THERE are two ways to look at the US’ threat to essentially kill the International Maritime Organization climate process, which has been progressing inch by inch for nearly 20 years and is supposed to culminate on Friday.

The first is that it’s obviously bad news for those who want to fight climate change and for an industry crying out for clear and simple rules.

Rather than taking its seat at the table, the Trump administration has resorted to throwing rocks from afar at those already seated.

Delegates, ruffled but undeterred, say they are continuing to work toward a greenhouse gas regulation they can all support.

Perhaps those inside the friendly, technocratic IMO bubble are failing to grasp just how dangerous this is. Trump’s tariffs follow no reason or logic but hopes that his promised Liberation Day was just the usual bluster have been dashed spectacularly. The threat here is just as serious.

But then there’s the second way to look at this: politics by quite similar means.

The US tantrum is no surprise to IMO insiders; the only question was whether its opposition to pricing greenhouse gas emissions would be passive (like it always has been) or active.

The US has never been a fan of international treaties. It has one of the worst records of any country on ratifying those on human rights and the environment.

Any convention would have to be passed by US Congress, which would be a headache whether or not the government supported it. But there are so few international American ships — less than 100 by a recent count — that it is not that big a deal.

Some bolt-on regulation would be created to allow those ships to trade internationally, as is the case with the IOPC Funds on oil pollution prevention.

The US is not alone in opposing climate regulation. Backing Saudi Arabia in scuttling the effectiveness of a potential IMO rule at the last minute would arguably be a better way to get what it wants.

To be sure, the chances of a simple, effective and global rule are still thin. What we end up with will be picked over and amended for years to come, and there will be plenty of problems along the way. If it is vague enough to please everyone, it probably won’t be that effective.

Yet the world is still closer than it ever has been to a global carbon price, and the pressure to agree one will not go away.

All delegates act in their own national interest, however narrow. That’s their job. We lack a better process than this one, so we have to keep going. It’s just politics, after all.

Declan Bush,
Senior reporter, Lloyd’s List