- Formal negotiations
- Finance
- Global review
- Global report
- Digital sequence information
- Harmful subsidies
- Marine biodiversity
- Planning, monitoring, reporting and review
- Article 8(j) implementation
- Biodiversity and climate change
- Links with other bodies
- Around the COP
- Armenian presidency
- Protests
- Lobbying and influence
- Carbon and biodiversity markets
Government negotiators at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London this week look set to agree that, from 2027, the owners or operators of ships that fail to meet targets to reduce emissions from their fuel should be penalised financially.
Under a compromise proposal put forward by the chair of the talks, shipowners who fail to meet the targets for cleaner fuels will have to make up the difference through a combination of payments to those who have met the targets and money paid into a green fund administered by the IMO.
But, while all major country-negotiating blocks are engaging with this proposal, they remain divided on what these targets should be – and on how steep the penalty should be for failing to meet them.
Small island nations like the Marshall Islands want ambitious emissions-cutting targets and high fees, while some big developing countries like China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates want weak targets and low fees.
Governments are in closed-door talks on the issues this week, hoping to reach an agreement by Friday which can be officially signed off at the next set of talks in October.
Two-tier system
The head of the IMO, Arsenio Dominguez, told reporters on Monday that he was convinced an agreement would be reached this week, dismissing the need for a back-up plan. “It’s too easy to be negative in life – that’s not me,” he quipped.
The proposed system includes two targets to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emitted per unit of energy used – one easier to meet and one harder. Those who fail to meet one or both of these targets can either buy “surplus units” from those that meet them or buy “remedial units” from the IMO, or a combination of the two.
The IMO’s new Net Zero Fund will spend the money from the “remedial units” to clean up the maritime sector and compensate for any negative impacts of the transition on developing economies, such as increases in the price of food due to higher shipping costs. Under the current proposal, the money will not be spent on climate action outside the maritime sector.
Governments have accepted that there will be two tiers of remedial units. Ship owners or operators that fail to meet the easier “base” emissions-intensity reduction targets should have to buy more expensive remedial units. Those that fail to meet the harder stretch targets get to buy cheaper remedial units.
Shipping’s remedial units
The price of the more expensive “Tier 2” units will be somewhere between $305-600 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent while the cheaper Tier 1 units will be $50-150 a tonne , according to different countries’ proposals outlined in the chair’s draft text.
A proposal from “Austria et al” – which is likely to include the European Union – calls for the highest prices of $600 and $150 for Tier 2 and Tier 1 units respectively.
The “Marshall Islands et al” – likely to consist of Pacific and Caribbean Islands and some African and Central American states – wants almost as high prices of $480 and $150 a tonne.
Japan wants the next highest – $450 and $100 – followed by a proposal from Argentina, China and unnamed others of $305 and $50.
Emissions intensity targets
Governments are also split on what the emissions targets should be. The Marshall Islands and its supporters want the highest ambition, followed in descending order by the Austria-led group, Japan, China and Argentina’s supporters, and finally Saudi Arabia and the UAE’s joint proposal with the lowest.
The Marshall Islands wants the stretch goal to be 100% emissions reductions straight away. This is a variation on their original proposal of a levy, where all emissions are priced at a flat rate. All other proposals want the targets to start very low and ramp up to around 100% by 2050.
At the IMO on Monday, ministers and negotiators from five Pacific nations told reporters they were disappointed that their levy proposal was no longer being considered.
Marshall Islands ambassador Albon Ishoda said this would have been “the best option” but that his nation and its “Caribbean, African and Central American partners and allies” can support the alternative compromise proposal “only if it prices 100% of emissions from the first tonne at no less than $150 a tonne”. “That is what climate science, economic modelling and justice demand,” he said.
He added later that another “strong red line” negotiating position was that trading of credits should not be part of the agreement. The compromise proposal’s surplus units, earned by those who exceed the emissions reduction targets, are a form of credit trading while its remedial units are not.
Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe said credit trading would benefit the “bigger countries, the richer countries” which have the “capacity” to make the green transition and punish smaller, developing countries.
Asked if his group would compromise further and accept an agreement if it didn’t get 100% of the emissions targeted straight away, Ishoda said: “Compromise is a necessary process. But, at this point, we are not ready to go back home and say we couldn’t get you the 100% required – because it’s based on the science that we have always been talking about.”
Kofe noted that an impact assessment carried out by the IMO found that a levy on all emissions was fairer, cheaper and more effective than other options under consideration. At the time this study was published last August, Brazil and Argentina labelled it “unacceptable” and “nonsensical”.
But Kofe called for compromise. “The nature of the challenge that we face right now is we can’t have China not being part of the solution or the US or the bigger countries. It has to be reached by consensus,” he said.
“I hope that we can try and appeal to the better conscience – the solution that we’re finding is for humanity not just for ourselves.”
The post Governments set to agree fees for ships that miss green targets appeared first on Climate Home News.
Governments set to agree fees for ships that miss green targets
Continue Reading
Prepared by a coalition of nine Western Australian union, industry, conservation, and community organisations—including UnionsWA, the Conservation Council WA, and the Smart Energy Council—the WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan provides a practical roadmap to transform Western Australia into a clean energy powerhouse while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
Western Australia stands at a pivotal crossroads: lead the global clean energy economy or watch investment, future industries, and secure jobs go elsewhere. The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan outlines a transformative blueprint to harness the state’s world-class solar and wind resources. Discover how legislated renewable targets, green iron manufacturing, and a dedicated regional training strategy can generate tens of thousands of local jobs, lower household bills, and build a resilient, net-zero future for all Western Australians.
WA needs a clear and forward-thinking plan if it is going to become a competitive renewable energy powerhouse and maintain its economic strength through the energy transition.
“Western Australians know a faster renewable energy transition will lower their household expenses and prevent harmful climate pollution. But the community also needs clear direction to ensure this transition will create jobs, lower costs and not cause undue environmental harm.
“Here, sectors representing a broad range of interests have laid the groundwork for those outcomes, clearly outlining what is needed to create a future for WA that is good for the environment, for the climate, for workers and for the economy.
Summary
The WA Clean Energy, Jobs & Industry Plan sets out a strategic roadmap to position Western Australia as a global clean energy superpower while creating thousands of secure local jobs.
The report establishes three overarching goals:
- Creating local employment.
- Maintaining industrial competitiveness.
- Lowering household energy costs
To realize this vision, the framework details actionable measures to follow on from the recent WA Government announcement of a 75% Renewable Energy Target by 2031 for the South West Interconnected System. This includes developing a statewide Renewable Energy Target, coordinating statewide workforce and training pipelines, strategically planning regional infrastructure to safeguard high-value biodiversity and cultural heritage, and ensuring equitable benefit-sharing through household electrification incentives and First Nations equity partnerships. Ultimately, the plan highlights that establishing clear policy and regulatory certainty will unlock lower energy bills, boost power reliability, and secure the state’s global competitiveness in emerging green commodity export markets.
Key Findings
- Statewide Renewable Energy Target and Emissions Reduction Targets: The report calls for a statewide RET and 1.5°C aligned emission reduction targets to remove policy risk, lower capital costs, and attract clean energy investment.
- Transformative Job Creation: Accelerating the transition offers massive employment prospects, including up to 8,800 solar and battery jobs by 2050, as well as 24,000 ongoing and 11,000 construction jobs in a commercial green iron industry.
- Industrial Electrification & Competitiveness: Requiring large gas users to adopt binding electrification timetables and providing concessional financing will protect existing energy-intensive manufacturers from rising energy costs and impending domestic gas shortfalls.
- Green Commodity Export Leadership: Western Australia can build new export markets in green iron, green ammonia, and offshore oil/gas decommissioning by constructing shared common-user infrastructure and setting dedicated Green Commodity Export Targets.
- Coordinated Workforce & Training Pipeline: To address critical skill shortages the plan recommends establishing a WA Clean Energy Jobs Plan 2050, three regional training hubs, and dedicated pathways for female and under-represented apprentices.
- Environmental Safeguards & Community Benefits: Fast-tracked development must be paired with State Planning Policies that avoid high-biodiversity and cultural heritage lands, mandate new data centres to run on additional renewable power, and deliver household electrification rebates and First Nations equity partnerships.
What you can do
WA has an opportunity to lead on sustainable, clean energy and associated industries. You can help by:
- Sending an email to Environment Minister Murray Watt and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling on them to reject Browse.
- Sharing this story to help more Australians understand what’s at stake.
- Encouraging your friends and family to take action.
Countries have completed the first “global review” of their progress towards reversing nature loss by 2030 at the COP17 biodiversity talks in Yerevan, Armenia.
The review “notes with deep concern” that, unless action is “rapidly accelerated”, the goal to reverse nature loss and meet a set of 23 targets by 2030 “will not be achieved”.
It “urges” countries to accelerate action, including by “increased ambition in addressing the gaps”.
Much of the discussions in Yerevan focused on how to raise the necessary funds to help developing countries protect nature.
Some major economies pushed to expand the range of nations that are expected to provide finance, with countries agreeing at the end of the two weeks of talks that non-donors that want to contribute can “signal interest” before COP18.
This came after developed countries failed to meet a target to significantly ramp up nature finance over the last few years.
It also came as a landmark fund agreed at COP16 in Colombia to pay communities for the genetic resources derived from nature stands nearly empty two years on.
The Yerevan talks marked the halfway point of the “Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework” (GBF), the “Paris Agreement for nature” first made in 2022 and due to be achieved by 2030.
During the nearly 12-hour-long final plenary, countries voted for Quito, Ecuador, to host the COP18 nature talks, which will be held in 2028.
Countries managed to sign off on all the major negotiation texts, marking a stark contrast to COP16, which ran so far over time that the Colombian presidency lost “quorum”, forcing talks to resume in Rome months later.
Below, Carbon Brief has detailed analysis of all of the key outcomes from COP17.
Formal negotiations
Finance
Finance, predictably, was at the heart of the discord and deadlock at the Yerevan talks.
At COP17, discussions on finance had to achieve several outcomes.
The first part – to take stock of biodiversity finance mobilised so far to meet the nature deal’s goals – fell under the global review.
As the global report noted, developed countries failed to meet their commitments to raise “at least $20bn a year by 2025” for nature. Delegates pointed to falling aid levels and a sharp 27% decline in environmental funding for the 2026-30 period.
The second part was to agree on how to mobilise resources for the next four years, to meet the GBF’s goals and targets.
Calls to “broaden the contributor base” of who pays to protect nature – and whether that should include emerging economies – became the most fraught element of the talks.
Eventually, countries agreed on what Switzerland described as a “super, mega-delicate” text. It hinged on major “political compromises”, with “no major winner or loser”, according to Kenya.
Per the decision, countries that want to be included on a list of developed country donors can “signal interest” through bilateral, confidential consultations before COP18 and every alternate COP after.
Finally, countries also agreed on criteria to shape and resource a new, permanent financial mechanism to protect nature after 2030.
However, this did not immediately take the form of a new fund under the COP that biodiverse countries have demanded since 2022, deferring the mechanism’s institutional structure to COP18.
Resource mobilisation discussions at the GBF’s halfway mark were supposed to agree on how to close the “biodiversity finance gap” and to “increase resources from all sources” to “at least” $200bn per year by 2030, as set out in target 19 of the GBF.
The talks were largely dominated by a push, led by the JUSCANZ bloc of developed countries, to “broaden the contributor base”. This could see emerging economies, such as Qatar, China, Saudi Arabia and India, being added to the list of countries that pay to protect nature.
Article 20 of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that developed countries “shall provide new and additional financial resources” to developing countries to meet the costs of implementing measures to protect nature.