BETA
This is a BETA experience. You may opt-out by clicking here

More From Forbes

Edit Story

Biden-Harris’ First Climate Test Against Trump Next Week At UN Shipping Vote

This article is more than 3 years old.

As the tussle of power between President Trump and President-elect Biden continues in Washington D.C., a key test of strength will reveal itself next week.

The UN agency responsible for global shipping, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), is holding a critical vote at its London headquarters, to decide how much global shipping will be allowed to pollute over the next decade. Curbing emissions from global shipping is essential to meet the Paris Agreement, as the industry accounts for over 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, making it the sixth largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, three times greater than France.

The U.S. holds a powerful ‘Category A’ seat on the IMO’s Executive Council, one of only ten countries to do so. President-elect Biden had put addressing the Climate Crisis firmly at the center of his Presidential agenda.

As part of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’ Climate Plan, they included a specific campaign pledge to “Lead the world to lock in enforceable international agreements to reduce emissions in global shipping.”

At the same time, President Trump was a known supporter of the cruise line industry. Under his Presidency, he had watered down proposals for strict controls on shipping emissions, as well as U.S. participation in multilateral institutions.

So next week will be an indication whether the U.S. delegation, led by the U.S. Coastguard, will insist on a strong climate stance, in line with Paris Agreement targets, and which are enforceable as proposed by President-elect Joe Biden. Or will they support outgoing President Trump with a proposal that has a weak climate pledge and no enforcement or penalties for ships that break these emission targets.

Shipping emissions are a mess

It is important to understand how shipping got itself into this position, and why next week’s vote is so important.

In 2015, 195 world leaders agreed on the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. These countries all adopted the agreement within 8 months, making it one of the fastest treaties to be adopted in UN history.

However, global shipping decided it did not wish to be bound by enforceable emission targets. Together with the aviation industry, they unilaterally opted out of the Paris Agreement to the outrage of environmentalists. This is in spite of shipping being responsible for transporting 90% of global trade, and being one of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases.

After two years of pressure, the UN agency responsible for global shipping put in place a voluntary emissions agreement that they celebrated as ‘a historic agreement for global shipping,’ as a way to appease criticism of their industry. It was a voluntary agreement, not bound by national legislation, and with no short term plans - just an aspirational 2050 target.

Immediately, there were challenges. The six ‘Flags of Convenience’ countries that account for 70% of global shipping (Panama, Marshall Islands, Liberia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Malta) refused to pay for carbon emissions directly attributable for ships registered in their jurisdictions, even though their regulations significantly drive emissions of 70% of ocean-bound vessels.

The industry gave themselves until 2020 to negotiate two horizons. The first was an emissions plan for the next decade to 2030. The second was a pathway to becoming fossil fuel free by 2050.

The latter involves investments in new energy sources of ships such as electrification, ammonia or green hydrogen. A fourth proposal around LNG has proven controversial because of the potential of methane emissions (which is significantly more damaging to the climate than carbon dioxide). Bill Gates also recently announced a fifth proposal, looking at nuclear power for shipping. These are all important avenues to explore, but compared to investments in electric vehicle and battery technologies for cars, trucks and scooters, global shipping has not invested in alternative energy R&D at anyway close to the levels needed for the transformation ahead.

In addition, it was the more immediate targets over the next decade where the shipping industry started to dig in their heels. To meet the Paris Agreement, the global shipping industry needed to reduce the absolute amount of emissions by 40% by 2030. So from 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide a year, there should be a pathway for global shipping to emit only 600 million tons a year by 2030. As ships become larger (as has been the case every year), this would have required investments in more innovative technologies such as flettner rotating sails, and bubble hull lubrication to reduce the amount of energy burned per mile of shipping.

There were several proposals submitted for how to achieve this.

Despite these proposals on how to achieve this 40% reduction pathway, just last month, a watered down position was negotiated and present to the IMO during the final round of negotiations. This proposal was spearheaded by Japan, whose new Prime Minister, Yoshihide Suga, recently announced that Japan would aspire to be carbon neutral by 2050. Under this watered down proposal, energy analysts such as the International Council on Clean Transport estimated that emissions would actually rise by 14% (not fall, as all industries should have been aspiring for in order to meet the Paris Agreement). Essentially, it was a measure that would do little to change ‘business as usual’ in global shipping. This proposal was called EEXI.

To make matters worse, the teeth of this legislation (such as sanctions and penalties if ships were in breach of emission standards) were removed in a final set of compromises.

This almost prompted 30 delegations to walk out in outrage at the talks last month, calling the proposal ‘toothless.’

IMO vote next week

This is the proposal that will be voted on next week. In the absence of strong U.S. leadership, it is a proposal that has been widely criticized as not being a credible path compatible with the Paris Agreement. It would also not meet the Biden-Harris criteria for an ‘enforceable international agreement to reduce emissions in global shipping.’

One of the leading ocean advocacy NGOs, Ocean Conservancy, has been following developments closely at the IMO. Dan Hubbell, Ocean Conservancy’s Shipping Emissions Campaign Manager, said “The incoming Biden-Harris Administration has promised strong action on climate change, including global shipping emissions, which will hopefully also spur more meaningful action at the IMO.”

John Maggs from the Clean Shipping Coalition also echoes Ocean Conservancy’s optimism when looking at a new U.S. stance at the IMO with a new administration. He says, “We are anticipating a much more helpful approach from the United States. The Biden team have already namechecked ship greenhouse gas emissions so we would expect them to be proactive on this at IMO. At the moment the U.S. is a significant brake on getting things done at IMO.”

So it will be interesting to see whether the U.S. delegation rejoins international coalitions who had been calling for tougher and enforceable shipping emission regulations, or whether the delegation will remain wedded to their current position that will allow for weaker controls of greenhouse gas emissions for the next decade.

Hopes for strong Biden-Harris action in shipping

Hopes are high that the Biden-Harris team could finally address one of the missing pillars of the climate change movement, in addressing maritime emissions both within the U.S., and in global shipping. This requires making a critical appointment for the MARAD Administrator (Maritime Administrator), who sits within the Department of Transport at the same level as the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority.

This role will be a crucial to execute a transformational plan to revitalize both the United State’s role in international shipping, as well as transforming domestic waterways. Both have been long-neglected sectors of transportation in the U.S. as other countries have forged ahead with electric ferry and transportation initiatives that have much lower carbon emissions. Many waterways, ports and shipyards in the U.S., were historically polluted by heavy oil, but have huge potential to displace cargo from road and air onto greener shipping corridors.

Transforming these waterways and canals into modern, clean, electric transport networks could revitalize a vast transportation network across the country, such as New York with the Hudson River, canals linking Stockton to Sacramento in California, or the extensive waterways of Louisiana and Miami. Electric maritime transportation could rejuvenate many of the large U.S. bays, estuaries, waterways such as San Francisco Bay, Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, Mississippi Estuary, Great Lakes around Chicago, and the network of islets and bays around Seattle.

Many environmental organizations are positive about working with the new Biden-Harris administration on a new strategic direction for shipping.

Madeline Rose, Climate Campaign Director for Pacific Environment is optimistic about the change. She says, “The Biden-Harris transition team is already looking to integrate clean shipping regulation into its clean energy revolution and environmental justice plan. Ending ship pollution in U.S. ports and enacting policies that catalyze shipping’s zero-emission transition present opportunities for the Biden-Harris administration to meet Paris climate goals, rectify environmental injustices, and create new green union careers through infrastructure investments.

The administration will also likely look to launch new regional initiatives with Mexico and Canada and with transpacific trade partners China, South Korea, and Japan to accelerate shipping’s zero-emission transition along key transit corridors.”

Taking a regional approach

Even if the U.S. Coastguard does not take a strong stance at the IMO next week, there may be other avenues for the Biden-Harris team to consider that would still achieve enforceable international agreements at a regional level.

This would be a similar path that the U.K. and the EU have started to take, with the European Emissions Trading System now including shipping.

The U.S. is foreshadowing this with a new bill in Congress called the Ocean Climate Based Solutions Act (OBSCA), that proposes a Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) scheme, that would form the basis for a carbon price and hence emissions trading.

Dan Hubbell from Ocean Conservancy is supportive of such a regional approach if the IMO vote does not go the way of the Biden-Harris team. “Regardless of the IMO outcome, the United States can and should take a bigger role in moving towards zero carbon shipping. We need to establish our own MRV (Monitoring, Reporting and Verification system), invest in developing zero emissions fuels and ships, install shore power nationally to address CO2 as well as air pollution in port communities, and finally, set firm carbon intensity reduction targets."  

John Maggs from the Clean Shipping Coalition argues that action is still needed at the IMO level in addition to the U.S. taking a more regional approach. “The scale of the climate crisis is such that it needs action at all levels. Certainly a poor performance by the IMO will encourage regional and national initiatives, and we support those, but even if the IMO manages to get its act together and agree an ambitious short-term measure we will still need those regional and national initiatives.

It’s not an either-or situation. This of course means that, regardless of the outcome next week, we can’t give up on the IMO. The process leading to a short-term measure isn’t looking good at the moment but we can’t simple throw our hands in the air and say we’ll deal with it at the regional and national level.

Some regions and some states will do the right thing but there are places, parts of the industry and parts of the world, that only an IMO approach can reach and we must not give up on them. The IMO must be held to account and it must ultimately be forced to do the right thing.”

Leading clean transport advocacy group, the European Federation for Transport and Environment, or ‘Transport and Environment’ for short, also agrees that strong action will still be required at the IMO. Faïg Abbasov is Transport and Environment’s Director of Shipping. “Regional and national measures, including those planned by the EU, are complementary, not in lieu of the IMO. The climate crisis is daunting enough to justify efforts at all levels; we don't have the luxury of being picky. And the firm commitment to regulate international shipping under the European Green Deal is a good testimony that Europe can no longer afford putting all its eggs in the IMO basket. We strongly hope that the Biden presidency will rise to the EU's level of ambition and implement national complementary measures for US shipping too.” 

Madeline Rose from Pacific Environment highlights further opportunities in green regional trade corridors. “The next 3 years will be essential for global climate stabilization. Regardless of what happens at the International Maritime Organization, nations around the world need to be enacting national policies that protect their citizens from ship pollution, curb emissions from the current global shipping fleet, and force an industry transition to 100% zero-emission vessels.

Regional regulatory coordination and regulatory coordination along major trade routes are going to become increasingly important.” 

International repercussions

The Biden-Harris victory is already shaking things around the world in shipping policy.

In Norway, the opposition Green Party have become emboldened to challenge the Prime Minister of Norway, Erna Solberg, on her climate position in shipping. Norway is one of the co-sponsors of the EEXI proposal that is seen as weakening shipping’s commitment on climate change and the Paris Agreement.

Spokesperson for Energy in Norway’s Green Party, Ask Ibsen Lindal, says that the Biden-Harris victory has been received as a big relief for many Norwegians. “There is no doubt that he Biden-Harris administration will introduce much more ambitious and aggressive climate policies. Add this to what the EU already is pushing for, and soon Norway will be out in the cold together with countries such as China lobbying for weaker climate regulations and sustained future markets for our oil and gas within certain sectors.”

On shipping, he hopes that the Biden-Harris victory can shift Norway's current position. “Very few people in Norway are aware of the more polluting position of the Norwegian Government. We have been told that Norway is a leader in clean shipping technologies. While our government is preaching clean shipping technologies within Norway on the one hand, it is pushing for higher emissions in global shipping at the IMO on the other. If the U.S. starts pushing for stricter regulations, it could contribute to put pressure on Norway on these positions from the outside. The Climate Crisis needs to bring us all together.”

Lindal and the Green Party have tabled questions to the Norwegian Minister of Climate and the Environment, Sveinung Rotevatn, on Norway's official climate position in shipping. He hopes to hear back next week prior to the IMO vote.

First of many big changes

Just seeing the implications for global shipping puts into perspective how significant the 2020 U.S. elections has been for the world.

The transition of the Biden-Harris team could bring about seismic shifts in geopolitics and environmental policies that had become increasingly fractured over the past four years since the heady days when the Paris Agreement was signed.

With the stakes so high, it will be important that the 2020 cohort of Presidential nominees are able to step up to the task expected of them.