🧃Ships, Shares & Shrugs

Welcome to The Strawman, the daily climate newsletter that’s not saying the shipping industry’s new carbon plan is a wet blanket - but it sure isn’t a tidal wave of ambition either.

Last Friday, a UN-backed deal delivered the first-ever global carbon pricing scheme for shipping. That’s historic. But the response was... muted. Climate advocates and vulnerable nations say the deal is toothless, complex, and too low on ambition. Meanwhile, in Japan, corporate activists are finding new ways to push climate transparency — by going soft before going hard. Let’s unpack both stories.

Sea Change or Side-Step?

Shipping is one of the world’s dirtiest industries - responsible for nearly 3% of global emissions - and until now, it’s dodged the carbon price bullet. That changed on Friday, when the International Maritime Organization approved a carbon pricing system. The catch? It’s far weaker than what climate-vulnerable nations had pushed for.

Rather than a flat $150-per-tonne carbon tax, the IMO opted for a sliding scale, with emissions intensity targets and fees ranging from $100 to $380 per excess tonne depending on how badly companies miss reduction goals. Companies that outperform targets can sell credits to others. The idea: create a market that nudges shippers toward cleaner operations. The reality: it's less carrot, more soggy breadstick.

Notably, the plan fell short of the IMO’s own previous targets and lacks teeth when it comes to pushing true clean tech like green ammonia. Critics warn it may drive companies toward liquefied natural gas - cleaner than bunker fuel, but far from zero-emissions. Meanwhile, key Pacific nations abstained from the vote, oil exporters said no, and the U.S. didn’t even show up - with Trump’s administration threatening “retaliation” against carbon fees on U.S. ships.

Boardroom Battles in Tokyo

In Japan, climate campaigners are playing a longer game. Instead of jumping straight to binding shareholder resolutions, they started this year with softer, advisory proposals aimed at sparking dialogue on climate risk. Seven major firms - including megabanks like MUFG and Mizuho — were targeted. Every single one rejected the proposals.

And that was kind of the point.

By demonstrating that companies won’t even entertain non-binding requests for more climate disclosure, activists are now laying the groundwork to push legally binding votes during AGM season in June. The strategy borrows a page from playbooks in the U.S. and Europe, where advisory proposals are a common way to gauge investor sentiment and pressure companies to evolve without a legal hammer.

Japanese firms have often dodged climate-related proposals by saying such issues don’t belong in their corporate bylaws. But rejecting the advisory route removes that fig leaf — and forces the conversation into the shareholder spotlight.

Carbon Taxes & Corporate Tactics

While both stories are very different, they share a theme: progress wrapped in compromise. Shipping got its first carbon price - but it’s a faint ripple, not a wave. Japanese shareholders are pushing harder than ever - but only after being brushed off. Both show how climate action is inching forward, not through bold leaps, but through layered strategies, frustrating votes, and awkward compromises.

Takeaway

Whether at sea or in the boardroom, climate progress is coming - just slower, messier, and more procedurally complex than anyone hoped.