- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Ambassador Ali Mohamed is Kenya’s Special Envoy for Climate Change.
Kenya is a frontline casualty of the climate crisis. Escalating temperatures, unpredictable rainfall, and prolonged droughts are slashing food production, depleting water resources, and destabilising our economy. Our coastal ecosystems, vital to the “blue economy”, are besieged by rising sea levels, coral bleaching, and accelerating erosion.
These are not abstract threats; they are dismantling the livelihoods of millions of Kenyans who depend on agriculture and marine resources. Yet Kenya’s plight is not self-inflicted. Industrialised nations, with their outsized historical emissions, bear primary responsibility for this crisis. Under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, those who fuelled climate change must lead in funding solutions.
A proposed carbon levy on the shipping industry offers a transformative opportunity, one Kenya urgently supports, to deliver climate finance where it’s most needed while decarbonizing a critical global sector.
Global tax on shipping emissions faces choppy waters despite growing support
The shipping industry, a linchpin of global trade, stands poised to pioneer a new era of climate finance. At the UN International Maritime Organisation (IMO), governments are nearing agreement on a carbon levy on shipping emissions, with a decision slated for April 2025 at the Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) 83 summit in London.
If enacted, this would be the first universal tax on an international polluting sector, a precedent-setting move. The World Bank estimates this levy could raise $60 billion annually, channeling vital funds into climate adaptation and mitigation for vulnerable nations like Kenya.
Kenya endorses this initiative unequivocally. It aligns with our national commitment to cut emissions and advance sustainable development, and it amplifies our role as co-chair of the Global Solidarity Levies Task Force, which champions levies on under-taxed, high-emission sectors.
Africa is not merely a bystander in this effort. From scaling renewable energy to modernising port infrastructure, we are active architects of a decarbonized maritime future. The levy promises not just revenue, but a framework for equitable progress, if designed with precision.
3% of global emissions
But why target shipping, some might ask? Well, for starters, shipping accounts for 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, equivalent to Japan or Germany, the sixth-largest emitter worldwide. Unchecked, this figure will climb, intensifying climate pressures on coastal nations.
Decarbonising shipping isn’t optional; it’s a strategic imperative for a sustainable global trade system. Yet, the transition must not deepen existing inequities. African economies, heavily reliant on maritime trade, cannot afford levies that inflate export costs and widen global market disparities. Safeguards – such as reinvesting levy proceeds into affordable green technologies – are essential to level the playing field.
Investments in zero-emission vessels, renewable fuels, and resilient port infrastructure can ensure developing nations thrive in a low-carbon economy. A well-crafted levy would hasten this shift while funneling revenue to communities hardest hit by climate change. Kenya’s coastal populations, reeling from eroded shorelines and depleted fisheries, exemplify the stakes.
Direct funding for the Global South
Support for the levy is surging. Over 60 countries, commanding two-thirds of the global fleet, back the proposal, an encouraging signal ahead of MEPC 83. The IMO’s 176 member states already agree a carbon price is critical to hit net-zero emissions by 2050. But ambition matters.
The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimates that a levy of between $150 and $300 per tonne of emissions would both accelerate shipping’s energy transition and generate substantial climate finance. Anything less risks stalling progress.
A strong carbon tax on shipping can give hope to climate-vulnerable communities
Equity is equally critical. Funds must flow directly and predictably to developing nations, bypassing the bureaucratic quagmires that have long throttled Global South access to climate finance. Revenues should prioritise adaptation and resilience – especially for Africa, where sea-level rise and extreme weather already wreak havoc. Landlocked states, too, deserve support for broader climate projects, ensuring the levy’s benefits transcend the maritime sector. Without these guardrails, the mechanism risks perpetuating rather than dismantling historical injustices.
With just a short time until the IMO summit, member states must commit to bold, constructive dialogue. The world has a rare shot at a levy that’s fair, potent, and capable of delivering tangible climate finance. For Kenya, it’s a lifeline to shield our people and ecosystems from a crisis we did little to create. For the globe, it’s a chance to pivot toward sustainability while holding polluters accountable.
The post It’s time for shipping to launch first global tax on a polluting sector appeared first on Climate Home News.
It’s time for shipping to launch first global tax on a polluting sector
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.
- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
What timeline options were delegates debating?
Top of the agenda during the Addis Ababa meeting was a decision on the timeline of the publication of AR7’s three working group reports – also known as the “work plan”. The three reports cover climate science (WG1), impacts and adaptation (WG2) and mitigation (WG3).
Countries failed to reach a resolution on the scheduling of the influential reports at five consecutive IPCC meetings since 2024 – despite drafting being well underway.
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s write-up of discussions in Istanbul,


