Global shipping moves nearly everything we rely on — from food to fuel — but it also carries a massive and often overlooked climate cost. As governments meet at the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) in April 2026, critical decisions are on the table that will shape whether the shipping industry can truly transition to zero emissions or fall short under political pressure.
To understand what’s at stake, what to watch and why it matters for communities on the frontlines of pollution, Pacific Environment experts Davina Hurt and Jamie Yates break it down.
The United Nations International Maritime Organization is an important global organization. What does the IMO do and why is our engagement so important?
JY: The IMO is where the rules and standards for global shipping get written. As a specialized agency of the United Nations, the IMO brings governments together to agree on international standards that address ship safety, protect seafarers and reduce the environmental impacts of shipping. A big focus in the last few years has been to develop the world’s first legally binding industry-wide climate framework for international shipping to reduce its emissions toward net-zero roughly by 2050.
Many of these regulations and standards might also be developed at port and country levels, but for maximum global impact and coverage, the IMO presents the most direct forum to affect change and drive momentum toward cleaner ships and address climate change, cleaner seas and a better future for communities around the world.
DH: Most people have never heard of the IMO, and that’s exactly the problem. This is the body that writes the rulebook for roughly 90% of global trade — deciding what ships burn, what they dump and how close they operate to the communities bearing the brunt of that pollution — communities that more often than not are low-income and communities of color.
The United States is not missing from IMO negotiations: it is present, it is loud and it is using its considerable influence to slow-walk or outright block the kinds of ambitious standards that port communities have been fighting for. This has consequences that ripple across the entire international system, because when the U.S. throws its weight behind weaker rules, it gives cover to every other country that wants to do the same.
Our engagement is critical precisely because the opposition is powerful, organized and already in the room. I learned that when a bully is setting the terms, you don’t win by going along. You win by building power with others.
What will you be following at the IMO meeting in April?
JY: There will be two weeks of meetings. The first week is the technical subcommittee meeting called the Intersessional Working Group on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, or ISWG, where the focus will be on developing further detail on the guidelines that accompany the Net-Zero Framework. We’ll be supporting a just and equitable transition to truly sustainable, scalable solutions for cleaner ships, including advocating for support for climate vulnerable countries, incentives for zero-emission fuels and technologies and setting guardrails to ensure all potential sustainability aspects are included in the full fuel lifecycle assessment. The second week we’ll be focusing on the Net-Zero Framework itself and ensuring it is not weakened with alternatives that have been proposed. The U.S. government and other petrostates are working to undermine and block progress on climate action, but we’ll be on the ground with allies across civil society and member states to keep that from happening.
DH: The most important thing I’ll be watching is the MEPC — the Marine Environment Protection Committee. That’s where the real decisions get made on emissions standards and pollution rules. If you care about what communities near ports are breathing, that’s the room that matters.
More specifically, I’ll be tracking the U.S. position on the IMO’s greenhouse gas strategy. The targets that get set here determine how fast this industry has to clean up — and whether frontline communities get relief in their lifetimes or get promised action that never comes. I’ll also be watching how the debate around alternative fuels plays out, because not all “clean” fuels are actually clean for communities, and that distinction matters enormously.
One issue that doesn’t get enough attention is scrubbers: a technology that lets ships clean their exhaust but dumps that pollution directly into the water instead. That’s not a solution. That’s moving the harm around. And I’ll be paying close attention to black carbon, which hits port communities and the Arctic particularly hard.
But honestly, one of the most important things I’ll be doing is watching what the U.S. delegation says and how they vote. Because the U.S. is not a bystander in these negotiations, it is an active participant using its influence to shape outcomes. Americans deserve to know whose side their delegation is on.
Global shipping emits as much greenhouse gas as Germany each year, so transitioning to zero-emission shipping will have tremendous climate impacts. Why is it so important that Pacific Environment has consultative status at the IMO?
JY: Having consultative status means we have a seat in the room where those decisions are made. It allows us to attend meetings, submit formal proposals, provide technical input and build relationships with governments and other stakeholders shaping the future of the industry. Without that status, our role would be limited to reacting from the outside after key choices have already been locked in.
This access matters because the details really matter. Targets, timelines, fuel standards and equity provisions aren’t abstract concepts. They determine whether the shipping sector truly transitions to zero-emission fuels in a way that supports climate vulnerable countries.
DH: We can submit documents, speak in sessions and hold governments accountable for what they say internationally versus what they do at home. And that accountability matters, because there is often a gap between what governments promise in global forums and what they actually deliver for communities on the ground. That’s an ethics problem as much as it is a policy problem.
Global shipping emitting as much greenhouse gas as an entire country like Germany every single year is not an abstraction — it is a crisis. And no single government, no single community, no single organization can fix it alone. That’s why having Pacific Environment inside that room, alongside local, state and federal advocates is how communities get the full coverage they deserve.
Finally, what can people do to encourage shipping companies to quicken their pace toward zero-emission shipping?
DH & JY: First, stay informed because that’s where power starts. Most people don’t know what the IMO is, and that’s exactly what needs to change. Second, hold your government accountable. Member states came to the IMO and agreed to ambitious targets — then the U.S., Saudi Arabia and petrostates pushed to water them down. That’s not a shipping industry problem, that’s a political problem. Contact your state representative and the State Department. Tell them you expect the U.S. to honor what was originally agreed to, not retreat from it under pressure from oil interests.
Third, support the advocates who are in the room fighting to hold governments to their word. Pacific Environment is there because communities deserve a voice at every level — local, state, federal and international. That work doesn’t happen without people behind it. Follow us, support our work and stay engaged as we keep the pressure on for cleaner shipping.
