A Step Forward or A Faulty Plan for the Future of Shipping Emissions?

Author: Porter Gilliam
Publish Date: 10.15.2025

This past April, many of the world’s largest shipping nations agreed to impose a tax on shipping emissions, spearheaded by the International Maritime Organization (IMO).[1] The plan is to take effect in 2027, and tax ships above certain thresholds for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted with a minimum fee of $100 dollars per ton.[2] While some call it a landmark decision in the world of shipping emissions, others find the initiative too lenient in the face of rising sea levels.[3] As the first-of-its-kind agreement on taxing shipping emissions, it further demonstrates the issues surrounding international agreements and their effectiveness in legally binding the globe to comply.[4]  

The proponents of the tax, like the IMO, claim that the tax will generate eleven to thirteen billion dollars in revenue.[5] The IMO claims this money will support research on efficient shipping methods and spur others to follow just to avoid hefty tax fees and the revenue will go towards developing countries that do not currently have the means to adapt like larger shipping nations do.[6] Further, this plan comes as a major accomplishment in the global theatre.[7]  An agreement among the largest nations in the world, excluding the United States of America, on a global tax against shipping emissions is a step in the right direction.[8]

On the other hand, the critics of the tax plan recognize its significance but harp on its actual impact.[9] For instance, shipping companies may choose to simply pay the tax just to avoid the cost of research and investments in new ships.[10] Island nations facing the immediate risk of rising sea levels claim the tax fails to push the industry to actually adopt cleaner forms of energy.[11] In the meantime, countries like Saudi Arabia and the United States of America refused to comply with the .[12] Their refusal raises concerns over the equity of the tax and the tax’s effectiveness in the long run.[13] Essentially, the tax is undermined by the largest shipping nations to circumvent the need to reduce shipping emissions when immediate risks require an immediate remedy.[14]

  Across the international stage, holding countries liable for violating international agreements has proven to be more than challenging.[15] However, initiatives such as the IMO’s tax on shipping emissions are a step closer to combating climate issues.[16] Even if cracks in the plan exist, a softer approach may be necessary before imposing stricter limitations on shipping emissions globally.[17] Based on the commentary, the issue persists of how to hold countries accountable and whether a more stringent remedy proposing a universal carbon levy would have been the appropriate remedy.[18]

[1] Jennifer McDermott & Sibi Arasu, Major nations agree on first-ever global fee on greenhouse gases with plan that targets shipping, Associated Press (Apr. 11, 2025), https://apnews.com/article/shipping-emissions-climate-change-98ff23ca4739d8b4fc5a8f941a7ca0c4.
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] Editorial Team, IMO agrees on first ever carbon pricing on global shipping, CarbonCopy (Apr. 14, 2025), https://carboncopy.info/imo-agrees-on-first-ever-carbon-pricing-on-global-shipping/.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] McDermott & Arasu, supra note 1.
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Editorial Team, supra note 11.