Fueling Globalism: In The Name Of ‘Climate Change,’ The UN Seeks To Collect Carbon Tax On Global Shipments

Fueling Globalism: In The Name Of ‘Climate Change,’ The UN Seeks To Collect Carbon Tax On Global Shipments

Alex Newman

The United Nations desperately wants access to your money to fuel globalism. It has been dreaming of taxing humanity from the start. And now, it is about to make that dream come true through a global shipping-fuel tax, with potentially catastrophic implications for humanity.

A powerful but little-known UN agency is quietly plotting to impose global taxes on international maritime shipping under the guise of fighting CO2 emissions and “climate change.” Americans are expected to pay the bulk of the financial costs. But all of humanity will bear the brunt of an empowered UN.

The International Maritime Organization (IMO) scheme to tax shipping, originally backed by the Biden administration, would give the UN unprecedented power to raise money on its own. It will also lead to soaring costs for U.S. consumers while transforming the nature of the UN forever.

There are several more rounds of negotiations to be finalized. But if all goes according to plan, the UN could be vacuuming up billions of dollars each week by 2027.

President Donald Trump and Republicans lawmakers in Congress are being urged by advocates of national sovereignty and prosperity to block the measure like liberty and independence depend on it.

But the scheme has powerful backers, ranging from kleptocratic governments and global bureaucrats to captured industry groups and those hoping to benefit from the massive anticipated tax revenues.

The effort by the IMO to impose a “carbon tax” on maritime shipping is raising alarm among critics for several reasons. The most significant concern, though, is that the unprecedented tax would allow the UN to raise money on its own, liberating it from dependence on its member governments for funding. That would dramatically transform the nature of the UN and what is euphemistically known as “global governance,” almost certainly forever.

While the amount may be small to start with — somewhere between $19 and $150 per ton of CO2 emitted — it will establish a clear precedent for allowing the UN to start collecting tax funds from other sources as well. The tax could also easily be increased once the proverbial camel’s nose of global taxation is under the tent.

What this means

Historically, the UN’s inability to impose taxes has served as one of the most powerful restraints on its power. Once it has direct access to money without being forced to beg its member governments, it can fund “peace” armies, police, courts, bureaucracy, social-engineering, propaganda, and more, essentially without limit.

The UN’s desire to expand its power across all sectors of society is hardly a secret. In fact, in September, the global body boasted about its plans to become UN 2.0 at the “Summit of the Future” at UN headquarters. The agreement negotiated there, known as the Pact for the Future, pledged to strengthen UN involvement in virtually every area of life.

Of course, the UN was started under the guise of maintaining international peace and security. But for decades, it has been shamelessly usurping more and more power — often with support from member governments — over everything from the economy and the environment to education and the Internet.

With the unlimited resources that global taxes would bring, that process of usurping more and more power, together with the ability to enforce its will, would be supercharged like never before.

And if the UN can impose taxes on shipping to save the world from alleged man-made climate change, why could it not impose taxes on air travel, farming, energy production, stock trading, and more. Already, there are forces within the UN and quite a few of its member governments working to make those taxes a reality, too.

Global taxes would not have not be limited to just saving humanity from the supposed evils of the gas of life (CO2), either. Any time a real or imagined threat could be concocted, the UN could justify new and bigger taxes to “save” humanity or even “Mother Earth” from the danger.

Global globalist support

The global tax scheme is backed by major powers including historic U.S. allies such as the far-left U.K. government of Keir Starmer, Japanese and South Korean authorities, and even the European Union. It is also being pushed hard by governments in the Pacific region and the Caribbean. Even governments that are heavily dependent on shipping such as Panama and Liberia have joined the bandwagon.

Shipping interests themselves, or at least associations purporting to speak for them, also appear to be on board with the scheme.

“The industry fully supports the adoption by IMO of a GHG pricing mechanism for global application to shipping,” said Gu Platten, Secretary General of ICS, the global trade association for shipowners and operators, prior to the most recent IMO meeting. “The joint text put forward by this broad coalition is a pragmatic solution and the most effective way to incentivize a rapid energy transition in shipping to achieve the agreed IMO goal of net zero emissions by or close to 2050.”

How exactly the money would be collected and spent remains to be determined in upcoming negotiations. One idea is to use the money for the UN’s “Green Climate [Slush] Fund,” a scheme adopted by the UN and its members to redistribute wealth to kleptocratic Third World governments that promise to fight “climate change.”

But global bureaucrats and governments backing the plan are downplaying those discussions while hyping the alleged benefits to the “climate” itself.

Ironically, a report by the governments pushing the plan called for giving some of the tax revenue to those most impacted by the increased cost of shipping. In short, the UN plan would hurt the poor and their nations the most by increasing the cost of their essential goods such as food. And in response, the UN would make them dependent on what amounts to new UN welfare schemes.

As The New American reported last week, another major concern raised by critics is that American consumers would be hit hardest. In other words, this tax would be a way for governments around the world to impose taxes on struggling Americans and redistribute what is left of their wealth. The incentive for hostile foreign powers would be to tax Americans to the max, of course.

Giving the UN the power to raise its own money through taxation would be a great leap forward in transforming it into a true global government. It would be the equivalent of handing the dictators’ club a blank check drawn on the wealth of what is left of America’s middle class. And it would be a turning point from which it would be difficult to ever return.

But the U.S. government can stop it, if Trump and Republican lawmakers are willing to stand up for American interests. Rather than fighting each new power grab or tax scheme, the most effective solution would be to get the United States out of the UN for good.

There is legislation in Congress to do just that. Known as the DEFUND Act, the bill would end U.S. involvement in the UN and stop U.S. funding for it. And with Trump in the White House, there has never been a better opportunity to protect U.S. sovereignty for the long haul.