Screenshot 2025 10 15 at 14.42.41.png
Real Analysis

The UN Is About to Tax You: ‘A new global climate tax would be the ultimate in taxation without representation’ – UN seeks a ‘net-zero framework’ for transport – ‘Would impose charges per metric ton of CO2 that ships emit’

0


https://www.wsj.com/opinion/united-nations-shipping-tax-climate-international-maritime-organization-e2f418c0?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

By The WSJ Editorial Board

Excerpt: 

Voters are showing their opposition to the net-zero climate agenda whenever they get the chance. But that isn’t stopping the United Nations, which this week is poised to impose what amounts to a global tax on carbon emissions. Yes, this is the definition of taxation without representation.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO), a U.N. body based in London, hopes at its meeting this week to secure final approval for its “net-zero framework” for shipping. The measure would impose charges per metric ton of carbon-dioxide that ships emit above certain limits; the tax would be $100 or $380 per metric ton depending on various factors. That could translate to an annual tax take of $10 billion-$12 billion.

If you’ve heard about this at all, it’s probably because the Trump Administration last week threatened to slap sanctions on any country that votes in favor of imposing this tax. Washington rightly worries it will increase the costs of goods American households buy by increasing global shipping costs as much as 10%. Setting aside the trade-policy irony, at least someone in the Trump Administration is worried that expensive imports might be bad for the American economy.

The damage from this U.N. climate tax is as much political as economic. The U.N. has previously toyed with emissions-monitoring schemes, such as for aviation, and the IMO claims this proposal is no different. But this is the first instance we can find of the U.N. claiming the ability to levy a tax—the revenues from which will be paid directly into a U.N.-controlled fund.

For the U.N. system as a whole, roughly 90% of revenue comes from governments. Those capitals at least are responsible to their own taxpayers and also are in a position to impose some accountability on the U.N. if they try. The rest is income generated from U.N. consulting activities or investment returns and exchange-rate movements affecting existing reserves.

The IMO carbon tax on shipping, by contrast, would be paid by ship owners directly into a new “Net Zero Fund” created by the agency. The IMO says this money pot, to be managed by agency staff, would support innovation in green shipping and “reward low-emission ships.”

That’s bad enough as an invitation to opaque special dealing and corruption. But the IMO also contemplates using the funds for “just-transition initiatives in developing countries” and to “mitigate negative impacts” of climate change on “vulnerable States.”

In other words, this is another income redistribution scheme for whatever ideas the U.N. bureaucracy deems worthy. If you think handouts to non-democratic countries for vaguely defined “climate” purposes will be administered scrupulously in the public interest, we’ve got a carbon-neutral barge to sell you.

Meanwhile, who will decide when the tax rate needs to increase, and how? This task is left to a 170-plus member “committee” under the aegis of the IMO, and good luck to any voter in Boston, Berlin or Bangkok who wants to influence that debate. It’s a bad sign that the IMO is even pushing this measure, when voters in the U.S. and across Europe are becoming less willing to pay economic costs for net-zero climate policies.

…

#

CFACT’s Craig Rucker: NO to the UN global climate tax! – The International Maritime Organization is about to vote on a new “net zero framework,” which would take the form of a tax paid by shippers into a gigantic UN climate fund. For UN bureaucrats this would mean a long-held dream come true. The UN depends on grants from member nations for funding.  Asserting a new UN power to levy taxes on the world would mean a tremendous expansion of UN authority, not to mention many billions for the UN to spend and redistribute as our would-be global masters see fit.

The Trump Administration said in a press release that America, “unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists.  The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”

The U.S. has threatened economic retaliation against nations that go along with this UN money grab in an attempt to block it.

#

 

 

UN doing China’s bidding: Trump officials go all out to block UN carbon tax on shipping –

UN proposal ‘stands to benefit China…as the net zero measures are expected to stimulate demand for new vessels’ &

‘China is the world’s largest shipbuilding nation’





Source
Las Vegas News Magazine

Continue Reading
You might also like More from author
Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More