November, 29 2021, 09:05am EDT

Groundbreaking new research uncovers close ties between polluting cargo carriers, major U.S. retailers
Report exposes massive pollution impacts on U.S. ports, coastal communities from maritime shipping practices of Walmart, Target, Amazon, IKEA, showcasing need for retailers to lead shipping industry toward zero-emissions vessels
LOS ANGELES
New research released today by Ship It Zero coalition members Stand.earth and Pacific Environment takes an in-depth look at four major retail companies that import goods into the United States -- Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA -- and maps their often-hidden relationships with the fossil-fueled cargo carriers they hire to transport their goods. The groundbreaking analysis, titled "Shady Routes: How Big Retail and their Carriers Pollute along Key Ocean Shipping Corridors", was released on Cyber Monday, in a year that promises to mark a shift to e-commerce shopping unlike anything the world has ever seen.
- Read the report: https://bit.ly/ShadyRoutesReport2
Amid an ongoing global shipping crisis spurred by increased consumer demand fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, retail brands and cargo carriers have reported record-breaking profits. These new findings reveal close relationships between major retailers and the cargo carriers transporting consumer goods, and how that partnership showcases possibilities for both sectors to address the growing demand for zero-emissions cargo shipping. The report shows the routes favored by the four companies, the emissions impacts of those routes, and how the ongoing cargo shipping backlog has saddled U.S. port communities with increasing rates of pollution.
Among the thousands of retailers moving goods into the U.S. via cargo ships, the retail companies in the report are some of the top importers, comprising 7% of the total estimated U.S. imports in 2020, with Walmart and Target in first and second place, respectively. The goods imported to the U.S. between 2018-2020 by these four companies alone accounted for an estimated 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e), as much as the annual emissions from five coal-fired power plants.
"Pandemic-fueled demand increases, record-breaking profits, and the supply chain crisis reveal the current maritime shipping system is ripe for transformation. There is ample room for retail brands and cargo carriers to absorb the cost of transitioning to fossil-free, zero-emissions shipping and deliver healthier air to our port communities and a livable climate future. Retail companies can choose to be industry leaders and early adopters of zero-emissions technology, or they can put short-term profit over public health and the climate by making empty commitments that put off action on climate change until it's too late," said Kendra Ulrich, Shipping Campaigns Director at Stand.earth.
WEST COAST SHIPPING ROUTES HAVE OUTSIZED POLLUTION BURDEN
The report reveals the Transpacific routes between China and the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, Seattle, and Tacoma were the largest share of the combined carbon emissions of the four companies, accounting for an estimated 21% of emissions between 2018-2020. The use of these Transpacific routes presents particular problems for West Coast port communities saddled with increasing rates of pollution, thanks to the constant presence of ships idling nearby. This is especially true in Seattle and Tacoma in Washington state, where imports were up over 40% in 2020 versus 2019, fueled by the backlog at California ports.
"Target and Amazon have played an outsized role in the current congestion and pollution crisis at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As Target faces a swell of demand in places like California and a doubling of its digital sales, and as Amazon increases its control over its own gas-guzzling shipment and parcel delivery, it is past time to hold these retailers accountable for their responsibilities at the ports. Both companies will continue to favor West Coast routes, which means they'll also keep clogging West Coast ports, spewing cancer-causing emissions and threatening our climate future," said Dawny'all Heydari, Ship It Zero Campaign Lead at Pacific Environment.
In contrast, the research found IKEA is increasingly transporting goods from China to Europe via rail routes, then on cargo ships from Europe to East or Gulf Coast ports, as part of a strategy to reduce the company's carbon emissions from its shipping.
CARGO CARRIER RELATIONSHIPS REVEALED
The report reveals strong relationships between Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA and the world's 15 largest cargo carriers -- including CMA CGM, Maersk, MSC, Evergreen, Cosco, Yang Ming, Hapag-Lloyd, and Amazon's non-vessel operating common carrier, AMZD -- and how that partnership showcases possibilities for both sectors to address the growing demand for zero-emissions cargo shipping. The top 15 carriers account for 97% of the total emissions in the report, indicating these four retail giants rely almost exclusively on the same cargo carriers.
Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, and CMA CGM reported over $3 billion USD in profits in the first half of 2021, an estimated 2500 percent increase over the first half of 2020. Walmart, Target, and IKEA are also spending money on chartered shipping, a costly and unusual move that reveals a willingness to spend more to get products to market.
"Major cargo carriers are lagging in moving towards zero emissions, citing that costs have been prohibitive. Container industry profits are unprecedentedly strong, consumers support clean shipping, and the technology is available. There are no longer any excuses left to set goals to meet zero emissions for 2030. Retail companies looking to achieve climate goals must engage with cargo carriers that will give them zero-emission freight options to get their goods to market," said Madeline Rose, Climate Campaign Director at Pacific Environment.
Walmart, the number one importer of goods in the U.S., topped the report with the highest volumes traded and the most emissions. The study also reveals Walmart relies heavily on one ocean carrier, CMA CGM, the biggest polluter among all carriers in the report. CMA CGM accounted for more than two thirds of Walmart's ocean shipping emissions in 2020 and one third of the ocean shipping emissions across all four companies -- as much as the next four carriers combined.
Major cargo carriers are increasingly aligning their operations with the demands of retail customers, by providing more end-to-end distribution services as consumer demand shifts to e-commerce and consumers require more warehousing and last mile services rather than brick and mortar stores. CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd recently stated their capacity priority is for long-term customers, including clients like Walmart looking for integrated supply chain solutions. By chartering its own private carrier, Amazon is also exerting unique control over its supply chain and appears to be consolidating control rapidly.
"Major retail companies and cargo carriers are flush with cash from pandemic-driven record breaking profits and are tightening their already close relationships. This is an unprecedented opportunity for retail brands and cargo carriers to work together to immediately reduce their maritime emissions from their existing container fleet and build zero-emissions shipping into their growth model," said Ulrich.
SHIPPING INDUSTRY'S POLLUTION PROBLEM
The global shipping industry accounts for 3% of global climate emissions, more than global air travel. If shipping were a country, it would be the world's sixth largest climate polluter. But since maritime shipping negotiated itself out of the U.N. Paris Agreement, the effort to reduce emissions in the industry has been slower than in other sectors.
Approximately 90% of the world trade is transported by sea, and current business-as-usual scenarios project emissions will grow up to 50% over 2018 levels. While the International Maritime Organization noted increased ship size and operational improvements aimed at creating better fuel efficiency have resulted in a decrease in emissions intensity, annual absolute emissions are still increasing.
But the message is starting to sink in, and new commitments from retailers and governments are putting pressure on the industry. At COP26, Amazon joined the First Movers Coalition to help commercialize emerging technologies to decarbonize heavy industries including ocean shipping, and committed to moving 10% of its freight on zero-emissions ships by 2030. Also at COP26, governments and CEOs launched the Clydebank Declaration to establish green shipping corridors among some of the busiest maritime shipping routes. And in October, Amazon and IKEA helped launch coZEV, a retailer-led initiative to move 100% of products off of fossil-fueled maritime cargo ships by 2040.
"Until recently, the massive climate and health-harming emissions from the cargo shipping industry have sailed under the radar. But consumers, corporations, and governments are waking up to the massive climate impact stemming from goods being shipped across our oceans. Reducing, and ultimately eliminating, maritime emissions will not happen without bold commitments and concrete actions from the companies paying for cargo carriers to transport their goods. The retail brands that fill our homes and lives with their products bear a direct responsibility for the pollution their supply chains create, and for taking the necessary actions to demand a transition to zero-emissions shipping this decade," said Ulrich.
SHIP IT ZERO COALITION
The Ship It Zero coalition is calling on retail companies to address their cargo shipping pollution impacts in the following ways:
- Walmart and Target must take responsibility for their maritime pollution and commit to zero-emission shipping by taking immediate actions to reduce their maritime shipping emissions, abandon dirty ships, and commit to transition to 100% zero-emissions ocean shipping by 2030. Thus far, Walmart and Target have been silent on the topic of their ocean shipping emissions.
- Amazon and IKEA must make stronger commitments to zero-emission shipping and take immediate steps to reduce their maritime emissions. While Amazon and IKEA have made initial commitments to decarbonize a small portion of their ocean shipping this decade and achieve zero-emission ocean shipping by 2040, with Amazon committing 10% of its freight on zero-emissions vessels by 2030, these commitments do not correspond with the urgency of port community health and the climate crisis. Amazon and IKEA must take steps now to reduce their current emissions and commit to 100% zero-emissions shipping this decade.
- Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA must play leadership roles in creating fossil-free shipping corridors across the Pacific, starting with Yantian (Shenzhen) to Los Angeles and Long Beach and Shanghai to Seattle. Policymakers and ports must join them.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
LATEST NEWS
Insulted by Trump's Threats, Iranian Negotiators Walk Out of Peace Talks
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" said Iran's chief negotiator.
Jun 21, 2026
US President Donald Trump’s threats to destroy Iran and send US forces to occupy the country on Sunday appear to have derailed peace negotiations in Switzerland, with the Iranian delegation reportedly walking out and demanding an apology.
Following Iran’s announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz again after Israel intensified its assault on Lebanon, Trump went on a tirade Sunday in which he threatened to assassinate negotiators and said Iran “won’t have a country” if access to the critical waterway was shut off, while also threatening to “take over” Iran with a full US invasion.
But after Trump’s threats—which broke the first clause of the memorandum of understanding—Iran’s negotiators filed a complaint with the Pakistani and Qatari mediators and stormed out of the mountain resort where talks were being held, according to several outlets.
While Trump clearly sought to project strength, Iran’s chief negotiator, Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, said his team “do not take American threats seriously.”
In previous months, as Trump sought to squeeze concessions from the Iranians, he issued escalatory threats to wipe out their “whole civilization” and “blow up” the whole country. However, he did not act on those threats, even as Iran refused to budge from its negotiating posture.
"Don’t they think that if their threats had worked, they wouldn’t have ended up in today’s desperate situation?" Ghalibaf said.
Ghalibaf said the US had “better be more careful with their statements,” adding that “our armed forces are ready to respond in a different way." He said, “No matter what they say, we are the ones who act.
While the Iranian delegation left the venue, talks are reportedly continuing via mediators. However, according to the Lebanese outlet Al Mayadeen, the delegation said it will not return until Trump apologizes for his threats and Israel fully withdraws from Lebanon.
According to senior Israeli officials cited by Channel 12, Israel is reportedly considering “limited withdrawals” from Lebanon, including in areas within its so-called “buffer zone.” Despite Iranian claims, the officials said the US has not requested Israel’s withdrawal from the country.
Previous peace talks have been derailed by Trump’s threats to commit indiscriminate war crimes in Iran. But this past week has seen perhaps the most violent swing yet in his approach toward Iran.
Where earlier this week, Trump acknowledged Iran's right to enrich uranium and maintain a nuclear energy program like that of other nations, his outburst Sunday appeared to have been prompted by a statement by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said the US would be "forced to accept" its right to enrichment.
And while Trump has raged against Israel’s actions in Lebanon while privately claiming that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is trying to sabotage peace, he has not taken concrete action to force Israel to comply with the memorandum’s terms.
"The mixed messages coming out of the White House," remarked Jeet Heer, a writer at The Nation, "are going to make it much harder to end the war, and could in fact spark further conflict."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'You Won't Have a Country': Trump Threatens Full Ground Invasion and Destruction of Iran Amid Hormuz Closure
One expert said Israel's continued assault on Lebanon, which led Iran to announce its closure of the strait, posed an "existential threat" to the ceasefire.
Jun 21, 2026
Rather than force Israel to halt its occupation in Lebanon in accordance with the memorandum of understanding, President Donald Trump on Sunday responded to Iran's announcement that it was closing the Strait of Hormuz with a new litany of psychotic threats—claiming that if the waterway were closed, he would blow up the country, launch a full ground invasion to take it over, and assassinate Iranian negotiators.
According to Fox News correspondent Trey Yingst, Trump told the Iranian negotiators overnight that if they close the strait, which Iran claimed to have shuttered once again on Saturday, “you won’t have a country,” adding that they “won’t even make it back to their f***ing country,” in what appeared to be a threat to assassinate the negotiators, as happened during the initial phase of the war.
Responding to statements by Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, who said Iran would not give up its “right to enrich uranium” and that the US “will be forced to accept it,” Trump reportedly said Pezeshkian had better “watch his mouth” and “shape up,” or the US “will take over the rest of the country.”
It’s yet another sharp reversal from Trump, who—after months of claiming Iran must agree to “zero enrichment”—suddenly acknowledged this week that it was “common sense” for the nation to be allowed to have a nuclear energy program as other countries do.
Trump’s renewed threats against Iran, which mirror his genocidal threats earlier in the war to wipe out Iran’s “whole civilization” and “blow up” the entire country, also appear to violate the first clause of the memorandum of understanding, which calls on signatories to “refrain from the threat or use of force against each other.”
The threat to fully occupy Iran, which Trump made publicly for the first time on Sunday, stands in sharp contrast to his comments that continuing the war for much longer would cause “economic catastrophe” and that even limited ground operations, such as one he had proposed to seize Iran’s uranium, would be too big an effort to be worth it.
The war with Iran is already deeply unpopular among the American public, even without US boots on the ground. Polls have shown that even a majority of Republicans would be opposed to Trump escalating the war by deploying ground troops, and military officials have shelved planned operations to occupy certain strategic locations, including Kharg Island, fearing a large number of American casualties.
Nevertheless, Trump also told Yingst that the US could become the “guardian angel” of the Strait of Hormuz, collecting tolls and taking oil from countries using the waterway for exports. He did not make clear how the US would gain control of the strait under such a scenario.
Iran announced that it would close the strait again on Saturday after Israel deepened its occupation and escalated its bombing of southern Lebanon, despite the MOU’s ceasefire agreement covering all fronts.
Iranian negotiators have described an end to Israel’s Lebanon occupation, which has killed more than 4,000 people and forced more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians from their homes in the south, as a red line for negotiating peace.
Behind the scenes, Trump has acknowledged that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is using Lebanon to sabotage the ceasefire and drag the US back into a full-scale war.
In the phone call with Yingst, Trump once again said he was “disappointed Israel can’t put Hezbollah away,” adding that Israel “can’t do anything without knocking buildings down.” He also said he was close to allowing Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa—the former leader of al-Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate—to take over the operation against Hezbollah.
While this is yet another instance of Trump using harsher rhetoric toward Israel—which Vice President JD Vance has also done in recent days—there is no indication yet that he is willing to take the next step of forcing Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire agreement by imposing material consequences, such as suspending military aid.
Even as Israel’s attacks continued unabated and threatened to derail the deal entirely, Vance did not indicate that he thought the US needed to exert more pressure.
“I think Trump and the US have done more to stop the conflict in Lebanon than any government anywhere in the world,” he said at a press conference in Switzerland on Sunday.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, described Israel’s continued escalations as “an existential threat” to the peace process between the US and Iran.
He told ABC News on Saturday that Iran’s threat to close the strait just before a meeting in Geneva this weekend was meant to be “part of a background of how serious they are” about ensuring that the US understands the stakes if Israel refuses to withdraw.
“Israel would prefer for this war to continue until you have a complete defeat of the Iranians, which, of course, is not in the cards,” Parsi said. “The Israelis sold this war to Trump as a quick, easy fix to the region’s problems that would take no more than four days, and they were dead wrong.”
“Now, Trump is recognizing that US interests necessitate that he pull out of this war and strikes this deal, but the Israelis are trying to sabotage it because they are afraid they’re going to be left out, that the balance in the region is going to shift against their interests,” he added. “They’re willing to essentially jeopardize their relationship with the United States over this.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Starmer Expected to Resign as PM, But UK Left Warns of 'More of the Same' From His Replacement
Jeremy Corbyn said Andy Burnham would be "accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us" and "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally."
Jun 20, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer is expected to announce as soon as Monday that he will resign, according to new reports, as Labour supporters abandon the party.
But many on the left remain skeptical that his likely replacement, Andy Burnham, will truly bring the "change" he promises.
Britain's Observer newspaper reported on Saturday that the prime minister appeared "resigned" to stepping down, well aware that "support isn't there" for his continued leadership amid the party's dismal unpopularity.
Though Starmer swept away nearly a decade and a half of Conservative rule in 2024, his honeymoon has been short-lived. His embrace of austerity in the face of a cost-of-living crisis and his government's ferocious crackdowns on pro-Palestinian speech have left progressive supporters seeking alternatives like the ascendant Green Party.
Meanwhile, his hard-right pivot on immigration has done little to siphon votes from Brexiteer Nigel Farage's far-right Reform UK party, which currently leads in national polls.
The immediate trigger for Starmer's reported resignation was Burnham's victory in Thursday's Makerfield by-election, which marked the former mayor of Greater Manchester's return to Westminster. Burnham comfortably defeated a Reform UK candidate, and The Guardian reported that he was expected to have support from about 200 Labour MPs in a leadership challenge against Starmer.
Burnham emphasized during a victory rally that it was "a last chance to change" Labour as it heads for electoral oblivion.
Responding to what he said were requests from constituents to "do something to make life more affordable," Burnham called for an end to "trickle down economics," with government interventions to bring down utility bills and rail fares, public procurement of businesses, pushes for reindustrialization, and job guarantees for people ages 16 to 18.
But some leaders on the British left have warned that Burnham will do little to deviate from Starmer's failures.
While he has pledged to reverse Starmer's welfare cuts and privatizations of public services, Burnham has also committed to maintaining the party's spending limits, which may make significant changes impossible.
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20, said that while he personally likes Burnham, "his basic economic strategy and views... seem to me to be accepting too much of the austerity that we've had imposed upon us."
The ex-leader also said Burnham "doesn't appear to be doing anything different internationally," noting that he has not given a straight answer on whether Britain should conduct an inquiry into the UK government's policy on Gaza and its supply of weapons to Israel.
Burnham has also drawn criticism for saying he would maintain Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood, who has spearheaded hard-line changes to UK asylum policies and has enforced the repressive ban on Palestine Action, which has led to the arrest of thousands of nonviolent protesters, many of whom have been charged with terrorism.
"The architect of Labour’s cruel plans on settled status and persecution of free speech and protest stays in place," said Green Party leader Zack Polanski, who said it was a sign of "more of the same."
Remarking on Burnham's team of economic advisers, who include former chief economists for the Bank of England and Goldman Sachs, Polanski said it "isn’t a team of advisers which looks like challenging wealth and power."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


