Core Points - The article discusses the implications of the U.S. government's approach to international climate agreements, particularly in the shipping industry, highlighting the risks to U.S. long-term influence due to aggressive tactics used to undermine global cooperation [1][7]. Group 1: U.S. Influence and Tactics - The U.S. has been accused of using "bullying tactics" to prevent the adoption of a global shipping emissions framework, which was originally supported by the EU and other nations [1][5]. - Reports indicate that U.S. officials threatened representatives from smaller nations, warning them of potential sanctions and restrictions if they supported the emissions framework [5][8]. - The aggressive negotiation strategy employed by the Trump administration is characterized as a departure from traditional diplomatic norms, which may lead to long-term consequences for U.S. relations with other countries [7][9]. Group 2: Shipping Emissions Framework - The International Maritime Organization (IMO) aimed to establish a legally binding framework to achieve net-zero emissions in the shipping sector by 2050, but the proposal was postponed for 12 months due to significant disagreements among member states [1][4]. - The proposed framework included measures such as gradually reducing reliance on carbon-emitting fuels and implementing a carbon pricing mechanism, which some major economies, including the U.S., opposed due to concerns over increased shipping costs [4][6]. - The framework's delay raises doubts about its future viability, especially under the current U.S. administration, which is unlikely to support such climate policies [8][9].