IMO can vote on disagreements to move things along; UNFCCC can’t

Another insightful tidbit from Josh Gabbatiss’s excellent explainer on IMO’s carbon pricing negotiations:

Unlike COP climate summits, decision-making at the IMO does not need to be unanimous. Nevertheless, the net-zero target was passed unanimously and secretary general Arsenio Dominguez had indicated he did not want to push through a majority vote at MEPC83.

[…]

This framework ended up being approved in an unusual turn of events, when Saudi Arabia, supported by other petrostates, called for a vote on the proposed measures.

Of the nations that cast valid votes, 63 had voted in favour. Among them were the EU, China, India and Brazil.

A group of 16 voted against the proposal, including Saudi Arabia, Russia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and other fossil-fuel producers.

Isn’t it satisfying and refreshing to see Saudi Arabia calling for a vote on IMO’s carbon pricing rule, voted against the rule, and lost their fight to obstruct?

Unlike the IMO, UNFCCC never formally adopted any rules of procedure because petrostates (chiefly Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) opposed to voting as a last resort for making decisions. Every UNFCCC decision (including those under the Paris Agreement) has to be by “consensus”, giving petrostates unlimited opportunities to obstruct climate progress at every turn. It’s a miracle that 198 Parties could get anything done at all.¹