By JENNIFER McDERMOTT and SIBI ARASU, Associated Press

Many of the world’s largest shipping nations decided on Friday to impose a minimum tax of $100 for every ton of carbon dioxide emitted by ships, if their planet-heating emissions are not already accounted for, making it effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.

The fee will be charged if nations have not contributed enough to the International Maritime Organization’s net zero fund and their ships are not meeting their compliance target.

Members of the International Maritime Organization — with the United States noticeably absent — reached the agreement which will become effective by 2028. The group also set a marine fuel standard to phase in cleaner fuels.

Emissions from shipping have increased over the last decade— to about 3% of the global total, according to the United Nations — as vessels have gotten bigger, delivering more cargo per trip and using immense amounts of fuel.

IMO Secretary-General Arsenio Dominguez said at the closing that the group forged a meaningful consensus in the face of complex challenges to combat climate change and modernize shipping.

Some environmentalists present at the meeting called the emission taxes a “historic decision” but also said more could have been achieved. The tax doesn’t capture all emissions or drive enough emission reductions and it won’t raise enough revenue to help developing countries transition to greener shipping, said Emma Fenton, senior director for climate diplomacy at a U.K.-based climate change nonprofit, Opportunity Green.

“The IMO has made an historic decision, yet ultimately one that fails climate vulnerable countries and falls short of both the ambition the climate crisis demands and that member states committed to, just two years ago,” they said.

Other groups welcomed the IMO’s decisions as a step in the right direction.

“By approving a global fuel standard and greenhouse gas pricing mechanism, the International Maritime Organization took a crucial step to reduce climate impacts from shipping. Member states must now deliver on strengthening the fuel standard overtime to more effectively incentivize the sector’s adoption of zero and near-zero fuels, and to ensure a just and equitable energy transition. The future of global trade, our planet and maritime communities depend on it,” said Natacha Stamatiou of the Environmental Defense Fund.

The previous day, delegates approved a proposal to designate an emissions control area in the North-East Atlantic Ocean. Ships traveling through the area will have to abide by more stringent controls on fuels and their engines to reduce pollution.

The IMO, which regulates international shipping, has set a target for the sector to reach net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by about 2050 and has committed to promoting fuels with zero or near-zero emissions.

The Marine Environment Protection Committee, which is part of the IMO, has been in meetings all week in London and finalized its decision Friday.

One major issue during the meetings was the way a tax would be charged. More than 60 countries entered the negotiations pushing for a simple tax charged per metric ton of emissions. They were led by Pacific island nations, whose very existence is threatened by climate change.

Other countries with sizable maritime fleets — notably China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and South Africa — wanted a credit trading model instead of a fixed levy. Finally, a compromise between the two models was reached.

The United States didn’t participate in the negotiations in London, instead urging other governments to oppose the greenhouse gas emission measures under consideration. The Trump administration said it would reject any efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on emissions or fuel choice, which it said would burden the sector and drive inflation. It threatened possible reciprocal measures if any fees are charged.

The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Airfare prices change constantly, fueling plenty of myths about the best time to book and how to find the lowest fares. Scott Keyes, founder of Going — a travel app formerly known as Scott’s Cheap Flights that sends out airfare deal alerts — has heard them all.

Related Articles

Acclaimed designer reveals the item to pack for a good night’s sleep at any hotel

‘Coolcations’ surge in popularity as travelers seek escape from summer heat

Have a REAL ID? If not, prepare for travel delays, MAC says.

New laws target overtourism at popular travel destinations

The busiest days to fly around Memorial Day in 2025

“You’ve heard the advice to book on Tuesday at 1 p.m., or Saturday at midnight, or exactly 63 days before,” Keyes said in an episode of NerdWallet’s Smart Travel podcast. “The fact that there are so many different rules about when you’re supposed to book should kind of be the tip-off that it’s a little bit of a myth.”

While there is no golden rule, Keyes does have six tips and takeaways from over a decade as a professional flight deal finder.

1. There is no ‘best day’ to book a flight

Keyes says the best time to book a flight isn’t so much tied to a specific time or day, but rather how many months in advance you make your purchase. He recommends booking within what he calls the “Goldilocks window.”

“It’s not too early, not too late, but just right in the middle,” he said, describing this ideal booking time.

Here’s the Goldilocks window for each type of flight:

Domestic flights (off-peak): 1 to 3 months in advance.
Domestic flights (peak seasons like summer or Christmas): 3 to 6 months in advance.
International flights (off-peak): 2 to 8 months in advance.
International flights (peak seasons): 4 to 10 months in advance.

2. Incognito mode won’t help you find cheaper flights

Some people believe that airlines are “watching” your computer usage by way of cookies, which track how you interact with websites, and using this data to charge higher fares to those who search repeatedly for flights.

Keyes says these theories don’t make sense though — especially given his line of work.

“If airfare prices changed based on repeated searches, we’d see it because we track millions of airfares every single day,” he said. “If somebody was going to see higher flight prices impacted by repeated searches, it would be us. Yet we don’t.”

3. Don’t count out budget airlines

Budget airlines like Frontier Airlines and Spirit Airlines are known for charging fees for carry-on bags and other services. But their ultra-low base fares could help some travelers spend less.

“If you’re traveling with just a backpack, budget airlines can absolutely save you money,” he said. “I’ve looked at flights from my home airport in Portland down to Las Vegas, and the Spirit flight cost $25 each way when the next-closest Alaska Airlines flight costs $130.”

And you might be surprised at the convenient routing options on budget airlines, too.

“Especially to destinations like Las Vegas and Orlando, budget airlines actually have the most nonstop flights,” Keyes said. “If you’re flying from say, Minneapolis or Des Moines, Iowa, you actually might be able to get a nonstop flight on a budget airline.”

Just be aware of the extra fees for things that are often included in other airlines, such as carry-on bags and even an in-flight beverage. Once you add up those costs, the total price can sometimes be more expensive than full-service airlines.

4. Know your back-up options

Avoiding layovers when possible (especially if it involves saving money) can reduce travel time and also mitigate the risk of snowballing delays.

If you book a flight with a layover, find out what your alternative flight options might be if a delay makes you miss your connecting flights. You should aim to fly with airlines that have multiple flights a day to your destination from the connecting airport.

“If you’ve got a flight on Spirit and that flight gets canceled, it might be a while until there’s the next available Spirit flight to your destination,” Keyes said. “They don’t have partnerships with other airlines to put you on a different carrier, so you could actually be waiting sometimes days to get a replacement flight. That’s something that usually doesn’t happen if you’re on Delta Air Lines or United Airlines.”

(Photo courtesy of Scott Keyes)

5. Don’t hesitate when you find a great fare

One thing Keyes has learned over the years: Airfare deals don’t stick around for long. It’s important to act fast, he notes, or they can slip away.

“I once found a deal to India for $212 round trip,” he said. “My heart skipped a beat. I had sweaty palms. I was so excited. But instead of booking it immediately, I spent a couple of hours figuring out my itinerary. When I went to book, I missed it by 30 seconds.”

The lesson?

“Book first, ask questions later,” he said.

In the U.S., federal regulations make it easier to get a refund if you change your mind after booking. Under the 24-hour rule, airlines are required to refund your money to the original form of payment if you cancel within 24 hours of purchasing that airfare.

6. Book to prioritize price

“Most people say they want cheap flights, but they go about finding them in the exact opposite way,” Keyes said. Rather than looking at prices first, he added, they look at destinations and dates first.

He suggests flipping the process:

Start with price: Identify the cheapest flights available.
Pick your destination: Choose from the available deals.
Select your dates: Work within the cheapest available timeframes.

“What I tell folks is like, ‘Look, if cheap flights are a priority, make them the priority,’” he said. “By setting price as the last priority, we end up with some pretty expensive flights.”

Sally French writes for NerdWallet. Email: sfrench@nerdwallet.com. Twitter: @SAFmedia.

The article Professional Deal Finder Reveals Truth About Cheap Airfare originally appeared on NerdWallet.

By JAIMIE DING, Associated Press

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A judge is set to decide Friday whether to proceed with resentencing hearings for Erik and Lyle Menendez, who were convicted of murdering their parents, in light of Los Angeles’ new district attorney opposing their release after 30 years behind bars.

The brothers were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole at ages 18 and 21 after being convicted of murdering their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, in their Beverly Hills home in 1989. While the defense argued they acted out of self-defense after years of sexual abuse by their father, prosecutors said the brothers killed their parents for a multimillion-dollar inheritance.

Los Angeles County’s previous progressive district attorney, George Gascón, sought resentencing for the brothers before he lost reelection to tough-on-crime candidate Nathan Hochman in November. Gascón had asked a judge to change the brothers’ sentence to 50 years to life, which would make them immediately eligible for release under California law because they committed the crime when they were younger than 26.

But last month, Hochman submitted a motion to withdraw that request, saying he did not support the brothers’ resentencing because they had not admitted to lies they told as the case unfolded about why they killed their parents and did not “fully recognize, acknowledge, and accept complete responsibility” for their crime.

On Friday, the court will decide whether to allow prosecutors to withdraw their resentencing motion. If that request is granted, the judge also will decide whether to proceed independently with the brothers’ resentencing hearings, which are tentatively scheduled for April 17 and 18.

The district attorney’s opposition poses a major hurdle for the brothers, whose path to resentencing was all but certain with Gascón’s support.

The family’s relationship with Hochman also has soured. Most of the brothers’ extended family supports their resentencing. Milton Andersen, Kitty Menendez’s brother and the sole relative who opposed their release, died last month.

Tamara Goodall, a cousin of the brothers, submitted a complaint with the state asking that Hochman be removed from the case, citing his bias against the brothers and alleging he violated a law meant to protect victims’ rights.

Hochman had a “hostile, dismissive and patronizing tone” in meetings with the family and created an “intimidating and bullying atmosphere,” Goodall wrote.

In their response to the district attorney’s motion to withdraw the resentencing request, attorneys for the Menendez brothers questioned whether Hochman had legitimate reasons for doing so or was influenced by “a change of political winds.”

The attorneys pointed out that Hochman demoted Nancy Theberge and Brock Lunsford, the two deputy district attorneys who filed the original resentencing motion. Theberge and Lunsford have since filed lawsuits against Hochman alleging harassment, discrimination and retaliation for their work on the Menendez brothers case.

“The law requires fairness, not personal vendettas,” Anamaria Baralt, a cousin of the brothers, said in a statement. “Erik and Lyle have not only taken responsibility, they’ve become the kind of men this system is supposed to help create. If rehabilitation doesn’t matter here, when does it?”

Hochman’s office denied any political influence on their decision-making in their reply and doubled down on the position that Erik and Lyle Menendez “fabricated their self-defense claim” in the murders of their parents and had not achieved full rehabilitation.

Without resentencing, the brothers would still have two other pathways to freedom. They have submitted a clemency plea to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who has ordered the state parole board to investigate whether the brothers would pose a risk to the public if they are released. The parole board is scheduled to hold its final hearings June 13.

The brothers also submitted a petition for habeas corpus in May 2023 asking the court to grant them a new trial in light of new evidence presented. Hochman’s office also filed a motion opposing the petition.

By TARA COPP, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The commander of a U.S. Space Force base in Greenland has been fired after she sent a base-wide email breaking with official messaging following Vice President JD Vance’s visit to the Danish territory that President Donald Trump is seeking to annex.

In a statement late Thursday, the Space Force said Col. Susan Meyers was removed as commander of Pituffik Space Base in Greenland over a “loss of confidence in her ability to lead.”

Related Articles

Senate confirms Trump nominee Caine for chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff in overnight vote

RFK Jr. says HHS will determine the cause of autism by September

Trump will undergo his annual physical Friday after years of reluctance to share medical information

Now that they’ve passed a budget plan, the hard part begins for Republicans

Stephen L. Carter: Supreme Court’s rulings aren’t White House ‘wins’

“Commanders are expected to adhere to the highest standards of conduct, especially as it relates to remaining nonpartisan in the performance of their duties,” the statement said.

Military.com reported Thursday that Meyers sent the base-wide email defending the base’s relationship with Denmark and Greenland following Vance’s visit two weeks ago.

A U.S. official confirmed Friday to the AP that Meyers sent the email and its contents showing support for Greenland and Denmark. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to provide additional details not made public.

Greenland is a territory of Denmark, which is a NATO ally of the United States. Trump wants to annex the territory, claiming it’s needed for national security purposes, and Vance’s visit in late March set off heated rhetoric between the U.S. and Denmark, with Trump refusing to take the use of military force off the table.

In a post on X late Thursday, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell linked to the Military.com story and said that “actions to undermine the chain of command or to subvert President Trump’s agenda will not be tolerated at the Department of Defense.”

Meyers’ firing was the latest in a series of terminations of senior military leaders, including several female leaders.

The Trump administration has previously fired Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Lisa Franchetti, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan and U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the only woman on NATO’s military committee.

Other key firings were Gen. CQ Brown Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. Tim Haugh, commander of U.S. Cyber Command and director of the National Security Agency.