states

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.

‘This will be a great and brilliant day for the world’ US President Donald Trump said at a Turning Point USA event as Iran fully opens the Strait of Hormuz. He also thanked Gulf states for their ‘tremendous’ support.

April 16 (UPI) — The House on Thursday passed a bill to extend temporary protected status for people from Haiti who are living in the United States through 2029.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., who is co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus, introduced a discharge petition to advance a bill to extend protection for Haitian nationals.

The legislation was initially introduced by Rep. Laura Gillen, D-N.Y., whose Long Island district — as well as the rest of Long Island and New York City — have large Haitian populations, and is the first bill she introduced after her election to the House.

After the discharge petition succeeded, with bipartisan support, the bill passed the full House with 10 Republicans voting in support of it.

“This is a critical step forward in our fight for immigrant justice and delivering our Haitian neighbors the protections they deserve — and it’s a testament to the strength of our broad, diverse and bipartisan coalition,” Pressley said in a statement after the motion to discharge was agreed to.

“I am grateful to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported our discharge petition,” she said.

After the vote, Gillen in a statement encouraged the Senate “to take up this measure and show the compassion and good sense to protect our Haitian community members.”

“Not only would this threaten the lives of our neighbors, it would also have a devastating effect on our economy,” Gillen said, noting that the extension protects “law-abiding and tax-paying Haitians who would face horrific condition if forced back to Haiti.”

The bill, however, faces a battle in the Republican-run Senate and, if it does get passed, the White House has indicated that it will veto the legislation, reports have said.

Although former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had attempted to end TPS for at least half a million Haitians last Fall, a judge in February blocked the Trump administration from carrying it out.

As a result of the ruling, TPS for people from Haiti expired on Feb. 3, its original expiration date, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, which Pressley said made the discharge petition to force a vote on the bill so crucial.

The Supreme Court also is due to rule on the Trump administrations efforts to end TPS for Haitians, as well as for people from Syria, who have protected status because of the dangerous situation in that country.

The experts call Israel’s bombardment of Lebanon on April 8 ‘a blatant violation of the UN Charter’.

A group of United Nations experts has denounced Israel’s attack on Lebanon a day after the United States and Iran agreed a ceasefire as illegal and urged UN member states to halt all arms transfers to Israel.

The 19 experts – including special rapporteurs and independent experts across a range of human rights mandates – issued the condemnation on Wednesday as Israel continued to pound areas of southern Lebanon, killing at least 16 people, including four paramedics, Lebanese state media reported.

Referring to a devastating wave of Israeli attacks across Lebanon on April 8, which Lebanese authorities said killed more than 350 people, including 30 children, the experts said: “This is not self-defence. It is a blatant violation of the UN Charter, a deliberate ‌destruction of prospects for peace, and an affront to multilateralism and the UN-based international order.”

They called for Israel to “cease all military operations in Lebanon” and urged UN member states to halt arms transfers to Israel while “there is credible evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law”, according to the UN Human Rights Council.

Israel escalated its attacks on Lebanon on March 2 after the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in response to the US-Israel killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei two days earlier, the first day of their war on Iran.

Israel has carried out a devastating bombardment across Lebanon and a ground invasion in the south, killing more than 2,000 people and forcibly displacing more than 1.2 million.

The UN experts said such forced displacement “of a civilian population constitutes crimes against humanity”. They also condemned Israel’s targeted “destruction of homes”, particularly in predominantly Shia areas of the south, as “a form of collective punishment” that “points to ethnic cleansing”.

Israel’s continuing bombardment of Lebanon has been a point of tension in US-Iran negotiations. Tehran said Lebanon should be covered in the ongoing ceasefire. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Lebanon is ‌not ‌part of the ceasefire with Iran and Israel will continue to target Hezbollah “wherever required”.

On Saturday, days before Israel and Lebanon held rare, high-level diplomatic talks in the US, Netanyahu said Israel wanted long-term peace with Lebanon but on the condition that Hezbollah is disarmed.

The Reuters news agency quoted a senior Israeli official as saying ⁠Israel’s security cabinet planned to convene on Wednesday evening to discuss a possible ceasefire in Lebanon. It also quoted several senior ⁠Lebanese officials as saying ceasefire efforts were under way.