The United Nations, by contrast, is basically a joke. Yes, it’s wasteful. Yes, it pushes awful ideas. But it’s also spectacularly incompetent, so its ability to do damage is trivial.
Unfortunately, there are a few UN sub-bureaucracies that do have an ability to cause harm.
I’ve written, for instance, about meddling and malfeasance by the World Health Organization.
Today, I’m going to write about a potentially costly bit of mischief by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which is another sub-bureaucracy of the UN.
The Wall Street Journal has an editorial castigating the IMO for trying to use the global climate scam as an excuse to impose a global tax on shipping. Here are some excerpts.
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. …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. …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%. …at least someone in the Trump Administration is worried that expensive imports might be bad for the American economy. …President Trump will do Americans and the entire democratic world a favor if he can scare the IMO into thinking twice about this global carbon-tax plan.
The higher tax is bad.
But the worst part, as the WSJ notes, is the creation of a slush fund for UN bureaucrats.
…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. …The IMO carbon tax on shipping…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.
Brett Schaefer of the American Enterprise also has weighed in against the UN/IMO scheme.
Here are some passages from his article in the National Interest, which has more details on how consumers and taxpayers will be hurt.
…the IMO is rarely controversial. In fact, the IMO is one of only a handful of UN organizations identified in the Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 budget request as deserving of US funding. Specifically, it was highlighted for its standards setting, efforts to reduce pollution and prevent maritime disasters, and enhancing US security by helping “secure shipping lanes against terrorism and related threats.” Nonetheless, the IMO finds itself in the crosshairs of the Trump administration. …regulations seek to implement the IMO “Net-Zero Framework” through mandatory fuel standards for ships over 5,000 gross tonnage and financial penalties for those failing to comply. …covered ships account for about 85 percent of global emissions from the shipping industry. …According to shipping firms, fines could amount to “about $20 billion to $30 billion a year by 2030,” with the cumulative total possibly exceeding “$300 billion by 2035… Over 90 percent of the current global fleet uses conventional fuels and cannot utilize greener alternatives. …Finally, there is the fact that alternative green fuels cost far more—at least three to four times more—than traditional fuels. Consequently, fuel costs are projected to rise by 350 percent. Overall, whether shippers comply or simply pay fines, the cost of shipping is likely to increase if the IMO regulations are implemented, and consumers will bear the brunt of the price.
My two cents is that the slush fund is the most dangerous part of this proposal.
The United Nations has been pushing for various types of global taxes for a long time. The bureaucrats (who are grotesque hypocrites since they get tax-free salaries) want the rest of us to pay higher tax so they can get control over pots of money.
Rest assured that if the UN/IMO gets this global tax, the WHO will be pushing for global tobacco taxes, perhaps followed by global alcohol taxes.
And other international bureaucracies will do the same thing. The European Commission, for example has always wanted “own resources,” which is bureaucrat-speak for the ability to directly tax people instead of relying on payments from member governments.
