Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
It’s crunch time for the oceans and shipping sector, and tensions are high. Dr Simon Chin-Yee brings you this special episode of #UCLGenerationOne in the midst of critical negotiations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
Simon speaks to colleagues who have travelled across the oceans to the IMO: the UN agency responsible for regulating the shipping sector. In April 2025, countries came together to negotiate the IMO Net-Zero Framework, including a set of ‘mid-term measures’ to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with 2023 targets.
In this episode, Fijian performing artist and climate advocate John Taukave (Pacific Coordinating Group) and Eldine Glees (Maritime Policy Consultant) discuss the importance of a just and equitable transition for small islands and developing countries.
And as the dust settles, Simon picks up with Opportunity Green’s Emma Fenton to break down what actually happened, and what it means for the future of green shipping.
The stakes are huge: will the IMO agree to decarbonise global shipping while ensuring no one is left behind? Find out in our podcast Talanoa!
Date of episode recording: 5 and 16 April 2025
Duration: 55:40
Language of episode: English
Presenter: Professor Mark Maslin and Dr Simon Chin-Yee
Guests:
Presenter: Professor Mark Maslin and Dr Simon Chin-Yee
Guests:
John Taukave, Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport
Eldine Chilembo Glees, Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport
Emma Fenton, Senior Director, Climate Diplomacy at Opportunity Green
Producers:
Adam Batstone
Caitlin Mullin
Creators and Guests
Host
Host
Professor Mark Maslin
Mark is a leading scientist interested in understanding climate change and humanity’s major challenges in the 21st century. He has written ten books and over 100 popular articles and regularly appears on radio and television, , including BBC One David Attenborough’s ‘Climate Change: The Facts’.
What is UCL Generation One: The Climate Podcast?
Generation One is the flagship climate podcast from University College London. Join our collective of passionate individuals dedicated to climate action and a fairer, more positive future – for us, and for the generations to come.
Our hosts Professor Mark Maslin and Dr. Simon Chin-Yee dive into the biggest challenges and solutions shaping the fight against climate change.
Joined by expert guests, they’ll be bringing you cutting-edge initiatives and inspiring climate action stories – from reimagining global energy systems to protecting our oceans, from using AI to decolonising climate solutions.
Tune in monthly to discover how we can turn climate science and ideas into real-world action.
Learn more about UCL’s Generation One climate campaign and access episode transcripts at ucl.ac.uk/climate-change.
We’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback. To get involved, email us at podcasts@ucl.ac.uk or find us on X using #UCLGenerationOne.
Language: English
Presenters: Professor Mark Maslin, Dr. Simon Chin-Yee
Producers: Adam Batstone, Caitlin Mullin, Jane Yelloly
UCL Minds 0:02
We are the first generation to feel the impact of climate change and the last generation that can do something about it.
John Taukave 0:12
We did not cause this. We have not contributed to climate change, and yet, we're at the forefront of the brutal impacts that face our communities.
Emma Fenton 0:23
It's not driving decarbonisation, nor is it incentivizing the private sector investment, nor is it supporting those least able to transition themselves. It is de facto leaving them behind.
John Taukave 0:46
<< Song >>
Mark Maslin 0:52
This is Generation One from University College London, turning climate science and ideas into action.
Simon Chin-Yee 1:05
So welcome back to UCL’s Generation One podcast and episode six of season five. I'm your host, Dr Simon Chin-Yee from UCL’s School of Public Policy, and a lot of my work focuses on shipping and decarbonization of the maritime sector.
I feel this episode has been specifically crafted just for me. It's a very special episode because I am speaking to you from the International Maritime Organization, or “IMO”. The IMO is the United Nations agency responsible for regulating shipping safety, security and environmental standards worldwide. And in today's episode, we're going to be focusing on just that, because we are in the middle of the IMO negotiations on GHG – that's greenhouse gas regulation.
So I'll be speaking to colleagues from across the oceans in the shipping sector, who have travelled from the far ends of the world. They're here to discuss how small islands and developing countries can navigate the key economic and environmental issues that are most important for both their industries but also their communities.
The negotiations have been contentious, to say the least, but now this week, we are at the crux of the issue, and we will soon see if we get a financial mechanism that will actually be able to decarbonize the shipping sector while leaving no one behind. And as we see in many of these United Nations environmental negotiations, blocs of countries have appeared on different sides of the argument. The difference here at the IMO is that we have a real chance here to tackle industry and put a price on carbon from a sector that has been going under the radar for centuries. If we get this right, we have a model for other sectors – aviation – for example, on how to tackle climate change. If we get it wrong, we move further away from limiting global warming to the 1.5 degrees, as set out in Paris now a decade ago.
The main focus of our podcast was recorded midway through the IMO meetings and focuses on the issues which delegates were seeking to resolve in order to reach an agreement. So keep listening when later in the podcast, I will be bringing you updates from what actually happened. So you need to keep listening until the end, but without wishing to include too many spoilers, it's not good news.
So on that note, this is a Talanoa come to life in podcast form. And first up we have John Taukave. John is a performing artist, academic researcher and climate advocate from Fiji. John is part of the Pacific Coordinating Group. He participates along with all of us, at the various regional and international negotiations, and is currently an advisor and researcher for the Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport. So John, good to have you here.
John Taukave 4:13
[Unknown], brother Simon.
Simon Chin-Yee 4:18
And we also have just landed after a very long journey. Eldine Glees. Eldine is a Maritime Policy Consultant focused on sustainable shipping and women's advancement in the maritime industry. She is a Mandela Washington Fellow and part of the Young African Leaders Initiative launched by former US President Obama, who you heard at the top of this podcast. And Eldine, hope that flight wasn't too bad.
Eldine Glees 4:44
It's a testament to just how much I really like the industry that I would get off a flight and immediately walk into your studio.
Simon Chin-Yee 4:54
Very good, excellent. And this is, you know what I said a few minutes ago, that this is a Talanoa come to life in podcast form. But what is that? What is a Talanoa? John, I think this is for you to explain to us what a Talanoa is.
John Taukave 5:09
Absolutely, Talanoa. Where do we even begin? Talanoa is such a close thing that we do in the Pacific in sharing open dialogue, in creating spaces and activating these spaces so that we can have inclusive, free dialogue. And these range from the informal ones, from a day from the plantation of fishing and coming back home and sharing with your, you know, on the mat on the beach, or on the side wall or just at home. To the formal, you know, ceremonies where there are protocols to be observed. So, Talanoa is a practice. It's a ceremony, and it has very spiritual foundations in creating that openness so that we can have open dialogues and including everyone into these conversations. You know, in the past, it helped solve conflicts within disputing villages or disputing families.
Eldine Glees 6:07
I feel like it also builds a lot of trust. And this is like, from somebody who has been living in the Pacific for the last three years. I realised that it wasn't until I was a part of the Talanoa that I started to feel like I was a part of like, now I walk into the IMO and I say, I'm also from Fiji. And I feel like I'm also a child of the Pacific, because it's how you feel welcomed into that community. And like you said, it's building relationships, but more importantly, it's building trust.
Simon Chin-Yee 6:34
And this is why I think it was really key that the COP presidency under Fiji, eight years ago now formally informally adopted the Talanoa dialogue, yes, a different form of negotiating. Because these negotiating spaces that we are in right now don't necessarily, they do not foster trust all the time, right? So these spaces where you can create dialogue, where you can negotiate through storytelling is so different and so important.
John Taukave 7:04
The interweaving of indigenous knowledge and practices within diplomatic spaces is such a key feature of our standard feature that the Pacific or Oceania has been constantly.
Eldine Glees 7:15
Because it brings humanity into the conversation, and a lot of times they're trying to solve human issues and social issues, but we take the humanity out of it. Whatever you're doing, whatever you do, you do it for society. You do it for the betterment of the society. And that's the only way we can achieve any form of climate security or anything positive in that way. It's like it's not running away from what is deeply human but embracing that and incorporating it into the policies that we're making.
Simon Chin-Yee 7:50
Yeah, and on that actually, let's bring that. Let's bring those stories to life on this podcast. And Eldine, I'm gonna start with you.
Eldine Glees 7:57
Oh, good. Oh, dear God, where do I start? I think my journey starts in the deck of an offshore supply vessel. I always say now that I'm doing because offshore supply vessels is basically the fossil fuel industry. So it's petrochemical, oil and gas and petrochemical shipping. So I feel like in order to make penance, to do penance for all the great the work I did, because I'm really great at what I do, what I did in the oil and gas industry. Now I'm doing sustainable maritime, I'm focused on sustainable maritime operations.
But I think maybe to start somewhere you, when you introduced this, you said you were talking about how the regulations and why these regulations are very important, yes, and why the International Maritime Organization is very important. Shipping is very much the backbone of trade in the world. So that means shipping will determine and regulate how things move around the world. You need the best people actually sitting down and debating and coming up with why the type of proposals that not only will translate into sound regulation, but then also what the IMO has committed to, which is delivering a just and an equitable transition.
And those sound like just words, but they're not, because the secret and the strength of adjusting equitable transition is what the UNFCCC has failed to do. What the what COPs have failed to do is basically come together and say, we're going to do this, and we're going to make sure that we can, we will. We will pay reparations or help countries, vulnerable countries, move towards climate security, and then backtrack and go like, Oh, well, but not really. I mean, you're on your own, buddies. What we did in the IMO is we actually put that, we wrote that into regulation.
Simon Chin-Yee 9:50
Right? And so, okay, let's go back into that. I think, something that, for example, our listeners, our people take for granted. In fact, not, dear listeners. I'm sure you're not taking this for granted. But everything is moved around the world by ships. Yes, 80% plus of all goods that you, dear listeners are using, have been moved by ships, but the shipping industry accounts for 3% of global carbon emissions. Yes, which is, doesn't sound like a lot when you say 3% but it is actually huge. If it was a country, it would be in the top 10 emitters on the world.
So and it's also an industry that we, as I said in the intro, we can tackle this. We have the tools. We have the technology. So that includes the Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport. Yes, John, can you explain their research, what they're doing, and how they work with and advocate for the Pacific countries.
John Taukave 10:44
Absolutely. Thank you, brother for that question. You know, I was very grateful to be part of the Micronesian Center for Sustainable Transport, starting from 2022 and just being in the organization and knowing how their researchers and their technical experts support the Pacific in their data and their research and their science. But at the same time collaborating with other institutions like, you know, UCL and others, Columbia State Law School and all of these and getting the sufficient data recommended to make sure that we bring our arguments proper to the negotiations.
Simon Chin-Yee 11:20
And if we could go on that, if we could dial it back a couple of notches and talk about climate change in your specific regions and the effects on the economy and on the shipping industry. John, let's continue with you in the Pacific. Some of the most vulnerable countries in the world, coral atolls that are literally in an existential crisis at the moment. Yeah, can you explain to us the experience of a Pacific Island State, Fiji, for example, the Vanuatu, whichever ones you want in experiencing climate change, and the importance of shipping in order to get that.
John Taukave 11:55
I mean, climate change is a real threat. It's been an existential crisis up to that stage, and everyone faces the impacts of what climate change is doing in our communities, whether it has been through the constant natural disasters, rising sea levels, just the extreme weather patterns that have been happening in the Pacific region.
And it's also important to note that we did not cause this. We have not contributed to climate change, and yet we're at the forefront of the brutal impacts that face our communities. I mean, it's evident in all over the Pacific, and I think that's why it's so important that we come into a space like the IMO, that has the potential to create a precedent on climate change for the rest of the sectors to follow. And I mean coming here and you know, facing head on what these impacts are for our communities, I think it's really, really important for the IMO, to understand that the impacts of shipping and its contributions to greenhouse gas emissions does impact our weather, our livelihoods, our the economies, in all senses.
Simon Chin-Yee 13:07
You both bringing up “just and equitable transition climate change”. How is it? How was climate affecting – this is going to sound very trite, because I'm talking about an entire continent – but climate change within the shipping industry, in Africa? It's not new, obviously, but the way that Africa, perhaps, or different African countries are approaching climate change is potentially new. Can you talk a little bit about that?
Eldine Glees 13:36
Yeah, I mean, I wanted to maybe before even getting into that just emphasise what JT just said. Which was to your to your point, also: why is it that we feel that the IMO has the responsibility to actually tackle climate security, or climate change, its impacts on climate change? And the answer is very simple, the IMO is only one of two international regulators. We take for granted that there's only two international regulators in the world, that's the aviation industry and the international maritime industry. So if there's any industry or anybody or institution that has the ability to regulate climate pollution, this is it.
And so then we don't get to sit here and say, if we were a country, would be amongst the top 10 polluters. But why don't we wait for the aviation industry to make that change first, because for a very long time, like you said, the industry has been able to avoid responsibility. It's been able to hide in the shell companies. It's been able to hide under flags of convenience.
The industry is a very reactive industry, so like a lot of the regulations that are out there, Solas, which is the same. Of Life at Sea Marple marine pollution regulations. Those were all results of really bad accidents, like the deep water horizon. But those are the kind of catastrophes that happened that the industry had to react to and go like, Oh, wow. We probably need to regulate this. And so this is the one time we have an opportunity to show that we as a responsible industry, as the industry that's responsible for moving the world, that we finally are taking our responsibility with great – What's that big saying? With great thingy comes big…?
Simon Chin-Yee 15:34
With great power.
Eldine Glees 15:38
Yes, with great power comes great responsibility. We have that, we have this much influence over 90% of everything in the world, then we need to also take responsibility, as much responsibility. And this is why we don't sit around and wait for other people to step up, right? I don't want to blame everything…we could actually-
Simon Chin-Yee 16:00
At this stage of the game, I think that's a fair.
Eldine Glees 16:02
Oh, climate change is full, okay, so fix it! So, so, I mean, that's whole point, isn't it? That's exactly why we need to be doing something about it. And, like, because I have a background in, I did say, making emptying penance for the fossil fuel industries, it almost feels like we're subsidizing climate like the negative impacts of climate change. And that's really bad, because within the African continent, who pays for that? The most vulnerable communities. I could also say that for every like, every country in every economy, but like the most impacted, the most vulnerable communities. And so countries like Angola, Senegal, South Africa, that rely very heavily in fossil fuel subsidies are also suffering the worst.
Simon Chin-Yee 16:50
Like these are more some of the more developed countries.
Eldine Glees 16:52
Absolutely, and South Africa. And what is very sad here is that South Africa also has, like so much opportunity to focus on green hydrogen production. They have the capability of doing that. Instead of subsidizing fossil fuel, why not take those funds and actually improve your energy, your green energy, the infrastructure for green hydrogen and alternative fuels? I mean, that's the kind of thinking that we need, right? And that's not what we're doing. People who keep crying, drill, baby, drill, are being very delusional right now, because everyone realizes that we have to transition one way or another, and we need to start having that conversation, instead of trying to stay in the past.
Simon Chin-Yee 17:36
But I think something else that is so really interesting, well, interesting is the wrong word. Ssomething that I think we need to do better as a community, as a global community, that was looking at decarbonization, is how we talk about it. For some reason we talk about the use of green technologies and green transition as if it's a bad thing. Somehow we are using this same – isn't it insane? It should be. We should be talking about this as if it is the best thing, it is the most positive thing. But for some reason, in that space, at the IMO, in these spaces at the UNF, Triple C in State Department, government in the US, in Canada, in the UK, we have to come up against this, this lobby, which it is, and a block of people that just think that we should be continuing to use the fossil fuel industry. But as you say, it's on its way out. Not fast enough, but it's on its way out.
John Taukave 18:33
That's why we're there, bro, that's why we're there. I mean, I think it also comes down to a change of the mindsets on how we view energy. And how we just view maritime shipping and what it means for the future, what this just an equitable transition means. That the Pacific, the AIDS, the ACP, plus countries that have been constantly fighting about meaning, making sure that our voices are heard and, you know, we're not taken over. And I think it's really important to know that the Pacific, the Caribbeans, and the African countries have been constantly fighting these lobbies on what it means to transition.
Eldine Glees 19:10
And to the credit of the Pacific Islands, for the longest time, I think they have been the most vocal in the International Maritime Organization, the space, about the need to decarbonize and to put a price on emissions for shipping. And this is why this is so significant. The Republic of Marshall Islands is the third largest registry in the world. That means that they do not need to come to the IMO and be very vocal, because we've heard other registries somehow oppose this tax on emissions, because they rely very much on the shipping, on these ships, and on the shipping industry as their main source of income. The Marshall Islands could have very much been like “we don't really need to lead this decarbonization agenda”. But they are because I think they understand that they have a stewardship to not just their own economic development, but to the region as a whole. And that speaks volumes, they can still secure a future, not only for themselves, but for an entire region. And those are the people you follow. Those are the people you listen to.
Simon Chin-Yee 20:34
I take your point. We should be looking forward. We should be moving in that direction as a global community, but we keep hitting roadblocks by other countries, other industry players that do not want this to happen. So what do you think needs to?
Eldine Glees 20:55
Okay, first of all, what is their argument? I mean, what is their argument valid, that they are, that they are able to actually block this? The IMO is never meant to protect the most vulnerable, because this is a shipping industry. It's an industry that's always been very selfish and only caring about making money.
Simon Chin-Yee 21:05
And it's a regulatory body.
Unknown Speaker 21:06
And it’s a regulatory body, exactly.
Simon Chin-Yee 21:08
If we bring it back to the basics of the International Maritime Organization and the power it has over regulation of an industry. I think that is important and unique within the UN institutions that Eldine was talking about, right – understanding how and why these regulations will matter, specifically for industry, that companies like Maersk, for example, will not be able to get away with, they cannot avoid. What will happen if we get it right again, this is back to this levy, this tax on shipping that they will have to pay. But John, can you break down for us, very simply, the International Maritime Organization, its power to do this and what we are trying to do in those spaces right now?
John Taukave 21:55
Absolutely. Thank you, brother. So the International Maritime Organization is a branch of the UN that deals with regulation on maritime shipping, right? And so you ask, why is the Pacific, or why is the ACP, which is the African Caribbean and Pacific, plus countries that are fighting for this shipping carbon tax, flat levy. So it's important to notice that, based on the “polluter pays” principle, it is really important that polluters pay for their emissions, or their greenhouse gas emissions, that contribute to climate change.
Simon Chin-Yee 22:10
And the polluters are industry in this case.
John Taukave 22:15
Absolutely my brother, and that's why we're here, to make sure that we fight for this universal levy so that the shipping industry gets taxed. But also, at the same time, there is a just and equitable transition that when the revenues that come from this levy come, that the Pacific or the developing countries are not left behind, and making sure that they have access to these revenues to mitigate themselves from the transition coming to, that we look at coalitions. And I think it comes down to the really amazing outreach work that the Pacific Oceania countries, as well as MCST, have been doing in their outreach efforts and the strategic efforts to gain coalitions, what started off as just the Six Pac. Six Pac was not my six pack abs, but it was the six specific original countries that came and fought at the IMO, that made sure that their voices were heard. But because of their great outreach efforts, that Six Pac has now grown to Six Pac plus, which includes now Caribbeans, the Africans, and now we have this great coalition of the ACP plus that have now come to support a levy. We
Eldine Glees 23:52
And not only that, John, like in that 60 plus people, the industry itself is among a supporter of levy system. So what's very fascinating here is that you would think that the shipping industry would be like, Oh no, how do we avoid this? How do we skirt responsibility again? But the industry under the ICS, so the International Chamber of shipping has actually also endorsed in a universal levy for, for, for GHG emissions in order to transition away from fossil fuels. And so that alone already tells you that they understand that the transition is here, and it's here to stay. And so we just need to find a way to quickly enforce or facilitate the rapid transition so that we can meet our target. So, IMO, has a couple of targets, so they want to reach what is that?
Simon Chin-Yee 24:58
40% by 2030, 80% by 2040, and 100% by 20, so net zero by 2050.
John Taukave 24:59
In other words it has to make sure that it's 1.5 degrees aligned.
Eldine Glees 25:02
Yes, it has to be 1.5 degrees aligned. So now here's what happens, why this is such a very strong regulator, is that once the committee, so the MAPC, Marine Environmental Protection Committee adopts regulations and enforces them under map pool, for example, once that is adopted, then it has to be enforced by the entire industry. So it has that power to enforce those laws under what we call flag and state control. So flag control just basically means that any vessel that is flying the flag of a member state of the IMO, we have 100 and 70s, yes, 76 countries. So any country, any ship or vessel that is flying one a flag for either one of those member states will have to automatically abide by those laws. And then we also have what is called support state control. That means any ship that has to call to port, to a port that is a member state of the IMO, will also have to abide by those laws. So you might be, say, a country that is not a signatory of Marple, that hasn't adopted Marple regulations. A lot of the African countries haven't. But that doesn't mean that you get to sit back and go like, Oh well, I'm not a Marple. I'm not a member state of the IMO, I haven't adopted these regulations, so I guess I'm not. You're on your own, guys. That's not how it works, because, again, we're talking about the industry that drives trade around the entire world. So that means whether you like it or not, you were trading with countries, and you're trading on flags that are signatory to the IMO. And so it doesn't matter where in the world you are, you will not get away from actually complying with these regulations. And that's the power that the IMO has.
Simon Chin-Yee 26:59
And on that note, though, because you both brought up a just and equitable transition. And I think if we are transitioning, if that is a done deal, no matter what happens next, at the IMO, in terms of the regulation, it is a done deal that we will be, we will be transitioning away from these fuels. So in 2023 one of the key things that came out of this greenhouse gas strategy that was adopted by all member states was this concept of a just and equitable transition. Can you explain how is that playing out in the IMO negotiation?
John Taukave 27:30
Absolutely, brother. Thank you for that question. Justice to make sure that especially the workforce, the maritime workforce that is involved in the shipping industry, are not left behind in the transition. And we constantly mention this and emphasize on this in the interventions that making sure that no one is left behind. What does that mean for the developing world? What does that mean for landlord countries? What does that mean for small island developing states and the least developed countries that will have issues in gaining access into to transition to decarbonize their field as well. So I think it's really important that we constantly emphasize what this just an equitable transition means for them, and what that really looks like.
Eldine Glees 28:08
And what to add to what John said, is that it means that when we discuss revenue distribution, we want to raise revenues, we need to tax the industry. The reason we're taxing the industry isn't to raise revenues. And then we go like, Oh, look, we've got a whole pot of gold. What do we do with this? No, the reason why we're raising revenues is so that we can make the business case to transition away from fossil fuels to alternative fuels. And that's where the legality of the term a “just and equitable transition” comes in because that was very strategically put in there. It's not cute words. It's actually very important. Because when you want to look for justice, then you're talking about reparations. What kind of reparations, climate reparations, the polluter pays principle. And when you talk equity, then you look at the countries, and you say, who can easily transition and who cannot. And so then, now that we have this pot of revenue, we need to make sure that everybody transitions, they should be equity in that transition. And because Fiji does not have the infrastructure and the resources to diversify to alternative fuels, then we need to be able to find a way to fund that transition in order for the transition to be equitable.
The reason why it needs to be just is because Fiji contributes very little to the impact to climate change. But the reason it needs to be equitable is because Fiji does not have the funds to do that, and that's just one country. Insert any country you can think of in the Global South, that is. And because that was written down as part of the strategy, now every country will be required, all the signatories on the IMO will be required by law to make sure that the transition is just, but it's also equitable, and that's where revenue distribution comes in and where that money needs to go.
Simon Chin-Yee 30:06
Obviously this concept of a just and equitable transition is important, but there will be other countries when we think of a just an equitable transition, when we think of taxing shipping, they're going to go to that concept of food security. They're going to think, Wait a minute. Hold up. Wait, you're going to tax shipping. 80% of our food comes via ship. Does that mean we're going to pay more for our food? And that's a solid excuse to not want to have a tax. So how do we counter balance that? Or is that a valid argument for them?
John Taukave 30:37
I mean, it's important that food security is important. And it's, for the Pacific Region is, you know, we rely on food security as well, and you are at the end of trade. And so it's part of that conversation, and to know that this levy will help address, or not just food security, but to the rest of the sector. And that's what we were talking about. What it means by in sector and out of sector, meaning, if the transition happens, it should happen in the maritime industry, but also happens outside of the industry, because everything is interconnected, and that's including food security.
Simon Chin-Yee 31:19
But how do we make that argument, then, that they will remain food secure, even though the industry will be taxed?
Eldine Glees 31:26
And I think this is where the transitional fuels or sources of energy come in. So I mentioned wind propulsion technologies in the very beginning, and wind propulsion is one, very – First of all, wind is free.
Simon Chin-Yee 31:43
It is, isn’t it. In London it’s too free sometimes. There's a lot of wind.
Eldine Glees 31:47
It is a readily available source. It's a no brainer, because it's easy to install. I mean, the initial capital is probably the least costly type of technology that is out there. And what's really good about wind propulsion technologies, which have advanced very much from just traditional sales, is that they're the kind of technology that can be moved. And this is very, very important for the Global South and for the domestic shipping sectors of vulnerable countries, because they have very old ships.
And the advantage of wind propulsion technologies that they can be removed from one ship to the other. So if you have a really old ship, you can retrofit it with hard sales. And when that ship finally goes through a great shipping graveyard or whatever, you can take it, you can take out that technology and retrofit it onto your next vessel so it actually continues on. It's like, it's. You're recycling, but also it's one of the cheapest forms out there of energy out there.
John Taukave 32:51
There is this philosophy in the Oceania that called …, which means looking back into the future. Meaning that we need to acknowledge the past in order to move forward in the future, and that's what Sister Eldine was talking about, and how important wind is, and how important it is for the Pacific. We actually have to look back into the past of wind and how our ancestors navigated the seas with on their …, on their voyaging …, And using that type of philosophy to help inform the mindsets of today in moving towards the future, wind is there. Indigenous knowledge has always been there from the beginning, and yet we still rely on the fossil fuels. But wind has always been there. And I think it's so key for our listeners to understand that we can move forward into the future with wind.
Simon Chin-Yee 33:38
And it's not just wind, is it? I mean, that's the that's the other thing that is very key to this idea of a just and equitable transition. We see in Namibia, we see potentially in Angola, in Kenya, in different parts, the potential to harness green hydrogen as a source of energy that can be really directly used for industry, for the ports, for the ships themselves. So the world is looking at different parts of the globe to see where we can build, harness, spend trillions on these new green fuels that, as a byproduct, produce vapor. So it's an amazing movement but it costs money, and we need to fund that.
Eldine Glees 34:25
And how do we get that fund from a tax on carbon emissions in the shipping industry?
Simon Chin-Yee 34:31
This is where that we need to look forward to in the next five days and understanding how and where this levy should be spent, and how we can make sure that a country, for example, like Namibia, is not being absolutely out of the well, not out of the quest, out of the equation completely, or being taken advantage of, frankly, by other countries that want to harness that power. But we should be all working and moving this together, and this levy will help us.
Eldine Glees 34:57
And this levy will help us level the playing field. That's the whole point.
Simon Chin-Yee 35:03
That's the whole point of this. Yes, yeah, okay. This has been a fantastic discussion. I’m really glad we ended with some positive examples of where we can move forward, understanding both the regulation and the negotiations, as well as how important the industry is for all of us, every single one of us in this world, is really key. So I can hear it from both of you. I think that every listener can hear the passion in Eldine, in John's voice, when they're talking about this. So I thank you both very much for being on this podcast.
UCL Minds 35:44
You're listening to UCL Generation One, turning science and ideas into climate action.
Simon Chin-Yee 35:51
So following the Talanoa that you heard with JT and Eldine, we came into this process with the highest of hopes. And when we recorded that section, we still had a week to go, and we were still ready to push for high ambition. So now that the dust is settling, we need to analyze what just happened and perhaps look for pathways forward. And I welcome a new voice into this discussion, Emma Fenton. Emma is the Senior Director for Climate Diplomacy at Opportunity Green. Prior to joining, they led the Scottish Government's international climate policy team to deliver Scotland's 36 million pound climate justice fund. So welcome Emma.
Emma Fenton 36:36
Thanks so much, Simon. Lovely to be here.
Simon Chin-Yee 36:40
All right, let's do it, Emma. We've both just come out of two weeks of negotiation, negotiating this text. We're both exhausted. I'm sure you are. But can you break down for us what the final outcome was.
Emma Fenton 36:54
Absolutely. So I suppose the one word answer to your question is no, and that is because what was agreed at the IMO, was needlessly complicated. We were supposed to be looking at how to tax an entire industry, and one of the proposals on the table would have done exactly that in a really straightforward and ambitious way. And where we've landed is kind of a slightly odd halfway house. What does it mean for decarbonization? Well, it means that, you know, the current analysis is suggesting that up to 90% of shipping emissions aren't in scope of this decision. We know that our 2030 targets of sort of 20% emissions reductions, striving for 30% reductions, are blown out of the water. To use a maritime pun, we're looking much more closely at sort of 5 to 10% emissions reductions, and we can't even really predict where we're going to get by the 2030-2050 strategy target, simply because we don't have the emissions factors set past 2035.
Simon Chin-Yee 38:00
Okay let's start with the basics here. What can you say about this? The highest ambition text compared to what we arranged, we arrived with in the end.
Emma Fenton 38:09
Okay, so that's a fair question. I think it's fair to say, whilst there were sort of half a dozen options on the table last year, we really came into the last two weeks kind of with two camps. And there's sort of margins around the edges, but broadly speaking, we were two camps, and that high ambition camp was a straightforward flat price on all GHG emissions. And what that means is everyone knew who would be having to meet these regulations. Everyone knew what that price would be, there would be no complexity of levels. There would be no credit trading to try and pay to pollute instead of really pushing for that decarbonization. And what a flat high price levy would have achieved is, first of all, incentive for businesses to decarbonize. Second of all, it would have created a revenue stream to address some of the disproportionate impacts of imposing the levy, but also produce finance more broadly. And thirdly, the private sector were calling for it themselves, weren't they?
Simon Chin-Yee 39:10
Just they were calling for it absolutely, absolutely.
Emma Fenton 39:13
So what it offered, you know, in sort of policy terms, we talk about creating the enabling environment, de risking private sector investment. It is far more expensive if you are a private sector company to do the research and development to deliver new technologies by yourself. And before this strategy, before these negotiations, that's what we were asking them to do. Whereas when we went into the last two weeks, we had this proposal on the table that could have afforded a pool of public revenue that could have de-risked that private sector investment, created certainty in the regulatory environment to enable them to know what they were aiming for, and when they would have to get their by, and also make sure that no one was left behind. That what was that was on the table two weeks ago.
Simon Chin-Yee 39:58
That was on the table two weeks ago, that was on the table on Thursday – that is Thursday morning, yeah. But so then what did we end up with?
Emma Fenton 40:05
So I mean, that's a great question, a kind of a mixed model. It's a global fuel standard that has an economic element, and without wanting to go into the technical detail, for two reasons. One, it's tedious and depressing. And two, even though I was in two weeks of negotiations, I'm still not fully across it myself, because it is, as I said, needlessly complex. We've created a situation where for certain higher emission intensity vessels, they will pay a higher price. For lower emission intensity vessels, they will pay a lower price, but only above a certain size of vessels, so vessels below a certain, what's called deadweight tonnage, aren't captured by this decision, which is a huge amount of emissions. We have the ability to what's called credit trade, which risks a scenario where you can pay to pollute instead of actually being incentivized to change the technologies that you're using on board your vessel. And we've also created a situation where the potential revenue being raised by this mechanism is insufficient by every metric.
Simon Chin-Yee 41:15
Yeah, I mean let's go right into just and equitable transition. Let's do it because, I mean, that's what we had the conversation with JT and Eldine earlier. John is from the from Fiji, Eldine is from Angola, and understanding, for example, how the least developed countries and SIDS, the small island developing states, are going to even be part of this transition required financing. And now we don't know if there's going to be that financing there for them to be able to be part of this?
Emma Fenton 41:42
Absolutely. I mean, we're looking in the order of ten billion a year to 2035, I think it is. And in terms of the scale of the need, ignoring the scale of the need of broader climate finance and broader justice, if we're just talking about the scale of the need in terms of transitioning a maritime sector in least developed countries, that is woefully inadequate. So it's neither fish nor fowl. It's not driving decarbonisation, nor is it incentivizing the private sector investment, nor is it supporting those least able to transition themselves to be part of the journey. It is de facto leaving them behind.
Simon Chin-Yee 42:21
I mean, that's the point. Let's go into the drama. I mean, we live for drama. We live for drama. Sometimes I live for drama. I was actually, anxiety was building in my chest on Friday morning. I can tell you that we’ve both been doing climate diplomacy for years, right? I have seen dramatic events take place around the world in terms of the COPs, but never normally at the IMO, right. But this particular time, it was highly contentious. It started with different coalitions of countries in the IMO. They try to make it around consensus, but actually it's down to two thirds majority vote, and that's what happened. And the last time this happened was 13 years ago, 2012, I believe. No it wasn't, 2011. And it was also called by Saudi Arabia. So what happened, and how were you feeling when that was taking place?
Emma Fenton 43:15
Oh, those are two very good questions. Okay, so what happened? I think what we saw at the IMO was a natural progression in the tone of the negotiations when we move from setting aspirational targets to legally binding measures, and the difference between not meeting a target and not ratifying and obeying a legally binding measure is huge. They're worlds apart.
Simon Chin-Yee 43:44
So I think promise of maybe doing something, to actually now you have regulation.
Emma Fenton 43:49
Exactly. And I think what you saw was a group of countries who have heavily invested in the status quo. And unfortunately, that doesn't work if you're talking about global solidarity, if you're talking about global justice, and if you're talking about meeting climate targets.
Simon Chin-Yee 44:06
And if you're talking about the science.
Emma Fenton 44:11
Yep, if you're talking about the science.
Simon Chin-Yee 44:12
That was one of the big arguments behind the most, highest ambition, uh, proposal is that the science seemed to back up their arguments.
Emma Fenton 44:19
Yeah and not just science, because when you talk about quote unquote the science, people often think you're talking about climate change and proof that human induced climate change is real. We can park that. That's a scientific certainty. But the other science that was brought to bear in these negotiations was the tireless efforts of UCL and others, not just in the Global North, but really talented institutions in the Global South as well, who modelled the impacts of the proposals that were on the table. And they came to the conclusion time and time again that the high ambition proposal, the straightforward compliance proposal, would achieve everything that was set out in the 2023 strategy in an affordable, simple and equitable way. The modelling, the science, the data, told us that, and we just turned our back on it in the negotiations.
Simon Chin-Yee 45:08
You've explained it so well, Emma already, but what we've seemed to have been left with is some sort of backdoor, closed agreement that really is a pale comparison to what even a medium level of ambition could have looked like.
Emma Fenton 45:27
Yeah, absolutely. And I think, you know, there are representatives from the Pacifics who've spoken about this far more eloquently than I could, and I wouldn't presume to represent them, but they talked about a perceived lack of transparency in the room.
Simon Chin-Yee 45:40
And the last thing I'll say, just keep bringing back the drama. For goodness sakes, on Tuesday evening, I have a picture of myself and a few of the delegates with huge smiles on our faces. We didn't know what was going to happen yet, but we weren't prepared. But perhaps we should have been for what President Trump was about to drop on all of the delegates, and that is that they were, they had sent a message to the different embassies that were taking part in the IMO negotiations that they wanted this whole process effectively stopped. You know, I had a delegate come up to me with the message on their phone going, now, what did we do?
Emma Fenton 46:18
The US position on these negotiations was unsurprising. That they withdrew their delegates meant that they weren't contributing in the room, and to a certain extent, it meant that they didn't have a voice, so they couldn't vote, so they couldn't influence negotiations in that way. And I don't think it's fair to lay the lack of ambition of these negotiations at their door when there were plenty who lacked ambition in the room and taking a much more active participation in the negotiations, it's a shame that they abstained from the multilateral process. Is it surprising? No.
Simon Chin-Yee 46:57
Let’s talk about where we go from here, a more generous take on what we've just witnessed is that we have a baseline to start to work with right now, and we can build from here. We had a few EU countries, for example, say this. I was with many of those countries afterwards, who were there, who were from the Caribbean, who said, we're going to lock our arms right now. We've got a job to do. It's going to get done. No matter what anybody says. The 2015 net zero target needs to be met, fossil fuels are going to go away. This is the reality, despite what other countries, some countries might want, or industry players might want. So how do we move forward? What are those next steps? What are the positives that we can go forward from this moment?
Emma Fenton 47:44
I think it's really important to focus on that it's okay to be disappointed. It's okay that this was an historic decision, as you said, but ultimately a failure of IMO negotiators to come to an appropriate level of ambition. I think what we can look forward to, in terms of getting stuck into, there are guidelines that are going to be developed that support these regulations, and how they are drafted and what they focus on will be really important. How the revenue is distributed will be of utmost importance, especially for that justice and equity perspective. And I think it's really important to find those areas where we can push for more ambition and to exactly as you say, operate in solidarity with those high ambition nations and make sure that we're delivering their ambition and their future.
Simon Chin-Yee 48:29
And perhaps there's other ways to approach this, right? The IMO is just one of the ways we can do it. We've lost a trick here. Well, we do have regulation. There is now a regulatory body with regulation in place that will tax an industry. There's no other industry that has this yet. So that's, I mean, that's positive, even if it's not quite reaching those far-reaching goals that we want. Because regardless, with everything we're saying here, that the industry is changing, and hopefully it will change much quicker than what is currently looking like out of this agreement.
Emma Fenton 49:01
Absolutely. And I think what academics at UCL and institutions like Opportunity Green can do is really help to create that enabling environment. So what are the political choices that need to be made in order to promote the scale of green hydrogen derived fuels? How do we unblock those choices for policy makers? Is it briefings? Is it research? Is it sort of providing that critical friend function that is so vital from academia and the NGO community, and then we can turn our laser-like focus to those other high-emitting sectors who perhaps are a little further behind, because now we have a template. We may not have got the best outcome, but now we have a template, and we can use that to turn our attention to those sectors and say, Okay, what about you?
Simon Chin-Yee 49:50
I think that's a great way to end this. We can. We are still a community. We're going to move forward, and we are going to get this done absolutely, absolutely. Emma Fenton, thank you so much for joining us here on UCL Generation One podcast. It's been a pleasure.
Emma Fenton 50:04
Thank you so much, Simon.
Simon Chin-Yee 50:12
And we have a treat for you now. I mentioned at the beginning that John Taukave, he is a performing artist, and he is going to play us out with an original song. John, take it away.
John Taukave 50:26
Thank you, brother. This is an original piece that was composed by me and a few of my cousins. This song is called Voice and it's a song about reconnection back to the ocean. And I think that's really important for these negotiations, because it's important for the IMO to see how we view the ocean.
<>
Simon Chin-Yee 54:03
So that was John Taukave serenading us here in studio. Throughout today's podcast, you've heard a lot of the positives and the negatives that have come out of this. In terms of the agreement that we've just witnessed, there's a certain amount of negativity around what has just been produced. Will it produce the justice and equity that is necessary in moving forward? No, it won't. Will it decarbonize the sector adequately in a way that we are moving forward and hitting 2030, 2040, 2050, targets? Not in the current form. Nevertheless, this is actually an historic achievement and one that we can be proud of moving forward.
And that's it for this episode of Generation One from UCL, turning climate science and ideas into action. But stay tuned for the rest of the series, or listen on catch up to all our episodes on your favourite platform.
If you'd like to ask a question or suggest a guest that you'd like to hear on Generation One, you can email us at podcasts, with an s, @ucl.ac.uk. Otherwise, for more information about UCL’s work in the climate space and what our staff, students and our researchers are doing to make a more sustainable future, head to the UCL Generation One website. Or follow us on social media, #UCLGenerationOne.