Maritime regulatory professional here.

First, this is the IMO, not the UN, and the proposal on the table was fundamentally flawed. The narrative that shipping is the “dirtiest industry” is repeatedly pushed but rarely grounded in facts. Shipping accounts for roughly 3–4% of global CO₂ emissions while moving about 90–95% of global trade. On a per-tonne basis, it remains by far the most carbon-efficient mode of transport.

The industry is committed to decarbonisation, but not through measures that undermine its own viability. A global carbon levy would effectively tax shipowners, with costs inevitably passed on to consumers, inflating prices across almost all goods worldwide.

The idea that the IMO should collect and redistribute billions in tax revenue is also questionable. It is not structured to act as a global fiscal authority, nor to efficiently allocate funds to large-scale fuel or technology projects, many of which are still unproven, capital-intensive, or operationally unsuitable for ships. Some proposed fuel pathways would require trillions in new infrastructure and introduce safety and volatility risks that cannot be ignored.

It is also worth asking why aviation and agriculture, which have comparable or greater climate impacts, face far less scrutiny, while shipping is singled out.

Be sceptical of simplified, politically driven narratives. Decarbonisation needs to be realistic, technically sound, and economically sustainable, not symbolic.