5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Climate
Under Pressure From Trump, UN Shipping Regulator Delays Vote on Net-Zero Rules
“With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on Earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality," says one campaigner.
Oct 17, 2025
Advocates of establishing an international framework for decarbonizing global shipping on Friday decried a postponed vote on proposed rules—a move that came amid pressure from the administration of US President Donald Trump and Saudi Arabia.
Members of the United Nations International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee gathered in London for a special meeting, MEPC 83, to vote on its Net-Zero Framework (NZF), a new set of global regulations aimed at slashing the shipping industry's greenhouse gas emissions.
A Saudi proposal to adjourn the meeting and delay a final decision on the NZF narrowly passed by a vote of 57-49, with 21 abstentions, Mongabay reported.
The NZF—whose goal is net-zero shipping by 2050—has two main interconnected components, a global fuel standard requiring ships to gradually reduce emissions, and a pricing mechanism meant to encourage the industry to voluntarily slash greenhouse gas output.
"The delay leaves the shipping sector drifting in uncertainty."
The NZF was approved at the last MEPC meeting in April, then shared with member nations for review, with an eye toward final assent during the current special meeting. However, while the European Union and nations including China and Brazil have been pushing for the NZF, the world's two largest oil producers—the United States and Saudi Arabia—are working to scupper the proposal, which Russia also opposes.
Trump took to his Truth Social network Thursday to pressure MEPC members to vote "no" on the NZF:
I am outraged that the International Maritime Organization is voting in London this week to pass a global Carbon Tax. The United States will NOT stand for this Global Green New Scam Tax on Shipping, and will not adhere to it in any way, shape, or form. We will not tolerate increased prices on American Consumers OR, the creation of a Green New Scam Bureaucracy to spend YOUR money on their Green dreams. Stand with the United States, and vote NO in London tomorrow!
The one-year postponement drew sharp rebuke from supporters of the NZF.
“We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree a way forward at this meeting," International Chamber of Shipping secretary general Thomas Kazakos said following Friday's vote. "Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonize the maritime sector, in line with the goals set out in the IMO [greenhouse gas] strategy."
"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," Kazakos added.
John Maggs, who represents the Clean Shipping Coalition at the IMO, said in a statement, “By delaying adoption of its Net-Zero Framework, IMO has today squandered an important opportunity to tackle global shipping’s contribution to climate breakdown."
“With climate warming impacts being felt everywhere on Earth, kicking this decision down the road is simply evading reality," he added. "Governments serious about climate action must spend the next 12 months rallying every nation that supports the framework, convincing those who are on the fence, or opposing, that its adoption is the only sane way forward.”
Elissama Menezes, co-founder and director of the advocacy organization Equal Routes, said: "Delay costs the climate—and coastal Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities are already paying the price for inaction. This week’s non-outcome should mean that states and the marine sector should double down on related efforts to reduce the impacts from the triple planetary crisis.”
Faig Abbasov, director of shipping at the green group Transport & Environment, told Reuters that "the delay leaves the shipping sector drifting in uncertainty."
Global shipping accounts for approximately 3% of the world's CO2 emissions. Approximately 90% of all international trade is conducted at sea, and proponents of the NZF warn that emissions will soar without the regulations.
While leading shipping companies including Maersk and CMA CGM have taken steps to transition their fleets to zero emission vessels, they are still falling short of the goals laid out in the landmark Paris climate agreement or even the IMO’s own 2023 emissions reduction strategy.
”However, all is not lost—not by a long shot," said Maggs, "as there is an immediate opportunity to slash [greenhouse gas] emissions from shipping, minimize fuel burn, and the overall cost of the energy transition, and that is to strengthen and make enforceable the carbon intensity indicator (CII), the IMO’s cornerstone energy efficiency measure."
CII is a shipping industry regulatory metric that measures a vessel's annual carbon intensity.
“There’s no time to waste," Maggs added. "At MEPC 84 in April 2026 member states need to focus all their attention on transforming the CII into the energy efficiency powerhouse needed to quickly right this ship and put it back on route to being a climate solution.”
Keep Reading
Show Less
As Planet Burns, US Banking Agencies Ditch Climate Risk Rules
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell recently warned that due to climate disasters, "there will be regions of the country where you can’t get a mortgage, there won’t be ATMs, banks won’t have branches."
Oct 17, 2025
Federal regulators have rescinded a set of guidelines for large banking institutions to consider the financial dangers of the climate crisis when making decisions about business strategy, risk management, and strategic planning.
On Thursday, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve Board announced that they would immediately withdraw their interagency Principles for Climate-Related Financial Risk Management for Large Financial Institutions, a framework that required financial institutions with $100 billion or more in assets to consider climate risks.
The guidelines were first issued in 2023, which was, at the time, the hottest year on record. That year, the US experienced a record number of weather and climate-related disasters—including a massive drought across the south and Midwest, historic wildfires in Hawaii, and major flooding events across the country—that caused at least $92 billion worth of damage.
In October of that year, Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell said: "Banks need to understand, and appropriately manage, their material risks, including the financial risks of climate change."
The OCC, meanwhile, explained that "financial institutions are likely to be affected by both the physical risks and transition risks associated with climate change." This included both the risks to the safety of people and property "from acute, climate-related events, such as hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and heatwaves, and chronic shifts in climate," as well as changes due to "shifts in policy... that would be part of a transition to a lower carbon economy."
But these concerns have not carried over to the administration of President Donald Trump, who recently referred to climate change as a "con" and has sought to purge the federal government of any acknowledgement of the scientific consensus that it is being caused by human fossil fuel usage, which he has moved to aggressively expand.
In a joint release Thursday, the agencies said they "do not believe principles for managing climate-related financial risk are necessary because the agencies' existing safety and soundness standards require all supervised institutions to have effective risk management commensurate with their size, complexity, and activities," adding that "all supervised institutions are expected to consider and appropriately address all material financial risks and should be resilient to a range of risks, including emerging risks."
Elyse Schupak, policy advocate with Public Citizen's climate program, criticized the withdrawal of the guidelines, calling it "an irresponsible and politically motivated move in the wrong direction."
"The increase in the frequency and severity of climate disasters and the rapidly escalating property insurance crisis mean the agencies should be working harder to understand and mitigate climate-related financial risks faced by banks and the financial system—not backtracking," she said. "Effective bank regulation requires looking squarely at all risks to supervised institutions, including climate risks, and addressing them before they have destabilizing effects. This approach, rather than politics, should guide regulator action."
The move comes as the globe is reaching the point of no return for the climate crisis. Global temperatures have already soared to between 1.3°C and 1.4°C above preindustrial levels and are expected to pass the 1.5°C threshold within the next five years, at which point many of the worst effects will become unavoidable. These effects include more frequent heatwaves, sea level increases, more frequent severe storms, and aggressive droughts.
In addition to the human toll, these entail considerable financial damage. In December 2024, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that if the Earth continues to warm at current rates, the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) will be 4% lower than if temperatures had remained stable.
It predicted that sea level rise—projected 1 to 4 feet by the turn of the century—would cause anywhere from $250 billion to $930 billion worth of losses to property owners, mortgage lenders, insurance companies, and the federal government. Other untold costs, it said, would be borne as a result of heightened mortality from heat, declines in available food and water, increased rates of illness, and forced migration due to unlivable conditions.
Testifying before Congress earlier this year, Powell noted that banks and insurance companies have been pulling out of coastal areas at risk of flooding and places prone to wildfires due to the financial risk.
State Farm had recently canceled thousands of policies in the Pacific Palisades neighborhood of Los Angeles shortly before it was hit with massive wildfires in January. He warned that as climate change worsens, financial institutions will deem it too risky to serve large portions of the country.
"If you fast forward 10 or 15 years," Powell said, "there will be regions of the country where you can't get a mortgage, there won't be ATMs, banks won't have branches, and things like that."
Schupak said: "For the Federal Reserve, capitulation to the politics of climate denial championed by the Trump administration is a threat to both its legitimacy and efficacy, which will be hard to repair."
"Powell has admitted that the Federal Reserve has done the 'bare minimum' on climate," she continued. "Now it will do even less, putting the banks it supervises and the broader financial system at risk."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Led by Sanders, Senate Democrats Demand Trump EPA Restore Solar Funding as Energy Prices Soar
"The EPA’s illegal termination of Solar for All has left states, communities, and businesses across the country in limbo, with critical projects stalled and vulnerable households facing higher energy costs."
Oct 16, 2025
Warning that the US Environmental Protection Agency's termination of the Solar for All program this year came at an especially inopportune time, with electricity bills soaring for families across the country, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday led 32 members of the Democratic caucus in demanding that the Trump administration restore the program.
The Solar for All initiative, which was spearheaded by Sanders (I-Vt.), was meant to create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs while allowing low-income households to benefit from renewable energy.
If EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin had not illegally pulled $7 billion that had already been appropriated by Congress, said the lawmakers, Solar for All would have lowered residential electricity bills by at least 20% for nearly 1 million homes and saved working families nearly $9 billion in electric costs.
"Solar for All strongly aligns with the bipartisan goals of facilitating American energy independence and strengthening grid reliability," wrote the senators, who also included Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). "Your agency’s decision to terminate Solar for All is not only unlawful—given this funding was congressionally appropriated and fully obligated—but also ill-timed."
With electricity bills 6.2% higher than they were at this time last year, said the lawmakers, Solar for All could have saved American families $350 million annually.
It would also have been a step toward reducing fossil fuel emissions at a time when scientists have warned immediate, far-reaching action is needed to avoid the worst impacts of planetary heating and to protect the Earth from damage that has already reached a tipping point, in the case of coral reefs.
"EPA’s reckless decision to terminate Solar for All directly undermines efforts by Congress to reduce energy costs and improve grid resilience," said the senators. "It jeopardizes economic investments and inflicts severe job losses across the country while undermining the trust and financial certainty that communities, businesses, and local governments have placed in the federal government. Further, it disrupts workforce training initiatives, such as those in West Virginia, Alaska, and across the Midwest where solar career pathways and apprenticeship programs are already underway."
"The EPA’s illegal termination of Solar for All has left states, communities, and businesses across the country in limbo, with critical projects stalled and vulnerable households facing higher energy costs," they added.
"EPA’s reckless decision to terminate Solar for All directly undermines efforts by Congress to reduce energy costs and improve grid resilience."
The letter came as at least 23 states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for canceling funding for Solar for All.
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes told Courthouse News Service that the $156 million awarded to her state through the program would have led to energy savings for households and thousands of new jobs, while the 61 megawatts of clean energy generated from panels would have prevented at least 90,000 tons of CO2 emissions in Arizona annually.
“Families all over the country were counting on energy bill relief that disappeared overnight when the administration unlawfully terminated Solar for All,” Nick Torrey, an attorney with Southern Environmental Law Center who is representing advocacy groups that also filed a lawsuit last week, told Courthouse News.
In their letter, the senators demanded that "the EPA immediately reinstate the Solar for All program, rectify the damage caused by this termination, and ensure grantees can proceed with the swift implementation of residential solar projects to slash utility bills and create many thousands of good jobs."
"In the meantime," they wrote, "we require a full accounting of how the EPA will repair the damage caused by this program’s disruptive termination."
Keep Reading
Show Less
'We Will Appeal': Judge Dismisses Youth Suit Against Trump Attacks on Climate
"Courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights," said the plaintiffs' lead attorney.
Oct 16, 2025
American children and young adults suing over President Donald Trump's anti-climate executive orders plan to keep fighting after a federal judge on Wednesday dismissed their case, citing a previous decision from the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Eva Lighthiser, Rikki Held—of the historic Held v. State of Montana case—and 20 other young people filed a federal suit in Montana in May, taking aim at Trump's executive orders (EOs) declaring a "national energy emergency," directing federal agencies to "unleash" American energy by accelerating fossil fuel development, and boosting the coal industry.
"The founders of this country believed our rights to life and liberty were the fundamental tenets of a reasoned and just society, among the most sacred of rights to protect from government intrusion and overreach," said Daniel C. Snyder, director of the Environmental Enforcement Project at Public Justice, one of the groups representing the young plaintiffs.
"Not only should Americans be outraged by unlawful executive actions that trample upon those rights, but also because the harm these executive orders have inflicted was acknowledged by the court—showing the serious nature of plaintiffs' case," Snyder continued. "Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
"Allowing the burning of fossil fuels to continue will eventually render our nation unlivable for future generations."
US District Judge Dana Christensen "reluctantly" dismissed Lighthiser v. Trump on Wednesday, pointing to the 9th Circuit's 2020 opinion in Juliana v. United States, a constitutional climate case that the US Supreme Court effectively ended in March.
"Plaintiffs have presented overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing at a staggering pace, and that this change stems from the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide, caused by the production and burning of fossil fuels," wrote Christensen. "The record further demonstrates that climate change and the exposure from fossil fuels presents a children's health emergency."
The appointee of former President Barack Obama also said that he was "troubled by the very real harms presented by climate change and the challenged EOs' effect on carbon dioxide emissions." Specifically, he noted, "plaintiffs have shown the challenged EOs will generate an additional 205 million metric tons of carbon dioxide annually by 2027, an increase which plaintiffs convincingly allege will expose them to imminent, increased harm from a warming climate."
While Adam Gustafson, acting assistant attorney general of the Environment and Natural Resources Division at the US Department of Justice, cheered the dismissal of what he called "a sweeping and baseless attack on President Trump's energy agenda," the judge wrote that "if the 9th Circuit disagrees" with his decision, he "welcomes the return of this case to decide it on the merits."
Lawyers for the youth plaintiffs have already set their sights on the higher court. Lead attorney Julia Olson of Our Children's Trust stressed that "Judge Christensen said he reached his decision reluctantly and invited the 9th Circuit to correct him so these young Americans can have their case heard—and the 9th Circuit should do just that."
"Every day these executive orders remain in effect, these 22 young Americans suffer irreparable harm to their health, safety, and future," she noted. "The judge recognized that the government's fossil fuel directives are injuring these youth, but said his hands were tied by precedent."
"We will appeal—because courts cannot offer more protection to fossil fuel companies seeking to preserve their profits than to young Americans seeking to preserve their rights," Olson added. "This violates not only the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, but the most basic principles of justice."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular