On November 11, 2025, in the thick heat of Belem, Brazil, the world’s shipping industry found itself at the center of a climate crossroads. The United Nations climate negotiations, COP30, had just kicked off on the edge of the Brazilian Amazon, and one side event drew a crowd of so-called "maritime enthusiasts" eager to hear what was next for the ships that keep global trade afloat. The spotlight was on Arsenio Dominguez, Secretary-General of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), who addressed the future of shipping’s role in the fight against climate change.
Dominguez’s message was both determined and realistic. Despite a major setback just weeks earlier—when the United States, led by President Donald Trump, and Saudi Arabia blocked a long-anticipated set of new rules aimed at slashing shipping emissions—he insisted that efforts to decarbonize the industry are far from over. "Don’t think the IMO stops there, because we don’t," Dominguez told the gathered crowd, according to the Associated Press. "We need to learn from this experience, these circumstances."
It’s a complicated moment for the shipping industry, which has quietly become a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. According to the AP, shipping now accounts for about 3% of global emissions, a figure that has grown steadily over the past decade as international trade has boomed. Most of the world’s ships still burn heavy fuel oil, a dirty and carbon-intensive energy source, and with the average large vessel lasting up to 25 years, any shift away from fossil fuels will require both immediate action and long-term investment.
The regulations that were set to be adopted in October 2025 would have marked a historic first: a global carbon fee on shipping. The plan, known as the "Net-Zero Framework," would have set a marine fuel standard to gradually decrease the amount of greenhouse gases that ships are allowed to emit. It also included a pricing system, imposing a minimum fee of $100 for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted above allowable limits. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents more than 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, was among those pushing for the new rules. The expectation was that adoption would be a mere formality, following an agreement reached in April.
But that expectation was dashed after intense lobbying from President Trump, Saudi Arabia, and a handful of other countries. Trump, never one to mince words, declared that the United States "will not stand for this global green new scam tax on shipping." The result was a year-long postponement, with the decision now pushed to 2026. It was a blow for many nations who had hoped to celebrate the agreement at COP30, and it left a sense of disappointment hanging over the climate talks.
Yet, if Dominguez felt frustration, he didn’t show it. Instead, he struck a conciliatory tone, refusing to blame the U.S. or any other country for the delay. "There’s no reason to be upset given how volatile the world is right now," he said, according to the AP. He emphasized that the IMO is still making progress on the framework for a shipping carbon fee and remains committed to engaging all member states and sectors in the decarbonization effort. "I will go to everyone to engage proactively, in a fair manner, to work with all the member states (and) sectors that need to be part of the decarbonization," he explained. "Shipping is not going to decarbonize on its own."
The absence of the United States from COP30 was notable. According to the AP, the U.S. was one of just four countries not present at the conference, along with San Marino, Afghanistan, and Myanmar. This absence underscored the challenges facing global climate diplomacy, particularly when major emitters and economic powers are not at the table.
Other nations, however, remain undeterred. Prince Jaime de Bourbon de Parme, the climate envoy for the Netherlands, delivered a keynote address immediately following Dominguez’s remarks. He acknowledged the disappointment many felt after last month’s setback in London, where the regulations were supposed to be adopted. Still, he urged a pragmatic approach. "While the delay in many ways caused a ‘sense of failure,’ it is equally important to take a cool headed, dispassionate view of what happened last month," he said. "We see its merits for addressing greenhouse gases and contributing to a just and equitable transition. We also continue to work constructively with all interested parties to overcome the barriers for its adoption next year."
For advocates of rapid change, the stakes are high. With ships built to last a quarter-century, every year of delay means more vessels locked into a carbon-heavy future. The International Chamber of Shipping, representing a vast majority of the world’s merchant fleet, has stressed the importance of acting now. The organization’s support for the regulations signals that much of the industry is ready—or at least willing—to embrace change, provided there’s a level playing field and clear rules.
Industry leaders like Andrew Forrest, founder of the Australian green technology company Fortescue, are already moving ahead. Speaking at the IMO side event, Forrest cut through the political noise. "We’re not woke, we’re not green," he said. "We’re a bunch of very pragmatic scientists and business people who are switching off fossil fuels." Forrest’s blunt approach reflects a growing sentiment among some in the sector: that the transition away from fossil fuels is not just about environmental virtue, but about business sense and technological opportunity.
This pragmatic streak is echoed by many maritime nations and their representatives, who see the proposed regulations as both necessary for the planet and inevitable for the industry. The hope, as articulated by Prince Jaime and others, is that the extra year will be used to build broader consensus and address the concerns that led to the postponement. That includes finding ways to ensure the transition is just and equitable, particularly for developing nations and smaller shipping companies that may struggle with the costs of compliance.
Still, the path ahead is anything but certain. The political landscape remains volatile, as Dominguez acknowledged, and the shipping industry is notoriously complex, with a web of national interests, regulatory regimes, and economic pressures. Yet, the momentum for change appears to be building, even if progress is slower than many had hoped. As Dominguez put it, "We need to learn from this experience, these circumstances."
With the world watching and the clock ticking on climate action, the next year will be critical for the future of shipping—and, by extension, for the global effort to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Whether the industry can chart a course toward decarbonization will depend on the willingness of nations to bridge divides, the resolve of industry leaders to invest in cleaner technologies, and the ability of the IMO to keep the conversation—and the campaign—moving forward.
For now, the sense in Belem is one of cautious optimism. The setback may have delayed the journey, but few doubt that the destination remains the same: a shipping industry that pulls its weight in the fight against climate change.