Comments

You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

International-UN-NGOs

How the UN Plans to Tax the US

2025-04-04

The Biden administration would have been thrilled to participate. President Trump is a horse of a different colour.

[AmuseOnX] The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) has quietly embarked upon a bold initiative cloaked in the virtuous garb of climate responsibility. Ostensibly designed to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, this global carbon levy is, in reality, a veiled taxation mechanism poised to significantly burden American consumers and businesses. What may initially appear as prudent environmental stewardship reveals itself, under scrutiny, as a dramatic expansion of global taxation, circumventing American democratic processes and redistributing wealth under UN auspices.

So many questions: Is this under a specific program or treaty, or just generally being a member of the UN? As a member of the UN Security Council, can America veto it, whether in general or just for us? Can the IMO enforce collection, or must it rely on national governments to do so?

The mechanics of the tax are deceptively simple. Under the proposed framework, shipping companies would be required to pay a fixed fee per metric ton of carbon dioxide emitted during transoceanic voyages. This fee, expected to begin at a baseline of $100 per ton and scale over time, would be calculated based on the fuel used and the vessel's emissions profile. Crucially, this cost is not absorbed by the shipping conglomerates.

Fees never are.

It is passed down the chain of commerce—first to importers, then to wholesalers, and ultimately to the end consumers. The result is an invisible tax hike on every imported good that enters American ports, from smartphones assembled in Southeast Asia to agricultural produce from Latin America. The levy, in effect, operates as a consumption tax imposed by a foreign body on the American populace.

According to research by UNCTAD and DNV, this levy could escalate freight costs by between 71% and 85%, potentially doubling the price of shipping goods from overseas by mid-century. Such an increase is not mere statistical abstraction—it translates directly to elevated costs for everyday items, affecting everything from imported electronics to agricultural commodities. Shipping industry executives, from tanker operators to dry bulk carriers, have already begun expressing grave concerns, warning that these cost increments will inevitably cascade through supply chains, burdening American consumers and reducing corporate earnings in an already tenuous economic climate.

Beyond economic ramifications, the levy raises significant questions of democratic legitimacy. Traditionally, the power of taxation has been strictly the province of elected legislatures—explicitly, in the American context, the U.S. Congress. Yet the IMO’s method of implementing this tax is deftly designed to bypass such legislative oversight. By framing the carbon levy as amendments to MARPOL Annex VI regulations, the UN effectively sidesteps the requisite Senate ratification processes for international treaties. Consequently, this global levy could be implemented domestically through executive regulatory changes without meaningful Congressional debate or approval. This constitutes nothing less than taxation without representation, a principle that, ironically, once motivated the American colonies’ revolt against Britain.

To understand the long-term danger, one need only glance eastward across the Atlantic. The European Union, originally conceived as a common economic market to facilitate trade and prevent future conflicts, has gradually metastasized into a supranational government. What began as voluntary economic cooperation now resembles an unelected bureaucracy capable of overriding national parliaments. Today, from energy mandates to migration quotas, Brussels dictates terms to sovereign nations in ways unimaginable at the time of the Treaty of Rome. The European Commission—a body of unelected technocrats—wields more influence over member states’ laws than many of their own legislatures. The arc of integration has bent toward centralization, not consensus.

This should serve as a cautionary tale. The IMO’s carbon levy, though seemingly benign in scope, is an embryonic form of the same political dynamic. By establishing the precedent that an international body can impose direct economic obligations on sovereign nations without the consent of their legislatures, the levy lays the groundwork for a future in which financial sovereignty is no longer national, but global. What Brussels is to the Eurozone, the UN aspires to become for the world: an unelected arbiter of fiscal and regulatory policy.

Moreover, the levy stands to generate tens of billions of dollars annually, projected to reach between $40 and $60 billion by 2050. Alarmingly, these substantial revenues would flow directly into UN-controlled climate funds, notably entities like the Green Climate Fund. Such arrangements inherently dilute national sovereignty by placing substantial financial resources under international bureaucratic oversight, insulated from direct democratic accountability.

Posted by:Vortigern Speaking for Boskone4685

#8 Now, about that building.

Posted by: Skidmark 2025-04-04 14:41

#7 In addition to what taxpayer dollars DC gives them directly and indirectly?

And what if nobody wants to play International Maritime Orgy, then what? Davos Degenerates turn screws locally?

Posted by: swksvolFF 2025-04-04 10:01

#6 The UN...sigh.........needs to just go away. Too bad the US didn't learn its lesson from rejecting the League of Nations.

Posted by: DooDahMan 2025-04-04 09:04

#5 Gilad Erdan: UN is a lost cause, serves Hamas’s interests

Posted by: Skidmark 2025-04-04 01:26

#4 warM-
isM:
not
healthy
for children
and other
living
things

Posted by: Pancho Poodle8452 2025-04-04 01:20

#3 The best analogy I've heard goes like this:

IMAGINE that all we knew about automobiles was that they had been created 100+ years ago, and they were all electric. And THEN a few years ago, somebody created the internal combustion engine.

Those creators would have offered the ability to expand range to 400 to 600 miles, regardless of weather or climate. The "recharge" time would be 5 minutes or so.

The "new" vehicles would weigh far less than the existing ones, and cause less damage to the existing roads. New vehicles wouldn't require charging stations--builders could sell their goods at a lower price.

Posted by: Crusader 2025-04-04 00:54

#2 Fossil fuels promote health and prosperity, experts say during Natural Resources Committee hearing

Posted by: Skidmark 2025-04-04 00:41

#1 Good luck with that.

Posted by: Crusader 2025-04-04 00:05

00:00