Headline

UN Backs Global Carbon Pricing Scheme For Shipping Industry

Published

5 months ago

April 17, 2025

Editor

In a landmark move, the United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) has agreed on a global carbon pricing mechanism for the shipping industry, marking a significant step toward tackling emissions from one of the world’s most polluting sectors.

The policy, expected to be formally adopted in October 2025, is projected to generate between $30–40 billion in revenues by 2030—roughly $10 billion annually. These funds will be ringfenced exclusively for decarbonising maritime transport, rather than contributing to broader climate finance for developing nations.

While hailed as a major breakthrough, the agreement is expected to deliver only a 10% absolute emissions reduction in the shipping sector by 2030—well below the IMO’s own revised strategy from 2023, which calls for at least a 20% reduction by the same year, and a stretch goal of 30%.

From 2028, vessels will either have to adopt lower-carbon fuel mixes or pay for excess emissions. Ships continuing to use conventional fossil fuels will face a charge of $380 per tonne for the most carbon-intensive portion of their emissions, and $100 per tonne for the remainder above a set threshold.

The agreement, supported by 63 countries—including Brazil, China, the EU, South Africa, Kenya, Senegal, and Namibia—sets a global precedent. However, the policy faced strong opposition from oil-rich nations including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Russia, and Venezuela, who challenged both the substance and process of the deal. Despite the resistance, a compromise proposal championed by Norway, which chaired the negotiations, passed in the final vote.

Notably, the United States delegation was absent during the vote, having earlier circulated a proposal urging countries to withdraw from negotiations—a move that drew criticism from multiple quarters.

A bloc of over 60 nations, led by Pacific Island states, had advocated for the revenue to support broader climate resilience efforts in vulnerable nations. Speaking on behalf of the Pacific, Tuvalu expressed frustration at the lack of transparency and inclusion in the talks, warning that the new plan may fail to incentivise cleaner fuel adoption effectively.

While the agreement allows initial use of fossil-based liquefied natural gas (LNG), the pricing mechanism is designed to gradually penalise such fuels over time.

Minister Antony Derjacques of the Seychelles criticised the limited ambition of the deal.

He said, “The developing countries with the greatest need came here and offered a solution. How can the other major economies ask us to take a weak deal home to our people, who are suffering as a result of the climate crisis?”

Maria Ogbugo of the African Future Policies Hub viewed the outcome more positively.

She said, “The best possible outcome was achieved. African delegations, including Kenya, Namibia, Senegal, and South Africa, must be commended. The shipping industry has taken the lead in showing that climate action is possible—even for hard-to-abate sectors.”

The Executive Director at the same organisation, Faten Aggad added “Reaching consensus on decarbonisation measures was never going to be easy. Yet the result still puts a price on emissions, which is a crucial starting point—especially for vulnerable economies.”

The maritime advisor at the Micronesian Centre for Sustainable Transport, Eldine Glees, highlighted the link between climate levies and sustainable development.

The advisor said, “Several African delegations showed exemplary leadership by tying the levy to food security, resilience, and equitable revenue distribution. Maintaining unity will be vital as implementation begins.”

The CEO of the European Climate Foundation and a key architect of the Paris Agreement, Laurence Tubiana, said the agreement was a step forward but not enough.

The CEO said, “The lack of a broader shipping levy is a missed opportunity. The world needs more cooperation, and progressive partners can still push for breakthroughs in climate finance.”

Vanuatu’s Climate Change Minister Ralph Regenvanu said, “Let us be clear about who has abandoned 1.5°C. Saudi Arabia, the US, and other fossil fuel allies blocked progress at every turn. This was a chance to fund climate-vulnerable nations. It was lost.”

Ambassador Albon Ishoda of the Marshall Islands concluded with a note of resilience.

Headline

Saudi Arabia’s Grand Mufti Is Dead

Published

9 hours ago

September 23, 2025

Editor

The Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdulaziz, has died at the age of 82.

According to a statement from the Royal Court, the revered cleric passed away on Tuesday morning.

Born in Mecca in November 1943, Sheikh Abdulaziz rose to become one of the most influential religious authorities in the Kingdom.

He served as head of the General Presidency of Scholarly Research and Ifta, as well as the Supreme Council of the Muslim World League.

Headline

Antitrust Trial: US Asks Court To Break Up Google’s Ad Business

Published

2 days ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year, following a similar government demand to split up its empire that was shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.

Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

According to filings, the US government will argue that Google should spin off its ad publisher and exchange operations. The DOJ will also ask that after the divestitures are complete, Google be banned from operating an ad exchange for 10 years.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

“We’ve said from the start that DOJ’s case misunderstands how digital advertising works and ignores how the landscape has dramatically evolved, with increasing competition and new entrants,” said Lee-Anne Mulholland, Google’s Vice President of Regulatory Affairs.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.

Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

This remedy phase of the US trial follows a first trial that found Google operated an illegal monopoly. It is expected to last about a week, with the court set to meet again for closing arguments a few weeks later.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.

Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.

Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.

AFP

Headline

Google Faces Court Battle Over Breakup Of Ad Tech Business

Published

2 days ago

September 22, 2025

Editor

Google faces a fresh federal court test on Monday as US government lawyers ask a judge to order the breakup of the search engine giant’s ad technology business.

The lawsuit is Google’s second such test this year after the California-based tech juggernaut saw a similar government demand to split up its empire shot down by a judge earlier this month.

Monday’s case focuses specifically on Google’s ad tech “stack” — the tools that website publishers use to sell ads and that advertisers use to buy them.

In a landmark decision earlier this year, Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that Google maintained an illegal grip on this market.
Monday’s trial is set to determine what penalties and changes Google must implement to undo its monopoly.

Google will argue that the divestiture demands go far beyond the court’s findings, are technically unfeasible, and would be harmful to the market and smaller businesses.

In a similar case in Europe, the European Commission, the EU’s antitrust enforcer, earlier this month fined Google 2.95 billion euros ($3.47 billion) over its control of the ad tech market.
Brussels ordered behavioral changes, drawing criticism that it was going easy on Google as it had previously indicated that a divestiture may be necessary.

The trial begins in the same month that a separate judge rejected a government demand that Google divest its Chrome browser, in an opinion that was largely seen as a victory for the tech giant.

That was part of a different case, also brought by the US Department of Justice, in which the tech giant was found responsible for operating an illegal monopoly, this time in the online search space.
Instead of a major breakup of its business, Google was required to share data with rivals as part of its remedies.

The US government had pushed for Chrome’s divestment, arguing the browser serves as a crucial gateway to the internet that brings in a third of all Google web searches.
Shares in Google-parent Alphabet have skyrocketed by more than 20 percent since that decision.

Judge Brinkema has said in pre-trial hearings that she will closely examine the outcome of the search trial when assessing her path forward in her own case.

These cases are part of a broader bipartisan government campaign against the world’s largest technology companies. The US currently has five pending antitrust cases against such companies.