By Denise Robbins, CCAN Communications Team
In London, nations at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) advanced a proposal for a net-zero framework on maritime shipping, functionally creating the world’s first-ever price on carbon.
In Santa Marta, Colombia, more than 50 countries gathered for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.
And in the rest of the world, many countries are moving away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible due to the Middle Eastern conflict causing oil prices to skyrocket.
The movement to make polluters pay for a just transition is growing to the point of inevitability, no matter what President Donald Trump does to try and stop it. But what exactly is happening, and what does it mean for the United States?
A Groundbreaking Carbon Price on Maritime Shipping
International shipping has long been treated as one of the hardest sectors to regulate. The sector produces roughly 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and because ships operate across borders, national climate rules alone cannot easily cover it. So the IMO is one of the few venues capable of setting global standards for shipping emissions.
The IMO’s framework that advanced through last week’s talks would create a global fuel standard for ships and an economic mechanism for emissions, with funds intended to support cleaner fuels and help developing countries navigate the transition.
This happened despite Trump’s best efforts. For the past year, United States representatives have been bullying and pressuring other countries to pull away from the net-zero framework. As a result, Greece pushed back, even as the European Union continued to have a public unified statement of support. Liberia and Panama led a counter-proposal that would have removed carbon pricing from the framework. The United States continued its aggressive approach during the talks this spring, pulling out all the stops to derail the framework. They lobbied delegates, backed delay tactics and aligned with Saudi Arabia and other opponents of the emissions fee. Yet the nations were not dismayed. The draft text, which would combine a global fuel standard with a pricing mechanism charging ships for emissions above set limits and channeling revenue into cleaner fuels and support for developing countries, moved forward, and it will be officially voted on in December.
If passed, a global framework that prices pollution would mark a major shift from voluntary climate promises toward enforceable rules — and toward making polluters contribute to the cost of the transition.
Meanwhile, in Colombia….
More than 50 countries met for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels, a historic attempt to move the world from vague climate promises toward concrete plans to phase out oil, gas and coal.
The conference focused heavily on financing. For many countries, especially in the Global South, the barrier to getting off fossil fuels is not a lack of will or clean energy potential. It is debt, high borrowing costs, limited fiscal space and a global financial system that still makes it easier to fund fossil fuel projects than renewable energy.
That is why “make polluters pay” is becoming central to the next phase of climate politics. The transition away from fossil fuels will take money and this money shouldn’t come from the communities already paying for debilitating climate disasters. Instead, the companies that made billions from extracting and selling fossil fuels must be required to contribute to the cost of moving beyond them.
Outside the formal negotiation halls, civil society in Santa Marta demanded a fair transition. The People’s Summit for a Fossil-Free Future brought together frontline communities, Indigenous peoples, Afro-descendant leaders, trade unions, youth, farmers, fisherfolk, feminists and social movements.
Nearly 1,000 organizations united behind a declaration calling for a fossil fuel phaseout that is fast, fair, fully funded and grounded in justice. Their demands included no new fossil fuel expansion, time-bound national phaseout plans, grant-based public finance, debt cancellation, an end to fossil fuel subsidies and binding safeguards against fossil fuel lobbying.
And U.S. States Are Taking Action
Even as the federal government retreats, state campaigns are advancing their own versions of “make polluters pay.”
Vermont and New York have already passed climate superfund laws that seek to recover climate-related costs from major fossil fuel companies. These laws build on the same principle as traditional Superfund-style accountability: companies that created the harm should help pay to clean it up and protect communities.
Maryland has taken a first step as well. In 2025, lawmakers passed a climate superfund cost assessment bill requiring the state to study the financial impact of climate change and explore how fossil fuel companies could be made to pay for the damage they helped cause.
Virginia advocates have also pushed legislation to make the biggest polluters contribute to disaster relief and resilient clean energy infrastructure. The proposed Extreme Weather Taxpayer Relief Act would establish a cost recovery program aimed at ensuring fossil fuel companies help fund responses to the extreme weather made worse by climate change.
Fossil Fuels Profiting from War
The timing matters. As governments met in Colombia to discuss how to pay for a just transition, fossil fuel majors were preparing to announce another round of huge profits driven by instability and energy price spikes.
Oil majors banked more than $30 million every hour in unearned profit in the first month of the conflict and could make around $234 billion in excess profits by the end of 2026 if oil prices remain high.
Those profits strengthen the case made in London, Santa Marta, and across the U.S. If shipping companies can be asked to pay for their emissions, oil and gas companies can be asked to pay for the climate damage and economic instability their products create. If countries struggling with debt are being told to finance their own transition, then fossil fuel companies posting crisis-driven windfalls should be first in line to contribute.
The Movement Is Bigger Than Trump
Trump’s strategy is not stopping the broader movement. Trump may be trying to protect fossil fuel executives, weaken climate rules and isolate the United States from global climate progress. But the make polluters pay movement is still growing — internationally, nationally and locally.
London showed that governments are still pursuing global rules to price pollution, even in hard-to-regulate sectors like shipping. Santa Marta showed that countries are beginning to plan the end of the fossil fuel era and name the financing challenge directly. U.S. states are showing that climate accountability legislation can move forward even when the federal government refuses to act.
New polling commissioned by Oxfam in seven countries found that approximately two thirds of people supported increasing taxes on the profits of large oil and gas corporations to help fund the transition to renewables. This movement is growing in popularity and political momentum.
So when you’re fighting for “make polluters pay” legislation in Richmond, you’re not alone. When you’re helping figure out next steps for the “make polluters pay” movement in Maryland, you’re not alone. When you’re writing to your D.C. Councilmembers, you’re not alone. You’re part of an era-defining shift that will keep growing and becoming more powerful.
The movement to make polluters pay is moving unstoppably forward. The world has stopped waiting for Trump.
Want to help make polluters pay? Join CCAN’s efforts in Maryland, D.C., Virginia, and beyond.