Year XXXVIII, Number 2, July 2025

Ingmar Rentzhog
CEO and Founder, We Don’t Have Time

On April 11, 2025, the world achieved something rare: a legally binding global climate agreement. The United States didn’t vote – they walked out, warning others to follow or face consequences. But 63 nations stayed. And they passed the deal. That’s not just diplomacy. That’s global governance, alive and kicking.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a UN body that regulates global shipping, approved new regulations to cut greenhouse gas emissions across the maritime sector – one of the most polluting and least regulated industries on Earth. The deal mandates a trajectory to net-zero emissions by 2050, backed by financial penalties and a structured compliance framework.

This is not just another pledge. It’s a binding agreement with enforcement. Shipowners who fail to meet emissions reduction targets will pay up to $380 per tonne of CO2 equivalent, feeding into a new Net-Zero Fund to support the transition and ensure climate justice within the sector.

It’s a milestone. But it’s also something more: a proof of concept for a world hungry for functioning international cooperation and governance.

A Success for Global Governance

The IMO’s decision-making process avoids the paralyzing requirement for consensus that plagues climate COPs. When Saudi Arabia and a coalition of fossil fuel-aligned nations raised objections, they could not veto the outcome. Instead, the chair called for a vote – country by country, alphabetically.

The result? 63 countries voted in favor. Only 16 opposed. Even North Korea, at one point, seemed to say “yes, no” before clarifying.

One of the most notable dissenters was the United States, which withdrew from the negotiations just before the final vote. A diplomatic note called the proposed emissions fee “blatantly unfair” and warned of “reciprocal measures”, citing concerns over sovereignty, competitiveness, and disproportionate impact on US shipping. It even urged others to walk out. But the deal passed anyway.

Why such strong opposition? Almost half of all commercial ships transport oil, coal, and gas. The new emissions fee delivers a double blow to fossil fuels: it raises the cost of transporting them – while accelerating the transition away from fossil fuels used to power the ships themselves. The economic implications were clear, and so was the resistance from fossil fuel-aligned countries.

But this time, they lost. The outcome wasn’t just a win for climate policy – it was a rare and timely victory for global governance itself.

Resistance Means Global Governance Is Working

The instinct is to view US withdrawal and Saudi resistance as signs of failure. But in fact, the opposite may be true. “Resistance is not failure – it’s evidence that you’re shifting the system”, said Maja Groff, international lawyer and convenor of the Climate Governance Commission, in an interview on the very same day.

Power rarely resists what it doesn’t fear. The backlash against global climate cooperation may feel destabilizing, but it’s also a signal that change is finally reaching the centers of entrenched influence.

What happened at the IMO shows that, when structured right, global governance can withstand that resistance – and deliver.