Mark Lutes is senior advisor for global climate policy at WWF. He specialises in UNFCCC climate negotiations, shipping decarbonisation and carbon finance.
If all goes well, on April 11, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) will announce that governments have reached a deal to put the global shipping sector on course to net-zero emissions by 2050. Countries must not miss this opportunity to secure this landmark agreement.
Despite the shipping business accounting for around 3% of global emissions, the Paris Agreement on climate change does not contain mechanisms to control planet-heating emissions from shipping or aviation. So this deal has the potential to be a significant moment that finally aligns this critical industry with global climate targets. It would in fact be even stronger than the largely voluntary Paris accord, with mandatory enforcement of targets.
Final steps for global shipping decarbonisation
In July 2023, the IMO reached agreement on a substantially strengthened greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions strategy that contained the targets the IMO is now discussing how to achieve. These included 20% emission reductions from 2008 levels by 2030 – but striving for 30% – and achieving net-zero emissions “by or around, i.e. close to” 2050.
If countries agree on measures to achieve these targets at talks next week, it will require shipping companies to transition to using zero or near-zero fuels or alternative power sources over the next 25 years – essentially a fossil fuel phase-out in the sector. This is both necessary and possible, bringing both environmental benefits and long-term certainty and sustainability to the industry.
Fossil fuel nations to see value of their economies shrink under new UN-agreed measure
The IMO strategy also calls for shipping companies to strive for 10% zero or near-zero emissions fuels and energy sources for ships by 2030. This wording is important because it excludes liquefied natural gas (LNG) which proponents hail as a ‘transition fuel’ but has modest emission reductions at best and a risk of lock-in.
Energy efficiency measures are also a key part of the proposed strategy. The implementation of a Carbon Intensity Indicator has begun but is now undergoing a review. Successful energy efficiency measures are vital for reducing energy demand and also delivering important environmental co-benefits, including lower speeds which reduce underwater noise and whale strikes.
However, the most important measures for meeting the sector’s net zero targets relate to the energy that powers the ships. This is why negotiations have been focused so far on two measures: a Global Fuel Standard and an economic measure such as a carbon price or levy.
A global fuel standard for ships
A Global Fuel Standard would set a target or limit on the amount of GHG emissions per unit of energy for fuels. There is broad agreement on the need for a standard, but many key technical details remain to be worked out. These details can determine whether the “striving” targets will be met, what fuels and energy sources are incentivised, and whether new fuels will be sustainable and whether full life-cycle (well-to-wake) emissions of fuels are taken into account.
A well-designed standard should provide strong incentives for the development and deployment of zero or near-zero fuels – principally e-fuels produced using renewable energy, and limit the use of LNG and biofuels with high life-cycle emissions. Strong environmental safeguards are also vital to ensure these new fuels do not result in deforestation and other negative land use impacts.
Financing the transition
The most politically challenging issue for negotiators has been the economic measure or carbon price for the shipping sector.
There is broad agreement that revenue is needed for two main purposes – first, to invest in new zero emission fuel sources, especially e-fuels produced using renewable electricity, and to close the price gap between these fuels and other more polluting fuels; and second, to ensure a just transition to a zero-emissions shipping sector, by helping those countries most affected by rising shipping prices resulting from higher-cost fuels, especially prices of food and other essential goods for remote islands and least developed countries. Some also want the funds to be used to support broader activities, like adapting to climate impacts.
The majority of countries participating in the talks, and many shipping sector bodies and environmental observer groups, have supported a broad-based carbon price on shipping emissions, although there are a wide range of views on the amount of the levy, ranging from around $18 to $150 per tonne of CO2e emissions. Other countries, especially some large developing economies that depend on shipping for exports of basic commodities, are strongly opposed to a universal levy, but are open to designing the fuel standard in a way that can generate some amount of revenue.
Agreement on financing mechanism is essential
Whatever the final design, it is vital that the agreed measures generate sufficient and predictable financing to ensure a just transition in the sector and to accelerate the production of zero and near-zero GHG emission fuels, especially e-fuels. Some form of levy is likely to be agreed as part of the Global Fuel Standard mechanism, if not as a stand-alone carbon price.
The IMO’s ability to reach an agreement by April 11 will likely hinge on a resolution of this contentious issue. Success here would not only be a step forward for shipping, but could also send a strong signal about the enduring power of multilateralism. This high-stakes negotiation comes at a very sensitive time for the international community with cooperation seemingly at a low ebb.
In this context, an agreement to decarbonise a key global sector would send a positive signal to countries now developing their national climate plans under the Paris Agreement, and to COP30 in November in Brazil, where key decisions must be made on the next steps for global efforts to combat climate change.
The post Landmark deal to put shipping on course for net-zero is in sight appeared first on Climate Home News.
Landmark deal to put shipping on course for net-zero is in sight
The case shows that climate change is a fundamental human rights violation—and the victory of Bonaire, a Dutch territory, could open the door for similar lawsuits globally.
From our collaborating partner Living on Earth, public radio’s environmental news magazine, an interview by Paloma Beltran with Greenpeace Netherlands campaigner Eefje de Kroon.
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Climate Change
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
SYDNEY, Saturday 28 February 2026 — Greenpeace International and Greenpeace organisations in the US announce they will seek a new trial and, if necessary, appeal the decision with the North Dakota Supreme Court following a North Dakota District Court judgment today awarding Energy Transfer (ET) USD $345 million.
ET’s SLAPP suit remains a blatant attempt to silence free speech, erase Indigenous leadership of the Standing Rock movement, and punish solidarity with peaceful resistance to the Dakota Access Pipeline. Greenpeace International will also continue to seek damages for ET’s bullying lawsuits under EU anti-SLAPP legislation in the Netherlands.
Mads Christensen, Greenpeace International Executive Director said: “Energy Transfer’s attempts to silence us are failing. Greenpeace International will continue to resist intimidation tactics. We will not be silenced. We will only get louder, joining our voices to those of our allies all around the world against the corporate polluters and billionaire oligarchs who prioritise profits over people and the planet.
“With hard-won freedoms under threat and the climate crisis accelerating, the stakes of this legal fight couldn’t be higher. Through appeals in the US and Greenpeace International’s groundbreaking anti-SLAPP case in the Netherlands, we are exploring every option to hold Energy Transfer accountable for multiple abusive lawsuits and show all power-hungry bullies that their attacks will only result in a stronger people-powered movement.”
The Court’s final judgment today rejects some of the jury verdict delivered in March 2025, but still awards hundreds of millions of dollars to ET without a sound basis in law. The Greenpeace defendants will continue to press their arguments that the US Constitution does not allow liability here, that ET did not present evidence to support its claims, that the Court admitted inflammatory and irrelevant evidence at trial and excluded other evidence supporting the defense, and that the jury pool in Mandan could not be impartial.[1][2]
ET’s back-to-back lawsuits against Greenpeace International and the US organisations Greenpeace USA (Greenpeace Inc.) and Greenpeace Fund are clear-cut examples of SLAPPs — lawsuits attempting to bury nonprofits and activists in legal fees, push them towards bankruptcy and ultimately silence dissent.[3] Greenpeace International, which is based in the Netherlands, is pursuing justice in Europe, with a suit against ET under Dutch law and the European Union’s new anti-SLAPP directive, a landmark test of the new legislation which could help set a powerful precedent against corporate bullying.[4]
Kate Smolski, Program Director at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “This is part of a worrying trend globally: fossil fuel corporations are increasingly using litigation to attack and silence ordinary people and groups using the law to challenge their polluting operations — and we’re not immune to these tactics here in Australia.
“Rulings like this have a chilling effect on democracy and public interest litigation — we must unite against these silencing tactics as bad for Australians and bad for our democracy. Our movement is stronger than any corporate bully, and grows even stronger when under attack.”
Energy Transfer’s SLAPPs are part of a wave of abusive lawsuits filed by Big Oil companies like Shell, Total, and ENI against Greenpeace entities in recent years.[3] A couple of these cases have been successfully stopped in their tracks. This includes Greenpeace France successfully defeating TotalEnergies’ SLAPP on 28 March 2024, and Greenpeace UK and Greenpeace International forcing Shell to back down from its SLAPP on 10 December 2024.
-ENDS-
Images available in Greenpeace Media Library
Notes:
[1] The judgment entered by North Dakota District Court Judge Gion follows a jury verdict finding Greenpeace entities liable for more than US$660 million on March 19, 2025. Judge Gion subsequently threw out several items from the jury’s verdict, reducing the total damages to approximately US$345 million.
[2] Public statements from the independent Trial Monitoring Committee
[3] Energy Transfer’s first lawsuit was filed in federal court in 2017 under the RICO Act – the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, a US federal statute designed to prosecute mob activity. The case was dismissed in 2019, with the judge stating the evidence fell “far short” of what was needed to establish a RICO enterprise. The federal court did not decide on Energy Transfer’s claims based on state law, so Energy Transfer promptly filed a new case in a North Dakota state court with these and other state law claims.
[4] Greenpeace International sent a Notice of Liability to Energy Transfer on 23 July 2024, informing the pipeline giant of Greenpeace International’s intention to bring an anti-SLAPP lawsuit against the company in a Dutch Court. After Energy Transfer declined to accept liability on multiple occasions (September 2024, December 2024), Greenpeace International initiated the first test of the European Union’s anti-SLAPP Directive on 11 February 2025 by filing a lawsuit in Dutch court against Energy Transfer. The case was officially registered in the docket of the Court of Amsterdam on 2 July, 2025. Greenpeace International seeks to recover all damages and costs it has suffered as a result of Energy Transfers’s back-to-back, abusive lawsuits demanding hundreds of millions of dollars from Greenpeace International and the Greenpeace organisations in the US. The next hearing in the Court of Amsterdam is scheduled for 16 April, 2026.
Media contact:
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
The Trump administration’s relentless rollback of public health and environmental protections has allowed widespread toxic exposures to flourish, warn experts who helped implement safeguards now under assault.
In a new report that outlines a dozen high-risk pollutants given new life thanks to weakened, delayed or rescinded regulations, the Environmental Protection Network, a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of hundreds of former Environmental Protection Agency staff, warns that the EPA under President Donald Trump has abandoned the agency’s core mission of protecting people and the environment from preventable toxic exposures.
Former EPA Staff Detail Expanding Pollution Risks Under Trump
The Positive Effects We’ve Had on Others Are Profound, Whether We Know It or Not
A Tiny Caribbean Island Sued the Netherlands Over Climate Change, and Won
Greenpeace organisations to appeal USD $345 million court judgment in Energy Transfer’s intimidation lawsuit
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits