutual measures” if they agree to any tax.
The document appears to have been sent to governments in the talks to urge them to “reconsider any support for GHG [greenhouse gas] Emissy measures under consideration.
However, the sources indicate that the United States is still present and participating in the talks, which is scheduled to continue until late on Friday.
The leaked document claims that the tax will be “blatantly unfair” and “inconsistent” with the current international law of the sea. This states: “The efforts of the International Maritime Organization to achieve the goals of reducing the absolute greenhouse gas emissions, including net zero emissions by 2050 or around 2050, would enhance unlimited use of virtual, costly and non -installed fuel at the expense of current and installed technologies that support global charging fleets.
The text continues: “A clear reading of these measures is that they are primarily, and it is an effort to redistribute wealth under the guise of environmental protection. Accordingly, we must be clear: the United States rejects any efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on greenhouse gas emissions or fuel selection.”
According to the sources, many countries have been associated with the United States, which are concerned about the effects of the proposed tax – which will raise about $ 60 billion (47 billion pounds) annually, if it is fixed at a price of $ 100 per ton of carbon dioxide – while it is involved in A. World Trade WarDue to the imposition of Donald Trump for definitions on all countries except for Russia and North Korea, which already has Erasing trillions of the value of stock markets.
Other participants said that IMO talks will continue, with signs that the voices of developing countries – That is concerned that the rich countries “retreat” to their obligations To address greenhouse gas emissions from shipping – had an effect.
Emma Fenton, Director of Climate Diplomacy at Green opportunityThe campaign organization said: “The International Maritime Organization negotiations resume as usual this morning, as the two countries focus on reaching an ambitious result. If there is anything, the strong pricing mechanism can create stability and the ability to predict in volatile markets.
Shipping tax, with returns to help the poor countries suffering from climate collapse, was Discussion for several yearsBut progress has stopped The dispute over the effects of tradeAnd whether the revenue in the shipping should be re -invested. One of the competing suggestions is the carbon trading system, which criticism fears would give priority to short -term and harmful measures such as biofuels, instead of driving ship owners to re -engineer their fleets. It was the International Maritime Organization Accused of moving very slowly to reduce emissions from shippingAfter taking more than a decade to agree to a road map to reach zero by 2050.
The United States did not deny the leaked document. A Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “The United States will not participate in negotiations in the eighty -eighth marine environment protection committee in IMO. In accordance with President Trump’s executive orders on international environmental agreements and on energy dominance, the administration policy is to set the interests of the United States and the American people first in development and negotiations in any international agreements.”
