November, 29 2021, 09:05am EDT

Groundbreaking new research uncovers close ties between polluting cargo carriers, major U.S. retailers
Report exposes massive pollution impacts on U.S. ports, coastal communities from maritime shipping practices of Walmart, Target, Amazon, IKEA, showcasing need for retailers to lead shipping industry toward zero-emissions vessels
LOS ANGELES
New research released today by Ship It Zero coalition members Stand.earth and Pacific Environment takes an in-depth look at four major retail companies that import goods into the United States -- Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA -- and maps their often-hidden relationships with the fossil-fueled cargo carriers they hire to transport their goods. The groundbreaking analysis, titled "Shady Routes: How Big Retail and their Carriers Pollute along Key Ocean Shipping Corridors", was released on Cyber Monday, in a year that promises to mark a shift to e-commerce shopping unlike anything the world has ever seen.
- Read the report:https://bit.ly/ShadyRoutesReport2
Amid an ongoing global shipping crisis spurred by increased consumer demand fueled by the COVID-19 pandemic, retail brands and cargo carriers have reported record-breaking profits. These new findings reveal close relationships between major retailers and the cargo carriers transporting consumer goods, and how that partnership showcases possibilities for both sectors to address the growing demand for zero-emissions cargo shipping. The report shows the routes favored by the four companies, the emissions impacts of those routes, and how the ongoing cargo shipping backlog has saddled U.S. port communities with increasing rates of pollution.
Among the thousands of retailers moving goods into the U.S. via cargo ships, the retail companies in the report are some of the top importers, comprising 7% of the total estimated U.S. imports in 2020, with Walmart and Target in first and second place, respectively. The goods imported to the U.S. between 2018-2020 by these four companies alone accounted for an estimated 20 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions (CO2e), as much as the annual emissions from five coal-fired power plants.
"Pandemic-fueled demand increases, record-breaking profits, and the supply chain crisis reveal the current maritime shipping system is ripe for transformation. There is ample room for retail brands and cargo carriers to absorb the cost of transitioning to fossil-free, zero-emissions shipping and deliver healthier air to our port communities and a livable climate future. Retail companies can choose to be industry leaders and early adopters of zero-emissions technology, or they can put short-term profit over public health and the climate by making empty commitments that put off action on climate change until it's too late," said Kendra Ulrich, Shipping Campaigns Director at Stand.earth.
WEST COAST SHIPPING ROUTES HAVE OUTSIZED POLLUTION BURDEN
The report reveals the Transpacific routes between China and the ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, San Diego, Seattle, and Tacoma were the largest share of the combined carbon emissions of the four companies, accounting for an estimated 21% of emissions between 2018-2020. The use of these Transpacific routes presents particular problems for West Coast port communities saddled with increasing rates of pollution, thanks to the constant presence of ships idling nearby. This is especially true in Seattle and Tacoma in Washington state, where imports were up over 40% in 2020 versus 2019, fueled by the backlog at California ports.
"Target and Amazon have played an outsized role in the current congestion and pollution crisis at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. As Target faces a swell of demand in places like California and a doubling of its digital sales, and as Amazon increases its control over its own gas-guzzling shipment and parcel delivery, it is past time to hold these retailers accountable for their responsibilities at the ports. Both companies will continue to favor West Coast routes, which means they'll also keep clogging West Coast ports, spewing cancer-causing emissions and threatening our climate future," said Dawny'all Heydari, Ship It Zero Campaign Lead at Pacific Environment.
In contrast, the research found IKEAis increasingly transporting goods from China to Europe via rail routes, then on cargo ships from Europe to East or Gulf Coast ports, as part of a strategy to reduce the company's carbon emissions from its shipping.
CARGO CARRIER RELATIONSHIPS REVEALED
The report reveals strong relationships between Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA and the world's 15 largest cargo carriers -- including CMA CGM, Maersk, MSC, Evergreen, Cosco, Yang Ming, Hapag-Lloyd, and Amazon's non-vessel operating common carrier, AMZD -- and how that partnership showcases possibilities for both sectors to address the growing demand for zero-emissions cargo shipping. The top 15 carriers account for 97% of the total emissions in the report, indicating these four retail giants rely almost exclusively on the same cargo carriers.
Maersk, Hapag-Lloyd, and CMA CGMreported over $3 billion USD in profits in the first half of 2021, an estimated 2500 percent increase over the first half of 2020. Walmart, Target, and IKEA are also spending money on chartered shipping, a costly and unusual move that reveals a willingness to spend more to get products to market.
"Major cargo carriers are lagging in moving towards zero emissions, citing that costs have been prohibitive. Container industry profits are unprecedentedly strong, consumers support clean shipping, and the technology is available. There are no longer any excuses left to set goals to meet zero emissions for 2030. Retail companies looking to achieve climate goals must engage with cargo carriers that will give them zero-emission freight options to get their goods to market," said Madeline Rose, Climate Campaign Director at Pacific Environment.
Walmart, the number one importer of goods in the U.S., topped the report with the highest volumes traded and the most emissions. The study also reveals Walmart relies heavily on one ocean carrier, CMA CGM, the biggest polluter among all carriers in the report. CMA CGM accounted for more than two thirds of Walmart's ocean shipping emissions in 2020 and one third of the ocean shipping emissions across all four companies -- as much as the next four carriers combined.
Major cargo carriers are increasingly aligning their operations with the demands of retail customers, by providing more end-to-end distribution services as consumer demand shifts to e-commerce and consumers require more warehousing and last mile services rather than brick and mortar stores. CMA CGM and Hapag-Lloyd recently stated their capacity priority is for long-term customers, including clients like Walmart looking for integrated supply chain solutions. By chartering its own private carrier, Amazon is also exerting unique control over its supply chain and appears to be consolidating control rapidly.
"Major retail companies and cargo carriers are flush with cash from pandemic-driven record breaking profits and are tightening their already close relationships. This is an unprecedented opportunity for retail brands and cargo carriers to work together to immediately reduce their maritime emissions from their existing container fleet and build zero-emissions shipping into their growth model," said Ulrich.
SHIPPING INDUSTRY'S POLLUTION PROBLEM
The global shipping industry accounts for 3% of global climate emissions, more than global air travel. If shipping were a country, it would be the world's sixth largest climate polluter. But since maritime shipping negotiated itself out of the U.N. Paris Agreement, the effort to reduce emissions in the industry has been slower than in other sectors.
Approximately 90% of the world trade is transported by sea, and current business-as-usual scenarios project emissions will grow up to 50% over 2018 levels. While the International Maritime Organization noted increased ship size and operational improvements aimed at creating better fuel efficiency have resulted in a decrease in emissions intensity, annual absolute emissions are still increasing.
But the message is starting to sink in, and new commitments from retailers and governments are putting pressure on the industry. At COP26, Amazon joined the First Movers Coalition to help commercialize emerging technologies to decarbonize heavy industries including ocean shipping, and committed to moving 10% of its freight on zero-emissions ships by 2030. Also at COP26, governments and CEOs launched the Clydebank Declaration to establish green shipping corridors among some of the busiest maritime shipping routes. And in October, Amazon and IKEA helped launch coZEV, a retailer-led initiative to move 100% of products off of fossil-fueled maritime cargo ships by 2040.
"Until recently, the massive climate and health-harming emissions from the cargo shipping industry have sailed under the radar. But consumers, corporations, and governments are waking up to the massive climate impact stemming from goods being shipped across our oceans. Reducing, and ultimately eliminating, maritime emissions will not happen without bold commitments and concrete actions from the companies paying for cargo carriers to transport their goods. The retail brands that fill our homes and lives with their products bear a direct responsibility for the pollution their supply chains create, and for taking the necessary actions to demand a transition to zero-emissions shipping this decade," said Ulrich.
SHIP IT ZERO COALITION
The Ship It Zero coalition is calling on retail companies to address their cargo shipping pollution impacts in the following ways:
- Walmart and Target must take responsibility for their maritime pollution and commit to zero-emission shipping by taking immediate actions to reduce their maritime shipping emissions, abandon dirty ships, and commit to transition to 100% zero-emissions ocean shipping by 2030. Thus far, Walmart and Target have been silent on the topic of their ocean shipping emissions.
- Amazon and IKEA must make stronger commitments to zero-emission shipping and take immediate steps to reduce their maritime emissions. While Amazon and IKEA have made initial commitments to decarbonize a small portion of their ocean shipping this decade and achieve zero-emission ocean shipping by 2040, with Amazon committing 10% of its freight on zero-emissions vessels by 2030, these commitments do not correspond with the urgency of port community health and the climate crisis. Amazon and IKEA must take steps now to reduce their current emissions and commit to 100% zero-emissions shipping this decade.
- Walmart, Target, Amazon, and IKEA must play leadership roles in creating fossil-free shipping corridors across the Pacific, starting with Yantian (Shenzhen) to Los Angeles and Long Beach and Shanghai to Seattle. Policymakers and ports must join them.
Stand.earth (formerly ForestEthics) is an international nonprofit environmental organization with offices in Canada and the United States that is known for its groundbreaking research and successful corporate and citizens engagement campaigns to create new policies and industry standards in protecting forests, advocating the rights of indigenous peoples, and protecting the climate. Visit us at
LATEST NEWS
Critics Shred JD Vance as He Shrugs Off Millions of Americans Losing Medicaid as 'Minutiae'
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Jul 01, 2025
Vice President J.D. Vance took heat from critics this week when he downplayed legislation that would result in millions of Americans losing Medicaid coverage as mere "minutiae."
Writing on X, Vance defended the budget megabill that's currently being pushed through the United States Senate by arguing that it will massively increase funding to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which he deemed to be a necessary component of carrying out the Trump administration's mass deportation operation.
"The thing that will bankrupt this country more than any other policy is flooding the country with illegal immigration and then giving those migrants generous benefits," wrote Vance. "The [One Big Beautiful Bill] fixes this problem. And therefore it must pass."
He then added that "everything else—the CBO score, the proper baseline, the minutiae of the Medicaid policy—is immaterial compared to the ICE money and immigration enforcement provisions."
It was this line that drew the ire of many critics, as the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the Senate version of the budget bill would slash spending on Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program by more than $1 trillion over a ten-year-period, which would result in more than 10 million people losing their coverage. Additionally, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) has proposed an amendment that would roll back the expansion of Medicaid under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, which would likely kick millions more off of the program.
Many congressional Democrats were quick to pounce on Vance for what they said were callous comments about a vital government program.
"So if the only thing that matters is immigration... why didn't you support the bipartisan Lankford-Murphy bill that tackled immigration far better than your Ugly Bill?" asked Rep. Daniel Goldman (D-N.Y.). "And it didn't have 'minutiae' that will kick 12m+ Americans off healthcare or raise the debt by $4tn."
"What happened to you J.D. Vance—author of Hillbilly Elegy—now shrugging off Medicaid cuts that will close rural hospitals and kick millions off healthcare as 'minutiae?'" asked Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.).
Veteran healthcare reporter Jonathan Cohn put some numbers behind the policies that are being minimized by the vice president.
"11.8M projected to lose health insurance," he wrote. "Clinics and hospitals taking a hit, especially in rural areas. Low-income seniors facing higher costs. 'Minutiae.'"
Activist Leah Greenberg, the co-chair of progressive organizing group Indivisible, zeroed in on Vance's emphasis on ramping up ICE's funding as particularly problematic.
"They are just coming right out and saying they want an exponential increase in $$$ so they can build their own personal Gestapo," she warned.
Washington Post global affairs columnist Ishaan Tharoor also found himself disturbed by the sheer size of the funding increase for ICE that Vance is demanding and he observed that "nothing matters more apparently than giving ICE a bigger budget than the militaries of virtually every European country."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heinrich Should Be Ashamed': Lone Senate Dem Helps GOP Deliver Big Pharma Win
The provision, part of the Senate budget bill, was described as "a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars."
Jul 01, 2025
The deep-pocketed and powerful pharmaceutical industry notched a significant victory on Monday when the Senate parliamentarian ruled that a bill described by critics as a handout to drug corporations can be included in the Republican reconciliation package, which could become law as soon as this week.
The legislation, titled the Optimizing Research Progress Hope and New (ORPHAN) Cures Act, would exempt drugs that treat more than one rare disease from Medicare's drug-price negotiation program, allowing pharmaceutical companies to charge exorbitant prices for life-saving medications in a purported effort to encourage innovation. (Medications developed to treat rare diseases are known as "orphan drugs.")
The consumer advocacy group Public Citizen observed that if the legislation were already in effect, Medicare "would have been barred from negotiating lower prices for important treatments like cancer drugs Imbruvica, Calquence, and Pomalyst."
Among the bill's leading supporters is Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), whose spokesperson announced the parliamentarian's decision to allow the measure in the reconciliation package after previously advising that it be excluded. Heinrich is listed as the legislation's only co-sponsor in the Senate, alongside lead sponsor Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).
"Sen. Heinrich should be ashamed of prioritizing drug corporation profits over lower medicine prices for seniors and people with disabilities," Steve Knievel, access to medicines advocate at Public Citizen, said in a statement Monday. "Patients and consumers breathed a sigh of relief when the Senate parliamentarian stripped the proposal from Republicans' Big Ugly Betrayal, so it comes as a gut punch to hear that Sen. Heinrich welcomed the reversal and continued to champion a proposal that will transfer billions from taxpayers to Big Pharma."
"People across the country are demanding lower drug prices and for Medicare drug price negotiations to be expanded, not restricted," Knievel added. "Sen. Heinrich should apologize to his constituents and start listening to them instead of drug corporation lobbyists."
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group whose members include pharmaceutical companies, has publicly endorsed and promoted the legislation, urging lawmakers to pass it "as soon as possible."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients."
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that the ORPHAN Cures Act would cost U.S. taxpayers around $5 billion over the next decade.
Merith Basey, executive director of Patients For Affordable Drugs Now, said that "patients are infuriated to see the Senate cave to Big Pharma by reviving the ORPHAN Cures Act at the eleventh hour."
"This is a blatant giveaway to the pharmaceutical industry that would keep drug prices high for patients while draining $5 billion in taxpayer dollars," said Basey. "We call on lawmakers to remove this unnecessary provision immediately and stand with an overwhelming majority of Americans who want the Medicare Negotiation program to go further. Medicare negotiation will deliver huge savings for seniors and taxpayers; this bill would undermine that progress."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump-Musk Gutting of USAID Could Lead to More Than 14 Million Deaths Over Five Years: Study
"For many low and middle income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict," said the coordinator behind the study.
Jul 01, 2025
A study published Monday by the medical journal The Lancet found that deep funding cuts to the U.S. Agency for International Development, a main target of the Department of Government Efficiency's government-slashing efforts, could result in more than 14 million additional deaths by the year 2030.
For months, humanitarian programs and experts have sounded the alarm on the impact of cutting funding for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is the largest funding agency for humanitarian and development aid around the globe, according to the study.
"Our analysis shows that USAID funding has been an essential force in saving lives and improving health outcomes in some of the world's most vulnerable regions over the past two decades," said Daniella Cavalcanti, postdoctoral researcher at the Institute of Collective Health and an author of the study, according to a statement published Tuesday. Between 2001 and 2021, an estimated 91 million deaths were prevented in low and middle income countries thanks programs supported by USAID, according to the study.
The study was coordinated by researchers from the Barcelona Institute for Global Health with the help of the Institute of Collective Health of the Federal University of Bahia, the University of California Los Angeles, and the Manhiça Centre for Health Research, as well as others.
To project the future consequences of USAID funding cuts and arrive at the 14 million figure, the researchers used forecasting models to simulate the impact of two scenarios, continuing USAID funding at 2023 levels versus implementing the reductions announced earlier this year, and then comparing the two.
Those estimated 14 million additional deaths include 4.5 million deaths among children younger than five, according to the researchers.
The journalist Jeff Jarvis shared reporting about the study and wrote "murder" on X on Tuesday.
In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the 83% of the programs at USAID were being canceled. In the same post on X, he praised the Department of Government Efficiency, which at that point had already infiltrated the agency. "Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform," he wrote.
Davide Rasella, research professor at Barcelona Institute for Global Health and coordinator of the study, said in a statement Tuesday that "our projections indicate that these cuts could lead to a sharp increase in preventable deaths, particularly in the most fragile countries. They risk abruptly halting—and even reversing—two decades of progress in health among vulnerable populations. For many low- and middle-income countries, the resulting shock would be comparable in scale to a global pandemic or a major armed conflict."
One country where USAID cuts have had a particularly deadly impact is Sudan, according to The Washington Post, which reported on Monday that funding shortages have led to lack of medical supplies and food in the war-torn nation.
"There's a largely unspoken and growing death toll of non-American lives thanks to MAGA," wrote Ishaan Tharoor, a Post columnist, of the paper's reporting on Sudan.
In reference to the reporting on Sudan, others laid blame on billionaire Elon Musk, the billionaire and GOP mega-donor who was initially tapped to lead the Department of Government Efficiency.
"In a less imperfect world, Musk and [President Donald] Trump would be forever cast as killers of children, and this would be front-page news for months and the subject of Sunday sermons in every church," wrote the journalist David Corn.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular