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
Nitrates, largely from agricultural runoff, are linked to cancers and birth defects. Research says areas with factory farms have higher levels of risk.
Close to 20 percent of Americans are exposed to water polluted with high levels of potentially cancer-causing nitrates, known to come mostly from agricultural runoff, according to new research published this month.
Nearly One-Fifth of Americans Are Consuming Water With High Levels of Nitrates
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has slammed gas corporation war profiteering and environmental damage in a scathing Senate hearing as part of the Select Committee on the Taxation of Gas Resources, urging fair taxation of gas corporations and the transition to secure, homegrown renewable energy to protect Australian households and the economy from future energy shocks.
Speaking at the hearing, Greenpeace said the US and Israel’s illegal war on Iran has laid bare the fundamental flaws of an energy system built on fossil fuel extraction, geopolitical power plays and corporate greed, and will be a defining moment for how the world thinks about energy security.
Watch the hearing:
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“This is not an energy crisis, it’s a fossil fuel crisis. The crisis we’re all facing lays bare the dangers of fossil fuel dependence, for our energy security, our communities, and for global peace and stability.
“Gas corporations like Woodside, Santos, Shell and Chevron — the same companies whose CEOs refused to front this Inquiry — are making obscene war profits, using the illegal war on Iran to price gouge, profiteer and push for more gas we don’t need — while people and our environment pay the price.
“Australians are getting smashed by soaring bills and the impacts of climate disasters — gas corporations should be paying their fair share to help this country, instead of sending billions offshore, tax-free.
“But we’re at a turning point — while gas corporations cynically push to open up more of our oceans and land to drilling for fossil fuels, our allies like the UK are doubling down on renewables in response to the fossil fuel crisis. Our trading partners in Asia are making the same reassessment of fossil fuels.
“Which is why the hearing today is crucial: an effective and well-designed tax on the gas industry’s obscene war time profits is a chance to channel funds to people and communities, fast-track the rollout of clean, secure homegrown wind and solar energy, while holding polluters accountable.
“Our dependence on fossil fuels leave us overexposed to the whims of tyrants like Trump — it’s in Australia’s national interest to end the fossil fuel chokehold for good and usher in the era of clean energy security.”
WATCH: ‘This is a fossil fuel crisis’, Greenpeace tells Senate gas tax Inquiry
SYDNEY, Wednesday 22 April 2026 — A settlement has been agreed in a lawsuit brought by Greenpeace Australia Pacific against fossil fuel multinational Woodside, being heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
Greenpeace Australia Pacific filed the lawsuit against Woodside in December 2023, alleging the fossil fuel giant had misrepresented both its prior emissions reductions, and its emissions reductions targets for 2025, 2030, and 2050.
Greenpeace alleged, among other things, that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets will achieve substantial reductions in its actual scope 1 and scope 2 emissions, when in fact Woodside will rely heavily on offsets to achieve a decrease in net emissions.
Greenpeace also alleged that Woodside represented that its emissions reduction targets are consistent with what the most recent climate science sets out as necessary to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement when in fact Woodside’s emissions reduction targets do not include Woodside’s scope 3 emissions (which account for over 90% of Woodside’s emissions) and Woodside has plans to significantly expand its oil and gas production and processing and thereby the sum of its actual scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions would not materially decrease by 2030 and may increase past 2030.
Greenpeace filed expert evidence which it alleges supported its claim and demonstrated why Woodside’s claims were misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive.
Woodside has since changed how it represents its strategy to respond to climate change. For example, initially, Woodside displayed a ‘Net zero by 2050 or sooner’ banner on its website, but around July 2025, Woodside removed the banner from its website.
Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific cares about transparent and accurate climate disclosures, and in December 2023, took Woodside to court challenging its claims.
“During the course of the case, Woodside changed how it was presenting its plans on carbon emissions from what they had said prior to us bringing this case. We take that as a win and have decided to continue the fight against fossil fuel corporations outside of the courts.
“Settling this case does not signal the end of our fight against Woodside’s climate and nature-destroying gas projects. While we may have agreed to resolve our court action against Woodside, in which we alleged it made misleading and deceptive claims to investors regarding its climate plans, the fact is the court of public opinion will judge Woodside for the harm it inflicts on our climate.
“Woodside’s greed-driven appetite to expand fossil fuel production is accelerating the climate crisis, putting the environment and communities at risk.
“Greenpeace strongly supports public interest litigation as a crucial tool in democratic engagement to protect our planet and holding large corporations accountable for their contributions to climate change.
“Investors and the public deserve accurate information about a company’s true climate impact and strategy, especially when those strategies are presented as ‘Paris-aligned’ — an absurd claim for a company responsible for one of the largest LNG export terminals in Australia, and now the United States.
“The expansion of fossil fuels is incompatible with a 1.5C-aligned world — Greenpeace will continue to campaign to fast-track the transition to homegrown, clean, affordable wind and solar energy, the only solution to the energy crisis we are currently all facing globally.”
Greenpeace and Woodside agreed for the proceeding to be dismissed on the basis that each party bears its own costs.
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on 0406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
Kimberley Bernard on 0407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
Greenpeace Australia Pacific settles in lawsuit against Woodside
Trump Must Go, but it Needs to Be for the Right Reason
China’s $8.4B Orbital Data Center Push Sets Up Space-Based AI Showdown With SpaceX
GM Bets $625 Million on Nevada Lithium Clay: What It Signals for the Next U.S. Project
-
Climate Change9 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases9 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”
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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