Climate change has always been about wealth redistribution. A complete reimaging of the American economy to send money to the developed world (by which we mean, global elites). It is by far the most authentic expression of Democrat-Socialism. Create economic parity by making nearly everyone poor and dependent.
These are the pigs from Orwell’s Animal Farm who, in the 21st-century world, might be the United Nations. The beating black heart of globalism, longing for a revenue stream it can use to buy influence for itself.
Democrats want the UN to have this power, and the UN wants it too—fiscal leverage. Real power. You don’t get net-zero dollars unless you play by the king’s rules, where King is the proper term for the cabal of advisors (Tsars, Oligarchs, Experts) who get to travel, eat well, and live comfortably because someone has to collect the taxes and decide who gets what’s left.
And they’ve got a plan.
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.
Yes, backed by the Biden Administration, and don’t act surprised. Dems have been chattering about using climate change to redistribute western wealth since they were calling it global warming. Make America poor and themselves rich, buying influence around the globe with the assumption they’d all be at the adult’s table.
The Trump Administration will have to address this, and leaving the UN isn’t enough. The scheme appears to tax fuel used for shipping, and I doubt that not having UN membership has any privileges. Everyone will be expected to pay, and ships need fuel.
It tosses the entire fair and balanced trade discussion into a new room. An international shipping tax based on fuel. A new tax on all trade and ocean transport, scooped up by the United Nations, and spent to advance its agenda, which is not America’s agenda. A new tax on all goods entering the US that would increase prices, which Democrats were supporting.
What’s the solution, assuming this sinister global tax plot isn’t scuttled?
Does the US impose new or higher tariffs on nations that charge a new UN fuel tax? Could they demand that shippers use US fuel depots (no UN tax)? Where and how do we strategically place them if even possible? We might be able to use US Naval facilities (which puts them at some risk, I’d think), or floating refueling ships patrolling our trade routes (targets for pirates and terrorists), or is there another solution?
I’m not sure, myself.
The other issue is that once the UN has its own cash flow independent of donor nations, what’s to stop the greedy little bastards from taxing everything else?
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.
Everyone would have to participate, or enough of them to make it workable, and so far, there are plenty of takers (whom I assume expect a piece of the action) – the UN is a grift operation, after all.
Conversely, any nation that refused might find itself richer for it. Fuel is a fixed cost that ends up in the cost of goods. If you wanted to be more competitive, fueling up where the costs are lower (no UN tax) would make sense.
It will be interesting to see how the Trump Administration responds, or if they have a plan (if they need a plan), where leaving the UN can’t be the only part of the plan.
