The UN’s ‘climate crisis’ tax

In between votes to legitimize the world’s worst regimes and condemn the world’s only Jewish state, the United Nations has found the time to introduce itself as a global governmental structure with the power to levy taxes on every inhabitant of Earth.  

No, really. 

The UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO) is of the opinion that it can impose duties on the carbon emissions of ships to the tune of between $100 and $380 per metric ton. All of the revenue generated would be paid out to the UN’s “Net Zero Fund,” which would be used to “reward low-emission ships,” or pick winners and losers.    

Worse yet, the fund would also be used to transfer wealth to “developing countries,” as well those the UN deems especially “vulnerable” to the consequences of climate change. Among them: China, the world’s second biggest economy and America’s chief geopolitical competitor, which is currently waging a no-holds-barred trade war against it. 

To its eternal credit, President Donald Trump’s administration has drawn a hard line rejecting this unprecedented proposal. A joint statement released by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Energy Chris Wright, and Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy made it clear that the United States would “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 percent or more,” submitted the three Trump deputies, who went on to threaten those who vote in favor of the proposal with a bevy of investigations, regulations, visa restrictions, commercial penalties, fees and sanctions that ought to make the ill-inclined think twice about crossing Uncle Sam on this matter.  

The administration’s efforts to strong-arm the rest of the world are righteous. There are, of course, no shortage of economic arguments to be marshaled against this global carbon tax. According to economist Stephen Moore, American vessels representing 12 percent of global maritime shipping are set to pay out 20 percent of all of the revenue generated under the proposal. Moreover, Americans have already been robbed of years of wealth-building opportunity by post-pandemic, post-Biden profligate spending spree-induced inflation. Is yet another cost-raiser really what the doctor ordered? 

But there are also plenty of principled, long-term reasons to pull out all the stops to kill this pernicious idea in its cradle. 

The IMO considers this proposal to interfere with the free market and infringe upon its member states’ sovereignty in the name of social justice at a moment when people around the globe are increasingly skeptical, and indeed resentful of such heavy handed interventions. 

Do the American people really wish to accept the UN’s assertion of the power to tax them at face value? What will follow next? And why should America continue to allow authoritarian China and the motley crew of naive Europeans and malevolent allies to continue to weaponize progressive pet causes to punish the U.S. and advantage themselves?  

America First is a loaded term with a loaded history. But Trump and his team are doing vital work by championing American interests and spurning this power grab at the IMO. While Presidents Biden and Obama spent their White House tenures practically begging for opportunities to demonstrate that the United States would fall on the “right” side of history on issues like climate change, Trump has accurately diagnosed measures like this carbon tax as a Trojan Horse for wealth redistribution, and bad actors like the Chinese Communist Party. 

If he was elected to do anything, it was to identify, expose, and consign such measures to the dustbin of history.