According to a document seen by the Financial Times, China warned that overly ambitious emission reduction targets would impede the sustainable development of international shipping, increase supply chain costs and hinder global economic recovery.

China accused developed countries of advocating unrealistic visions and ambition levels, citing concerns that a flat levy would significantly raise maritime transport costs. Wealthy nations have not yet agreed on a specific price for the emissions levy.

China's efforts have intensified concerns about the lack of progress in decarbonizing the shipping industry, which is responsible for up to 90 per cent of global trade and is highly fuel-intensive, as noted by the OECD.

By the end of the following week, the IMO has committed to strengthening its ambition, aiming to halve annual shipping emissions from 2008 levels by 2050.

However, discussions at the IMO have become deeply divided between developed and developing member states, and China has played a significant role in rallying countries during closed-door negotiations.

Brazil, Argentina and South Africa have also opposed a shipping emissions levy, fearing increased export costs for their major commodities markets, according to sources familiar with the discussions.

It should be noted that poorer countries are not united in opposition. The Marshall Islands, particularly vulnerable to rising sea levels due to climate change, have called for a $100-per-tonne emissions levy.

The country's ambassador to the IMO expressed concerns about the unhelpful polarization within the discussions, with some participants failing to meet their national commitments on decarbonization.

Interestingly, while some developing countries have complained about the financial burden of a shipping emissions levy, they have also demanded that any revenue generated by such a measure remains within the shipping industry.

In contrast, China called for the funds to be invested "in-sector," arguing that broader utilisation would shift the responsibility for climate change financing from developed countries to international shipping.

Furthermore, China opposed the establishment of 2050 as the final year for achieving net-zero emissions, instead supporting a broader goal of "net zero GHG emissions from international shipping around mid-century."