IF THIS week’s last-minute show of force from the US, warning other governments not to support a global carbon price on shipping at the International Maritime Organization, was a serious attempt to derail negotiations, it appears to have failed.

But the risk is not limited to this week’s negotiations.

The mood within the IMO halls on Thursday remained unflustered on the subject of US derailment and more concerned with the urgent task of nailing down the detail of the greenhouse gas strategy before the end of the week.

Beyond the pivotal outcome of the negotiations, however, the prospect of an aggressively anti-climate policy US government poses a significant risk to shipping’s decarbonisation trajectory.

While US opposition at the IMO had been widely anticipated, and largely priced into expectations, the threat of “reciprocal measures” to protect the US from any agreed regulation will now have to be factored into policy at a level far beyond the government representatives tasked with IMO negotiations.

The US position, delivered directly to the London embassies of IMO member states this week, notably circumventing the IMO as an institution, makes clear that the US will not be engaging in the IMO debate.

Whether it continues to engage as a member state at all, remains to be seen.

As recently as last week, US representatives had submitted a paper outlining their work on the development of a safety framework to support the reduction of GHG emissions from ships using new technologies and alternative fuels.

Only days later, US policy disavowed its own involvement in that policy framework, stating that the IMO’s pursuit of emissions reduction regulations “would unwisely promote the use of hypothetical expensive and unproven fuels at the expense of existing and proven technologies that fuel global shipping fleets”.

This is no mere disagreement over detail. The US is demanding that the US “halt all efforts to proliferate the deeply unfair agenda reflected in the Paris Agreement in other fora”.

US threats against IMO member states who continue to engage in the process suggest this proactive opposition will not stop once an IMO agreement is in place. It also suggests that the US is prepared to undermine the IMO system and pursue bilateral agreements with those member states prepared to engage on US terms.

“The US will engage with partners on energy and investment and issues of common interest,” said the diplomatic missive.

Disengagement at the IMO on climate talks is just part of a wider dismantling of climate policy and a systematic US assault on multilateral agencies pursuing a climate agenda.

While US representatives are understood to be present in Seoul this week at a Clean Energy Ministerial meeting that will discuss shipping decarbonisation, the same language used in the IMO warning is being used in meetings there.

Lloyd’s List understands a similar statement is likely to appear shortly at the IMO’s equivalent UN aviation agency, the International Civil Aviation Organization.

Earlier this week the Trump administration pulled funding for the US Global Change Research Program, the entity that produces the federal government’s signature climate change study.

The end of the contract, first reported by Politico, effectively ends the federal government’s climate research programme that advised policy.

Last week, the US withdrew from a flagship global climate financing programme. The so-called Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP), was an initiative launched in 2021 to assist South Africa, Indonesia and Vietnam to abandon fossil fuels and move to renewable energy through a combination of loans, grants and private finance. 

The statement issued to ministries announcing the withdrawal used much of the same language issued to IMO member states.

While US retrenchment from the international foras creating shipping decarbonisation policy has been largely anticipated, the concern is that whatever agreement the IMO establishes this week still needs to be approved and enacted by member state capitals.

The strong likelihood of any agreement being produced with so-called square bracket details that will need to be negotiated further, possibly until an October session can formalise the final text, leaves room for US threats to further sway the eventual outcome.

Beyond the IMO process, however, the more significant threat will come in the form of climate finance and innovation routes increasingly being shut down by a proactively anti-climate US administration.

The US’ protest against this week’s IMO talks has not made much of a splash so far, but that does not mean that it will not have a significant impact.