LONDON — A U.S. diplomatic broadside personally led by President Donald Trump derailed a historic effort to tax climate pollution from shipping. 

A fractious meeting of the International Maritime Organization in London ended Friday with a decision to adjourn for a year, after Saudi Arabia, backed by Russia, pushed for a pause.  

That means the effort to set binding international rules to cut greenhouse gases from shipping — responsible for about 3 percent of global emissions — goes into the deep freeze for a year. During that time, the U.S. and other opponents can try to rally more support to kill it completely. 

The move followed an extended pressure campaign from the United States marked by threats of tariffs and other economic penalties. It is also a huge setback for the European Union, which failed to push through the measure and even saw some of its member countries abstain.

“Commonsense prevailed,” a senior U.S. State Department official said in an email. “The Trump Administration will not stand for the UN or any organization forcing American taxpayers to foot the bill for their environmental pet projects.” 

European Commission Executive Vice President Teresa Ribera called the delay “a huge shame,” in a social media post. The EU and Brazil had been publicly backing the move ahead of COP30 global climate talks next month, hosted by Brazil. 

The proposal up for approval at the IMO, the U.N. agency that regulates global shipping, was meant to incentivize countries to shift toward using cleaner fuels in a bid to zero out carbon emissions from shipping by 2050. It would have increased the financial burden on polluting ships over time. Fees collected would go to help fund the shift to greener fuels and support developing countries. 

The White House had objected for months, with Trump himself weighing in on Thursday in a post on Truth Social that he was “outraged” by the effort. “The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping,” he said.  

It comes as the United States grows increasingly hostile in its approach to climate measures, with Trump calling climate change a “con job” and urging other countries to drop efforts to invest in renewable energy. 

There had been “relentless pressure” from the U.S. for countries to back its position, said Vanuatu Climate Minister Ralph Regenvanu. “There’s bullshit going on,” the Pacific Island nation minister said during a coffee break before the final vote.

Shifting votes

The motion to adjourn on Friday passed by just four votes, after several countries that had previously backed the measure, including EU members Greece and Cyprus, chose to abstain.

“The net zero framework relies on fuels and technologies that aren’t available at scale, and introduces sharp penalties for not using them, which would inflate costs as companies chase limited supplies,” said a Greek official, speaking on condition of anonymity. Greece hosts some of the world’s leading shipping companies.

Representatives from Cyprus declined to comment on their vote.

The delay dismayed countries backing an effort to cut emissions from a sector that is seeing fast growth.

“They killed [the agreement]. The lack of leadership from the EU makes my blood boil,” said one person with knowledge of the discussions, also granted anonymity to speak candidly. 

However, the move garnered support from major fossil fuels producers, such as Saudi Arabia and Russia, which traditionally push back against climate measures aimed at cutting the use of oil, gas and coal. Major shipping countries and several with large flag registries, including Singapore and Liberia, also objected.  

Others shifted positions.

China, the world’s biggest ship builder, switched from supporting the measure in April, to voting to delay it on Friday.  

The clash highlighted the differences between countries worried about the measure’s economic impact against those fearing the consequences of global warming.

A Saudi delegate, who could not be named due to the IMO’s restrictions on reporting, accused backers of the carbon price of sowing global division. “We have differences because we are all looking out for our citizens, our futures … and our economies,” he said. 

But Emma Fenton, senior diplomacy director at Opportunity Green, an NGO, called the outcome “a devastating indictment of member states’ lack of courage to stand in solidarity with climate-vulnerable countries to achieve a just and equitable maritime transition.” 

A European Commission spokesperson called the delay “regrettable” and stressed the EU’s commitment to an “ambitious, science-based global framework” to put international shipping on track for net-zero emissions by 2050.  

The spokesperson added that Europe “remains an open and reliable partner” and is ready to resume talks “under IMO leadership when appropriate.” 

The International Chamber of Shipping, a global trade association representing more than 80 percent of the world’s merchant fleet, said it was disappointed with the outcome. 

“Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector,” Thomas A. Kazakos, the chamber’s secretary-general, said in a statement. “As an industry we will continue to work with the IMO, which is the best organization to deliver the global regulations needed for a global industry.” 

Part of the shipping industry is worried that if the IMO effort fails, the result could be a patchwork of national and regional measures that will be expensive and confusing for the sector. 

Alison Shaw, IMO manager at green NGO Transport & Environment, said the delay will create further uncertainty for the shipping industry. But this week’s proceedings nevertheless showed “a clear desire to clean up the shipping industry, even in the face of U.S. bullying.” 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, however, applauded Trump for resisting a measure it dubbed “misguided.”  

“A unilateral global tax of this nature risks distorting markets and discouraging investment in cleaner shipping technologies,” Marty Durbin, president of the chamber’s Global Energy Institute said in a statement. He also took issue with the way the measure advanced, calling it a “rushed and opaque process” that many member countries did not affirmatively support. 

Sara Schonhardt reported from Washington. Karl Mathiesen reported from London. Martina Sapio reported from Brussels. Zia Weise contributed reporting from Brussels. Nektaria Stamouli contributed reporting from Athens.