The web search results mention a 'U.S. Blocks Shipping Emissions Deal' and a 'global carbon pricing' proposal, suggesting the core elements of the claim. However, the evidence provided does not contain multiple independent sources confirming that a specific proposal to tax shipping emissions was *blocked* by the US *during a meeting in October*. The evidence is suggestive but lacks the necessary corroboration across different news sources to confirm the specific sequence of events described.

The evidence provided for this claim consists only of generic links to 'scalemotorcars.com' and does not contain any information regarding the voting intentions or hesitation of Greece, Italy, and Malta regarding any specific proposal within the EU.

The claim combines several elements: EU enforcement plans, London talks, and a potential clash with the US over a previous tax block. While there is evidence regarding EU climate goals (Claim 5) and US actions (Claim 0 evidence), the evidence does not provide a single source confirming that the EU *plans* to enforce stricter limits *during talks in London* while explicitly linking it to the US blocking a tax *last October*. The connection is too specific and uncorroborated.

The evidence mentions Saudi Arabia and the US in relation to international bodies (Wikipedia results), and the web search results discuss proposals being rejected or delayed. However, none of the provided evidence sources confirm the specific detail that a proposal was rejected at the UN maritime body *last autumn* with *57 countries* voting for a one-year delay, including the US, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. This specific quantitative detail is not corroborated.

The web search results mention EU member states' interests and discussions regarding global competition and negotiations. However, the specific instruction that they were asked to ensure new measures do not disadvantage European shipping or hinder fair global competition is not corroborated by a second independent source.

The evidence mentions IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez and references to past events (like the US blocking a vote). However, the specific detail linking the reference to US President Donald Trump blocking the vote *last October* and linking it to *trade tariffs* is not corroborated by multiple independent sources, although the general theme of past US interference is present.

The evidence provides general information about NGOs and climate criticism but does not contain the specific statement attributed to Anaïs Rios from Seas at Risk criticizing the US Trump administration's opposition to clean energy progress, which is required for corroboration.