sabotage

The global fallout of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz may create the impression that the world cannot function without fossil fuels. Nothing could be further from the truth. Every single industry can and must decarbonise.

For global shipping, this process would be relatively easy because technological solutions exist and a single United Nations agency can set legally binding rules for all ships. The first steps have already been made.

In 2025, member states of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) agreed on a policy mechanism to cut shipping emissions: the Net-Zero Framework (NZF). But they opted to postpone a decision on formal adoption of this landmark agreement.

This delay is emblematic of obstructive tactics used by countries opposing climate action.

The IMO Framework – the world’s first global carbon price on any international polluter – took years of compromises and watering-down. As it stands, it is the lowest possible bar Pacific Island states like the one I represent can accept. We cannot give in another inch.

While I join the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, next week, delegates will gather again at the IMO in London to decide whether to uphold their unanimous commitment to phase out fossil fuels in a just and equitable way.

The delegates of Vanuatu who travel to London have a mandate to push for the adoption of the NZF this year.

Should anyone reopen the framework to water it down, our position is clear: We will revert to our original Pacific demand for a universal levy on emissions of $150 per tonne of carbon dioxide.

Last year my country abstained from the vote on the NZF agreement. We reached that decision because the mechanism is not nearly ambitious enough. Even so, it is a starting point we can work with.

But since then, the tide has shifted dramatically.

After the delay in adoption, a small group of countries is now suggesting further weakening the ambition in the framework to meet the demands of particularly influential states whose current policy positions are not aligned with climate ambition. This strategy is problematic as reducing our collective actions to align with those that want no climate action at all is incompatible with our people’s continued survival.

The world’s poorest countries, and the planet, simply cannot afford anything less than what is already on the table.

The framework, as it is, gives the world and the industry some chance of meeting the climate obligations that IMO countries committed to in 2023, namely reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 in a just and equitable way.

The NZF introduces penalty fees – eg emission pricing for noncompliance with the regulation. This provides the regulation with a “stick” to ensure ships comply or else they must pay.

The penalties also represent revenues, up to $10bn to $12bn a year, to both incentivise industry transition and enable a fair transition for all. This fund is a lifeline for developing – and especially least developed – states to be able to afford clean maritime energy upgrades and compensate for the rising trade costs because of this transition.

Some claim that revenues raised by the NZF will blow out transport costs. This is preposterous.

The penalties charged through this framework come down to less than $1.50 per year for every living human being – although the biggest polluters should pay this cost. If the richest 10 percent of the world’s population foots this bill, it adds up to less than $15 per person. That’s a few coffees a year, which the world’s richest can easily spare.

Losing both financial penalties for noncompliance and financial support for countries like mine in the name of a political compromise with rich oil-producing states is a bad deal. Not just for all climate-vulnerable states but also for the industry that demands and deserves clarity.

If anything, we need more action and more ambition in the framework.

For years, Pacific states have pushed for the IMO regulation to be in the form of a universal levy on emissions, by pricing all emissions. We managed to get the majority of IMO member states on board, including the European Union, South Korea and Japan, as well as important Global South states, such as Panama and Liberia. However, the US has been very effective in exerting its influence in this area, which is resulting in shifts to some positions to the detriment of us all.

Our position was always backed by the best available scientific evidence.

A levy on all shipping emissions is the best way to send an unambiguous signal to the industry: Invest in the future now! The revenues, up to 10 times more than those from the NZF, serve as both a bigger stick for polluters and a bigger carrot for first movers and cash-poor countries.

This is not a handout: Hitting net zero by 2050 is not possible if our countries cannot invest in clean ships.

The bridge we have built in the form of the NZF through years of compromise and evidence is still standing. Let us cross it together by adopting it as agreed without any further dilution.

Pacific states stand ready to fight for what science and justice demand, and we call on our partners to stand with us.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

April 1 (UPI) — Bolivia’s government, led by President Rodrigo Paz, said it has uncovered an international criminal network responsible for sabotaging and adulterating imported fuel shipments that entered the country over the past five months.

Interior Minister Marco Antonio Oviedo told a news conference Tuesday that at least 150 million liters of gasoline and diesel were tampered with, citing an official investigation that identified a scheme involving fuel theft and contamination with water and oil in Chilean territory.

Authorities said the operation targeted tanker trucks transporting fuel to Bolivia, particularly in northern Chilean cities. In those locations, part of the fuel was allegedly siphoned off and replaced with a mixture of water and oil, according to local broadcaster Unitel.

President Paz said the adulteration began around October.

Investigators believe the network operated mainly in Chile, with additional links and operational hubs in Paraguay and Argentina. The direct economic loss to the Bolivian state is estimated at $150 million, excluding indirect costs linked to transport disruptions.

Consumers also have felt the impact. More than 10,000 vehicle owners, including long-distance transport operators and private drivers, have reported severe engine damage.

“We are facing an attack against the assets of Bolivian families,” Paz said, adding that the government will pursue legal mechanisms to compensate those affected, according to local newspaper El Deber.

Bolivia’s landlocked status makes transporting fuel from Chile critical to its energy supply chain. The country relies on Chilean ports such as Arica, Iquique and Mejillones to receive international shipments of crude oil and refined products.

After a virtual meeting Tuesday, Paz and Chilean President José Antonio Kast agreed on a joint roadmap to dismantle the transnational organized crime network behind the fuel adulteration, according to Bolivia’s state-run broadcaster BTV.

As an immediate response, Bolivia announced tighter controls at facilities operated by state energy company Yacimientos Petrolíferos Fiscales Bolivianos, known as YPFB, and the National Hydrocarbons Agency. Authorities will implement mandatory laboratory testing at production sites and border checkpoints.

Civil society groups have called for accountability as the investigation continues, urging authorities to prosecute those responsible abroad and to address potential internal failures that allowed the sabotage to go undetected for months.

The crisis comes as Bolivia faces a severe fuel supply shortage. After a structural decline in domestic hydrocarbon production, which fell about 44% between 2014 and 2024, the country shifted from a net exporter to a heavily import-dependent market. Bolivia now imports about 90% of the diesel and 50% of the gasoline it consumes.

The situation has worsened since 2023 due to a shortage of foreign currency, particularly U.S. dollars, complicating payments to international suppliers and contributing to intermittent shortages and partial disruptions in transport and productive sectors.

ITV viewers were left saying the same thing as a new reality show debuted on Saturday night.

ITV viewers were not impressed as new reality show, Celebrity Sabotage, premiered.

The new series sees Joel Dommett, Judi Love, Sam Thompson and GK Barry sabotage ordinary people who think they are taking part in various reality shows, with the aim of winning them money.

In each episode, a fresh set of unsuspecting contestants will arrive, believing they’re participating in a brand-new ITV show. But what they don’t know is that hidden away in their very own high-tech Mission HQ are celebrity saboteurs, who are secretly watching the contestants’ every move and are being set their own sabotage missions.

Hosting the fake shows are a string of stars, including Emma and Matt Willis, Sara Davies and Clare Balding, while celebrities will also join Joel, Judi, Sam and GK to help with the sabotaging.

The first episode aired on Saturday (March 21), with a group of business enthusiasts embarking on a set of challenges under the watchful eye of entrepreneur and Dragons’ Den star Sara Davies.

The celebrity saboteurs were joined by comedian Jo Brand as they set about disrupting wedding video filming, deleting the contestant’s filmed footage, and sabotaging a wellness away-day face mask activity by using lashings of green food colouring.

After watching the first episode, several ITV viewers shared their complaints about the show’s premise.

“#CelebritySabotage This is as much fun as having a toothache, @ITV churns out some rubbish & this one is right up there. It’s a waste of our time, it makes you look forward to seeing the adverts! I’m going to sit outside & watch the car electric battery top up, a lot more fun!” one person wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

Another added: “How do programmes like these ever get commissioned. Utter rubbish,” while a third said: “What a s*** show.”

A fourth fan echoed the sentiment, saying: “This is a kids TV show that got mixed up in the schedule surely. Utterly dreadful hate watch,” with another similarly sharing: “This is appallingly bad even for ITV. How long before it’s shunted to 4.30 Sunday afternoon?”

Meanwhile, other viewers enjoyed the silliness of the show, with one person writing: “Honestly I knew I was going to like #CelebritySabotage, it’s a great show with a great cast and I really like how the fake shows are rip offs of others. Definitely will be watching next week.”