UN DIPLOMATS choose their words carefully.

In the hierarchy of UN language, a document that “invites” or “recommends” action is so weak it is generally considered to carry homeopathic quantities of authority.

A “request” may prompt someone to actually read a document, while “calls upon” means there is something to be done. “Urges” is substantially stronger than “calls upon” and “demands” generally means there is military action to follow. Consequently few documents demand anything from anyone, which leads us to COP29. 

The fractious conclusion to the climate talks in Baku “called on” governments three times in the end, underlining the lukewarm “better something than nothing” vibes emanating from a conference that ultimately overran by 30 hours in a bid not to collapse the whole negotiation.

The document did somewhat more forcefully “decide” to set a goal of “at least $300bn per year by 2035” for finance to developing countries. But the scepticism is palpable — India’s negotiator immediately condemned the $300bn figure as an “optical illusion”, and there are few details beyond a few vaguely drafted “encourages” and “recommend”.

It is the detail yet to come that matters for shipping because ultimately the negotiators out in Baku are looking at us in the same bracket as aviation, oil and gas and the super-wealthy, that is, a taxable revenue stream to fund that $300bn.

We don’t yet know if the lack of money on the table at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, within which the COP negotiations sit, means more countries will push for it at the International Maritime Organization. Realistically there is not yet a sufficient connection between those two debates, but the outcome from COP will now feed into the pivotal decision next year at IMO to ultimately decide on a carbon levy.

There are, however, crucial differences that need to be kept in mind.

The elephant in the room out in Baku was Trump. There was an obvious anticipation that a weaker US position on climate to come meant that it was better to take what you can at COP29 because its unlikely that things will be better at COP30.

But that will not directly translate to the IMO negotiations. The US holds significantly less sway inside the IMO than it does at UNFCCC and even a complete climate reversal from Trump once he takes the US presidency again will be unable to reverse the majority that already exists in favour of a carbon levy.

The outcome of COP29 was weak, but that makes it more likely that shipping is viewed by governments as a cash cow and thus a carbon levy is agreed next year.

Richard Meade
Editor-in-chief, Lloyd’s List

Click here to view the latest Lloyd’s List Daily Briefing