\n<\/p>\n
The global impact of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz could lead to the perception that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. nothing could be further from the truth. Every industry can and should decarbonize.<\/p>\n
For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technical solutions exist and a UN agency could set legally binding rules for all ships. The first step has already been taken.<\/p>\n
In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they chose to postpone the decision to formally adopt this historic agreement.<\/p>\n
This delay is emblematic of the obstructionist tactics used by countries opposing climate action.<\/p>\n
The IMO framework \u2013 the world’s first global carbon price on any international pollutant \u2013 required years of compromise and reduction. As it stands, this is the lowest possible bar I can accept, like in the Pacific Island states. We can’t give another inch.<\/p>\n
While I will be attending the first conference on the transition away from fossil fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a fair and equitable manner.<\/p>\n
Vanuatu representatives traveling to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year.<\/p>\n
Should anyone reopen the framework to reduce it, our position is clear: we will return to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on carbon dioxide emissions of $150 per tonne.<\/p>\n
Last year my country abstained from voting on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not ambitious enough. Still, it’s a starting point we can work with.<\/p>\n
But since then, the tide has changed dramatically.<\/p>\n
After delays in adoption, a small group of countries are now suggesting further weakening of the ambition, particularly in the framework of meeting the demands of influential states whose current policy positions do not align with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic because undermining our collective actions to align with those who want no climate action at all is incompatible with the continued survival of our people.<\/p>\n
The poorest countries in the world, and the planet, cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table.<\/p>\n
The framework, such as it is, gives the world and industry some chance to meet the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050, in a fair and equitable way.<\/p>\n
The NZF introduces penalty charges \u2013 for example emissions pricing – for non-compliance with the regulation. This provides a “stick” to the regulation to ensure that ships comply otherwise they will have to pay.<\/p>\n
Fines also represent revenue, ranging from $10bn to $12bn per year, to both encourage industry change and enable a fair transition for all. The Fund is a lifeline for developing \u2013 and particularly least developed \u2013 states to be able to afford clean ocean energy upgrades and offset the rising trade costs caused by this transition.<\/p>\n
Some claim that the revenue raised by the NZF will exceed transport costs. this is absurd.<\/p>\n
The fine imposed through this framework amounts to less than $1.50 per year for each human living \u2013 although the biggest polluters will still have to pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population paid this bill, it would work out to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year that the world’s richest people could easily afford.<\/p>\n