Image by Peter Lindenau from Pixabay
What looks, acts, and taxes like One World Government?
The UN has succeeded in getting a global shipping tax approved supposedly to control the weather. It will be formally adopted in October, and start in 2027, applying to ships of more than 5,000 tons. I don’t remember our parliamentarians debating it, do you? Somehow a tariff is a terrible thing, but a global trade tax paid to unaccountable bureaucrats will save the world?
It sets a very dangerous new precedent. For the first time the United Nations would be able to tax the world directly, without twisting the arm of national governments. Who owns the oceans? The UN apparently…
By 2030 the UN is projected to collect $40 billion in total from this tax. Supposedly they will hand this on to “supporting developing countries” (like China, eh?). Obviously this give the UN bureaucrats another $40 billion in power. It’s more money for them to fly to conferences in the Amazon, more money to reward their “friends”, and more money to buy the right votes at the right moment. It will feed more committees to write more press releases to shake down even more money from the hapless taxpayers of the West.
And why would it stop there? Once the UN can collect the cash from ships, why not planes too, and surely satellites and rockets? (Has anyone told Elon?)
Whatever happened to “No taxation without political representation?” Killed by a thousands cuts.
Global breakthrough to tackle shipping emissions
Esme Stallard, BBC
Countries have agreed a global deal to tackle shipping emissions, after nearly ten years of negotiations. The agreement covers the vast majority of the world’s commercial shipping and means that starting in 2028, ship owners will have to use increasingly cleaner fuels or face fines. The deal was nearly derailed after Saudi Arabia forced a last minute vote and the US pulled out of talks in London – but it eventually passed on Friday. Small island states and environmental groups were angry that a blanket tax was not agreed to and called the deal “unfit for purpose”.
The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) will be able to take $380 per ton of “carbon” emitted.
It will require owners of large international vessels to increase their use of less carbon intensive fuels or face a penalty of up to $380 per tonne of carbon dioxide emissions they emit from burning fuel.
The vote was requested by Saudi Arabia, who did not support the agreement, and this position was shared by a dozen other oil-producing nations, including Russia.
Although they opposed the proposal, they will be bound to implement it because they are members of the IMO.
The targets are impossible but that’s a feature, not a bug
The UN decided the world’s shipping will reach Net Zero in 2050, as if we will all learn to sail or use solar powered ships. But the UN surely knows the targets are wildly unreasonable, and that’s the point. Ships that don’t manage to convert to hydrogen or ammonia, or run on palm oil or fairy dust, will be able to “pay more” to the UN instead.
The great thing about impossible targets is they make for endless cash cows for fat parasites to dine out on:
Figures vary depending on the fuel type but the World Economic Forum estimates that these green fuels are 3-4 times more expensive to produce.
“There is no fuel as cheap as diesel that ships use today because when we take crude oil out of the ground, we take out all the nice bits, that’s the kerosene for aviation, diesel and petrol for cars,” said Faig Abbasov, programme director for maritime transport at think tank Transport and Environment.
“Whatever is left at the bottom, that’s what ships burn. So no fuel will be as cheap as this because not much energy goes into its production,” he said.
It is estimated that the agreement could achieve an 8% reduction in emissions for the sector by 2030, according to the maritime consultancy UMAS.
So they will use $40 billion to cut 8% off 3% of the human global emissions by 2030 — cutting mankind’s whole output by 0.25%, an amount too small to measure, but employing a lot of UN people to do it. And the money will go help the poor starving NGO’s who ran out of USAID money, right?
Any money raised from the penalties will be put into a “Net Zero” fund, with money spent on scaling up greener fuels and supporting developing countries.
It is this “redistribution” that prompted the US delegation to pull out of the talks on Tuesday night. A letter was sent by the US to all countries at the IMO negotiations saying any levy would cause inflation and if it was passed then “reciprocal measures” would be taken.
The deal was nearly derailed after Saudi Arabia forced a last minute vote and the US pulled out of talks in London – but it eventually passed on Friday.
The US delegation left the proceedings, but apparently that doesn’t matter because they don’t have many boats (can we get an exemption too?)
The US only flags 178 cargo ships that represent 0.57% of worldwide commercial shipping tonnage.
Once it starts it will never end. If the UN could raise the tax because they felt like it, what would stop them? Nothing — until the big trading nations get fed up, and either pull out of the UN or send in the aircraft carriers.
More than ever, we need an alliance in the Anglosphere that just says “No”. End the UN. It has failed at the only tasks it was set up to do — stop wars and end pandemics.
H/t David E
We will probably see more taxes of this nature now that TRUMP is shutting down, or has already cancelled, funding for globalist causes.
341
The Hokey Kokey
Carbon taxes, Electronic transaction fees,etc, everything is on the table to fund, whatever the majority of the Worlds countries deem is a priority. The US taxpayer funds this and supplies much of the capital assets to enable the actions of the UN agencies.
140
Can’t wait for Trump’s reaction to this development. He’ll probably reduce the USA contribution to the UN by $100 billion to compensate. Go Donald!!
351
There is precedent already. The IMO set rules on sulphur emissions a few years which has been so effective, the reduction in aerosols has debatably had a measurable warming effect on the climate. Every country in the IMO, bar a couple of pariah states, has agreed to the legislation. The EU will likely enforce more stringent targets, which will mean that the older, less efficient vessels will end up plying their trade down here.
010
And they start at ships above 5,000 tonnes.
Then that limit decreases and eventually includes personal family boats.
Because small boats are just like family cars.
They liberate people and give them mobility and freedom.
And the Left hate that, just as they hate personal motor vehicles (for non-Elites).
How about a special tax on passengers in private jets flying to Climate Crisis or WEF conferences instead?
441
You hinted about the family car. I think that would surely be on their agenda.
How much of this rubbish plus DEI etc.etc.etc. before the population has a gutful?
Dare I say Vive la révolution?
210
Too late David. The UK retards already ready want to see leisure craft go all electric and that includes people who live on canal boats who use woodburners for heating. I hope we don’t run out of piano wire when the time comes.
30
450
Trump defends America and does something sensible.
“Europeans furious.”
“America must pay their fair share”
The cream left Europe centuries ago.
Today we call these people, Americans.
231
Yes.
Until open door immigration, America once took the best, the brightest, the hardest working and the most freedom-loving.
350
IMHO, and as an e-vil American, and MAGA and Southern, making me triple e-vil …
by convergent and accidental geography and social politics …
America was able to form a post Feudal psychological self-identity culture.
Europe is still psychologically weighted down with Feudal class structures.
To the point of importing new peasants from societies which are still largely Feudal
The UN/WEF types are simply the aristocrats trying to reassert themselves.
To the point of self destruction, typical of corrupted elites throughout human history.
Many of the newly wealthy Americans in the 19th century embarrassingly attempted to feign European style former Feudal aristocratic mannerisms.
In Hollywood movies prior to WWII, the actors spoke with odd quasi British accents.
Even Franklin Roosevelt said, “we have nothing to fee-ah but fee-ah itself.”
No ordinary Americans talked this way.
This upper class affectation disappeared overnight in WWII, when the newly minted American aristocrats found themselves in combat with rough ordinary men that would punch them in face when they talked that way.
The anti-populist TDS fervor of the international establishment is the same America hate that existed before Americans saved and re-built Europe.
America has a funny way of making Americans out of just about anybody.
Degraded a bit, but being revitalized by Trump.
Making the America haters even madder.
80
How to become an instant American:
Travel to America.
Get out of the urban areas.
Buy a MAGA hat.
Wear it into a bar.
No matter your color, no matter if you don’t speak English, maybe you’re even a man in a dress … you’ll be good.
Might drink for free.
40
Trump Withdraws US From International Maritime Organization’s “Decarbonization” Negotiations
If the IMO persists in its Net Zero insanity, it will sail into the FO phase of the FAFO cycle.
President Donald Trump recently issued an executive order targeting state-level climate policies that impose restrictions or penalties on fossil fuel companies. He argued that such regulations “unduly discriminate” against these companies and raise energy costs for Americans.
He is now turning around and ending US involvement in international organizations seeking to impose senseless carbon-based restrictions.
The Trump administration recently announced the country’s withdrawal from the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) negotiations on decarbonization. This decision, made during the MEPC’s 83rd session in London last week, marks a significant shift in U.S. engagement away from global environmental agreements that Americans no longer wish to have imposed on this nation.
The United States has withdrawn from talks in London looking at advancing decarbonisation in the shipping sector and Washington will consider “reciprocal measures” to offset any fees charged to U.S. ships, according to a diplomatic note seen by Reuters.
Delegates are at the U.N. shipping agency’s headquarters this week for negotiations over decarbonisation measures aimed at enabling the global shipping industry to reach net zero by “around 2050”.
A State Department spokesperson confirmed on Wednesday that Washington would not be “engaging in negotiations” at the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization (IMO), adding that it was the administration’s policy to put U.S. interests first in the “development and negotiation of any international agreements”.
An initial proposal by a bloc of countries including the European Union, which was submitted to the IMO, had sought to reach agreement for the world’s first carbon levy for shipping on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
“The U.S. rejects any and all efforts to impose economic measures against its ships based on GHG emissions or fuel choice,” according to a diplomatic demarche sent to ambassadors by the United States on Tuesday.
90
Since those first hunter gatherers lived their brief and precarious lives without fire technology,
no human society has prospered without fire. Trump is right to fight against net zero policies and try to restore productivity,
including revitalising heavy industry, to the U.S.
50
So what would the enforcement mechanism for such a levy? The U.S. can simply refuse to pay it.
10
The Australian Government, being fanatically woke, will no doubt enthusiastically support this new tax which will increase the cost of all imports and exports.
Thus this will accelerate the continual decline in our standard of living and increase inflation.
No doubt, it’s all part of the plan.
The Elite Leftist billionaires will not even notice, only we Proles.
440
But think of the banquets it can bankroll without asking Trump for more money.
180
The fantasy is that there are alternative fuels to bunker oil.
None that are as cheap or effective, or as safe.
Ammonia or hydrogen? Really? They just don’t have a f****** clue!
Or perhaps sail?
Do they not realise why commercial sailing ships were rapidly dropped as soon as commercially viable steam engines were produced?
Or do they know why “environmentally friendly” wooden hulls were also dropped?
Sailing today is relegated as a rich man’s hobby. It should stay that way.
Why are we allowing us to be ruled over by historical, engineering and scientific ignoramuses? That’s why the Left had to first dumb-down the “education” system.
490
That sounds a lot like plain old fashioned piracy…
240
Why not tax phytoplankton as well? We know there are studies (such as Roxy et al 2015) that point to the possibility that phytoplankton have decreased by 20% over the past 60 years. Some studies show a much larger decrease. Phytoplankton make up 80%-90% of all biological life in the ocean. Jaworowski et al (1992) and Erik Eriksson (1963) say: “If these biologic activities [in the ocean] were removed [such as phytoplankton] the partial pressure of CO2 would be increased by a factor of 5”. Has phytoplankton been investigated when it comes to the rise in CO2?
130
What next? Why taxing planes of course, but excluding the planes of the very rich.
230
Maybe they’ll impose higher taxes on SodaStream. Those evil b*stards pump CO2 into their beverages to make them more refreshing.
50
Or is it a carbon fibre rich plaything of the Green Elites?
Climate Action Now Actually quite awesome once you ignore the hypocrisy.
10
So only members of the IMO pay….
I guess membership is going to drop. If not, why not? Ask your elected member to clarify if Oz will pay.
Getting out seems like a reasonable method to avoid another cost of living hit.
300
And another thought. If Italy gets out and Greece doesn’t. Could Italy become a major port for Greece?
I can see some countries, with land borders making some real money on this. Just say no to the IMO.
290
Eng_Ian,
There was a recent John Anderson Conversations where the guest told us that there were *no* commercial ships sailing under the Australian flag. Ergo Australian ships won’t be paying the fuel surcharge.
Australian consumers will still bear the added costs for the one or two things we import. As Jo points out, very tariff-like.
191
If you could avoid this by flagging your ship in another country, that would happen. The UN aren’t that stupid, this will be levied at the ports. Much easier to capture the fees if you refuse to load/unload.
If not at the ports, watch all the shipping get registered to one of the Cayman Islands or similar.
50
And how long before such taxes are applied to passenger aircraft?
The Left hate us travelling and leaving the confines of their desired free range prisons they call 15 Minute Cities which they want non-Elites to live in.
Will the billionaires of the Left forego their private jets when that happens? I don’t think so…
300
Possibly more than comnercial – passenger and freight – aviation.
Sub-sea mining?
Fishing – the Chinese hoover up almost everything that moves, and some that doesn’t?
Undersea cables – data, and power – and pipelines?
All tariff-like payments. And no discernible accountability. . . I think the Blob might like that.
Auto
20
US shipping should not pay, & absent a vote of Congress, will probably precipitate a “crisis”.
International organizations that are essentially vehicles for US (and Israel) haters to poke
at things, have built enough resentment over the years that the US might well be ready to exit
the UN and evict them from Turtle Bay. Switzerland is a good home for such things, I hear.
221
I think the thousands of NY prostitutes, who famously make a fortune when wealthy foreign dignitaries visit the UN, would strongly disagree with you about that.
20
This has some detailed information on the shipping pollution tax:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-nations-agree-carbon-pricing-system-to-steer-shipping-towards-net-zero/
It will come in as part of the marine pollution agreement – MARPOL. That will give it clout but I still see difficulty in collecting the tax. We will have to wait till next year before there is and agreed process for collecting the tax. It will need to be set at ship owner level because it has to take into account credits from low carbon fuels used in their fleet.
Australia and New Zealand abstained.
This is further indication that the USA EPA endangerment finding on CO2 needs to be a highly visible take-down of the unscientific nonsense that places the molecule of life as a major pollutant.
In essence, it is a tariff on trade that the UN will collect and distribute to the island nations, that all abstained because the tax was too little.
180
Certainly, and whilst this proposed tax is obviously based on a “Carbon Tax” platform, marine fuel emissions have much worse components to be concerned about.
30
And yet the UN are perfectly happy to see emissions rise to record levels courtesy of their UNFCCC agreement back in 1992, which gives a free pass to developing countries. This agreement has caused emissions to rise much faster than they would have otherwise by forcing industry to move from OECD countries to meet targets, transferring the emissions in the process, but rapidly driving up growth and emissions in China and developing countries in the process. And of course there are no plans to amend that agreement, which IMO is proof that the UN doesn’t care about emissions. This is all about transfer of global power. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/annual-co2-emissions-per-country?country=OECD+%28GCP%29~Non-OECD+%28GCP%29
150
But Trump is having an effect as big companies flee the carbon credits business
Indeed, more than 100 companies had already left Climate Active in the last 18 months. The program offers certificates to those engaged in carbon abatement, and allows users to purchase carbon credits to offset their emissions with the aim of hitting net-zero targets.
Questions over the credibility of some purchased credits remains an issue
In its last Climate Active report, IFM said it supported high-quality independently verified carbon reduction and removal developments including the Lynwood Human-Induced Regeneration project in NSW which excludes livestock from grazing areas, ¬allowing for forest regrowth. It also purchased and retired carbon offsets from schemes in the US, Turkey and Mexico.
So you stop cattle from eating a patch of grass which they would have eaten and that earns money by creating carbon credits which you sell for cash. And you have a not grazing income. That is fine until the cattle run out of grass to not eat.
180
Does not eating grass mean one has to have cattle that do not eat the grass. If so, what do you feed the cattle so that they do not eat the grass?
I have grass that cattle (that I do not have) do not eat. Can I claim or is it only large land-holders like Bill Gates that this applies to?
60
Since good comedy has fallen by the “woke” wayside, John Cleese et al. are now working as writers for the UN policy section.
00
It has become obvious that carbon dioxide is not human controlled. The NASA discovery that tree coverage went up with CO2, not down, should have ended vegetation based carbon credits. And also demonstrated that any CO2 sequestered is immediately replaced from the oceans but also that the CO2 level is under constant and rapid equilibrium.
This is also obvious from the fact that CO2 levels are the same within 1% from pole to pole. And that the shape of CO2 growth is a perfect straight line over the last 50 years when CO2 human emissions have been growing exponentially.
In the Northern Hemisphere at Hawaii we can see the cycles of CO2 from summer and winter demonstrating Henry’s Law beautifully.
As for the steady increase in CO2, that is partly warming but due to warmer CO2 rich waters surfacing. The vast heat banks of the oceans and the input from the sun control all climates, all water, all CO2. The atmosphere controls nothing much. It’s not the boss.
What is important is that currently fossil fuel CO2 output is just 1% of what is already in the air. And disappears quickly into the ocean where 98% of all CO2 ends up. We can see this as a result of the Australian bushfires. Like trees but much faster, the phytoplankton bloom with the extra CO2.
It’s all so obvious that carbon credits are fake. Non science. And that humans do not and cannot control CO2 levels.
But while America is pulling out of a steep dive, Australia is doubling down. Not the clever country.
270
My point is that the carbon dioxide taxation/credits/banking industry is spreading its wings away from simple taxes to areas away from where the money is immediately visible to the public and burying it in the cost of business. As in Australia’s Safeguard Mechanism which punishes the output of CO2 even if it is the essential function of the industry, as in the making of steel and concrete and all metals.
And taxing everything which moves on the high seas removes this cash grab from somewhere where ordinary people are directly aware of the cost. Tax the miners, the shippers, the aircraft, the trains, the trucks and the factories. Do not touch the people. They will ultimately pay all the costs and the government can blame the goods and service and food provider for gouging.
160
TdeF you might want to check your link at >a result of the Australian bushfires.
It points back to this page we’re on now, rather than something related to bushfires.
50
Thanks. Fixed.
50
‘The atmosphere controls nothing much. It’s not the boss.’
True, you might be interested in this recent study which illustrates that CO2 is not all its cracked up to be.
https://notrickszone.com/2025/04/14/new-study-finds-the-anthropogenic-pressure-on-climate-is-too-small-to-play-a-dominant-role/
71
My basic response is that all CO2 is in the ocean, except 2%. And what we emit goes straight into the ocean. Which means whatever effect increased CO2 has, we can do nothing about it. There is no way humans can change the amount of Co2 in the air.
110
The USA contributes a large part of the funds , and under the headquarters agreement the headquarters is in New York . Usually who pays the piper calls the tune. Climate change is a deep state project and it looks like they are looking for new funding. Lets see if DJT pulls the plug .
140
Even if the tax is not applied to US flagged shipping, the US will still face increased costs as non-US flagged shipping increases charges to cover either the tax or the higher cost substitutes for fuel oil.
And Australia will cop it both ways.
100
The only way out is to repeal all the Carbon laws and fire all the full time cash extractors hiding behind ‘Climate Law’.
Climate change law means any of the following:
(a) this Act or legislative instruments under this Act;
(b) the Clean Energy Act 2011 or legislative instruments under that Act;
(c) the Clean Energy (Charges—Excise) Act 2011 or legislative instruments under that Act;
(d) the Clean Energy (Charges—Customs) Act 2011 or legislative instruments under that Act;
(e) the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Auctions) Act 2011 or legislative instruments under that Act; and (f) the Clean Energy (Unit Issue Charge—Fixed Charge) Act 2011; and
(g) the Clean Energy (Unit Shortfall Charge—General) Act 2011 or legislative instruments under that Act; and
(h) the Clean Energy (International Unit Surrender Charge) Act 2011 or legislative instruments under that Act; and
(i) the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 or legislative instruments under that Act;
(j) the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007 or legislative instruments under that Act;
(k) the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 or legislative instruments under that Act;
(l) the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Large-scale Generation Shortfall Charge) Act 2000;
(m) the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Small-scale Technology Shortfall Charge) Act 2010;
(n) the Australian National Registry of Emissions Units Act 2011 2 or legislative instruments under that Act.
and the
2011 Clean Energy Regulator Act
2011 Carbon Credits(Farming Initiative Act)
2023 Safeguard Mechanism Act
2024 New Vehicle Efficiency Standard Act
All of which are about money, carbon credits. No one mentions TAX. The whole idea is to keep it out of the press and do not talk about taxes or where the money goes. And to make it clear that the government is not BANNING any cars. Just making it impossible to buy them because no one will sell them. There are whole government departments doing what politicians want, hiding the whole machinery of hiding all this in your daily costs and the press. Who gets all this cash? Not the people of Australia. What good does it do in controlling CO2? Zero.
270
And all those people who meant well who wrecked the joint, now extending to the oceans. With the best intentions.
The people who with the best intentions introduced rabbits, foxes, prickly pear, cane toads, camels, goats. The ones working on killing the Crown of Thorns starfish with swimming robots and cyanide only to find out they are an essential part of the coral ecosystem. The people who hunted sharks and crocodiles only to discover the same thing.
And the endless bureaucrats trying to tax everything that moves on the basis of stopping or reducing filthy carbon dioxide under the guise of the Clean Air Act where CO2, the essential gas of every living thing, is legally considered a filthy industrial pollutant.
Plus they all need to be paid, so the carbon dioxide money runs like a river. Almost always overseas. But I would be surprised if the wages for Canberra’s Carbon Dioxide fighters would be less than a billion dollars a year. And they would be thrilled to see all the world’s trade being Carbon Taxed. They are, after all, saving the planet.
180
I still find it hard to believe that simply stopping cattle from eating a particular area of pasture can earn real cash as carbon offsets. Growing a crop which could be eaten but stopping it from being eaten. Anti farming. Like all cunning Carbon plans, it just lacks real credibility. Like reducing CO2 on international shipping by making it more expensive. We may yet see 350,000 tonne oil tankers with masts like the old Clipper ships. Who need the Houthis when you have the UN?
200
Perhaps all the farmers need is cardboard cutout notcattle, to noteat the notgrass, to satisfy the Ag Inspector that they are abiding by the pledge to not have cattle that not eat grass.
I think Jeremy Clarkson was thinking of giving not grass eating not cattle a go to get on the CO2 handouts bandwagon.
60
I live near parkland. I might be able to get cash for not chopping down elm trees?
Climate Cash requires imagination.
China received a lot of Carbon Credit Cash for building the 3 Gorges Dam. The argument was that they could have built coal burning power stations and as a third world country decided to build the world’s biggest dam instead. We are grateful. I think at present they are also building many hundreds of new coal power stations. But they have windmills as well, which should cancel out the CO2 somehow.
30
While some of us were doing 40 hour famine to help starving people in Africa, others were donating to conservation causes paying for guards and AK47s to guard the animals that could have fed the starving people.
And so it goes on…
20
More reasons than ever to vacate the useless UN.
160
I’m a bit afraid to point this out. Typo first paragraph “is has”. ??
30
There has been discussion about this subject on X now for about a week. Discussion revolved around the hastening of nuclear powered commercial ships. Presently there are no nuclear powered merchant vessels. Well, maybe one owned by the Russians. Also, nuclear powered icebreakers , again owned by the Russians, which could be termed merchant vessels. But, none of those icebreakers could be classed as large. It’s again, one of those situations where some Australian public servant(s) or politician(s) attended some meeting and agreed to this tax. When you consider that Australia’s remoteness makes us more reliant on shipping ( both in and out), it’s a pretty dumb thing to support.
140
The small container ship that I worked on during 1982 had a massive 6 cylinder diesel which consumed over 100,000 litres every 24 hours. The round-trip was just over one month as we spent several days in each port. At least half the cost of the circuit from Sydney to Tacoma(Seattle) via Melbourne and Auckland and back again was fuel. With this new tax we’re about to see yet more inflation in Australia.
10
This week from the CO2 Coalition as Trump works to clear away such killer taxes and regulations..
“The new executive order, “DIRECTING THE REPEAL OF UNLAWFUL REGULATIONS” (April 9, 2025), can and should be used to terminate straightaway the EPA’s endangerment finding (EF) for greenhouse gases, along with the more than 100 other regulations that attempt to solve a non-existent climate crisis.”
But the UN who created the IPCC in 1988 with support from the WMO and Al Gore is not going down without a fight. It needs billions a year for the 80,000 people who prevent wars.
So now we have a UN tax on bunker oil, by far the cheapest oil for shipping. And it also is sludge disposal and that needs to be done somehow.
But if everyone ignores it? Who’s going to enforce it?
What is unsaid is that no one is under any real obligation to do anything. We’ll see who pays, if they pay and what is done if no one pays.
Yes, there will be stomping of feet and shouting. Boiling seas.
But the UN is not a military operation. Nor does it own any ports or real estate. It lives on handouts.
With America, Russia, China, India ignoring the whole fake climate Co2 story, who is going to pay? And who are they going to pay? The UN is the ultimate non profit QANGO.
It’s another UN bluff. The role of the UN in transmitting the Wuhan flu has not been forgotten. And in the Gaza and Ukraine wars, they have either been missing in action or part of the problem. Where’s the next End of Days Climate Conference? Another member of OPEC? And are those seas still boiling?
151
“So now we have a UN tax on bunker oil, by far the cheapest oil for shipping. And it also is sludge disposal and that needs to be done somehow.”
Bunker fuel is the bottom of the barrel, not sure that even bitumen can be made from it.
40
All (ex) living things burn. It’s just a question of temperature.
20
Bunker oil, in the UK – even in summer – can be picked up by the handful. It will ooze out, at 70F, very slowly.
It isnt generally good enough even for repairing roads. And ships have large, efficient heaters that hest the fuel, to make it – much more – pumpable.
Auto
30
The UN is on a precarious track to a bland future and just trying to pump the reserves before the crunch. With China and India with most ships and potential tax to pay It’s unlikely this revenue stream will survive. But your other point Jo is that I too do not recall any parliamentary debate. Lets start asking our Representatives during this current election campaign. Surely Hansard will present some answers
70
Like to know how the UN can enforce this.
With its navy?
LOL.
110
Prosssibly through insurance costs. Loyd’s is in “Once Great Britain”, a nation that has gone insane.
70
A nation whose leaders have gone insane.
110
Might well be a lot more US flagged ships, at least for the next 8 years.
70
The USA should lead the withdrawal of western countries from the UN. That organisation is only of value to 3rd world country’s, “ hangers on “ & of course “ developing “ nations
( China ) that seek to take over thru theft, regulation & any devious means at their disposal.
Time to shut the UN down in New York & they can move to China 😳😳.
100
Goodbye IMO.Can’t see Trump signing up to this rubbish of taxes being placed on enterprises by a body that has nothing to do with governance in democracies.
There seems to be a lot of haste from many supposedly national governments in signing up to this stuff. No doubt the Foreign Affairs Powers will be invoked but the matter still has to pass our Parliament. Hopefully the coalition will refuse to sign on whether it be in government or in opposition post election. The Wets would join labor and the greens to vote it in no doubt. There seems to have been an increasing interest in Australian politicians after politics to look for jobs in this One World Governance mob, expanding itself bit by bit in true Labor fashion as years go by. Much of their performance seems to be directed at getting good standing with one of these poisonous agencies.
100
No one need pay any tax demand because it is null and void
50
The key question is who is going to collect this tax and where and how? There are already flags of convenience.
This is already going on re air transport, of course.
50
“United Nations’ International Maritime Organization (IMO) will be able to take $380 per ton of “carbon” emitted.”
Look! A flying pig!
70
And who would enforce this?
20
Th U.N. just can’t get enough,
Of the cash cow black carbon stuff,
As Net Zero wouldn’t pay,
Like their ship tax foray,
Unless nations start calling their bluff.
30
I am thinking of starting a business that produces fake shipping fuel certificates that can be used to show that you have nice clean fuel. Anyone want to invest?
30
A tax on shipping or a tariff in disguise?
20
One positive of an increased fuel cost is that economising will be stimulated as half of running costs is fuel.
1) A Western Au trawler has fitted a hydrogen unit to augment the in-take air. It causes over 20% fuel saving.
2) A Queensland ferry added very finely powdered brass and methanol to its fuel tank but I never saw any actual data.
3) I add fine (micron scale) tin to my old Landcruiser 4.2 lit 1HZ motor. Long-term I see >5% economy which equates to ~$50 saving per month. It also tows a 2 t trailer better at low revs.
4) I add a naphthalene product at 1:1000 which assists with combustion and dissolves up any water in the fuel tank.
5) With road vehicles a fair bit of power is used up recharging the lead/acid battery after start-up. I’ve replaced all my lead AGM batteries with tiny Lithium Iron Phosphates paralleled with 6 Maxwell super capacitors. The caps start the engine and recharge back to full in one minute on most days. Typically, with a standard lead/acid set-up, the alternator of a car is dragging on the engine for quarter of an hour.
The container ship Columbus California had 3 identical V-12 diesel generator sets, one of which was always running, even when in port. One was always down for maintenance and while the other was for emergency back-up power. These huge engines must have consumed a fair bit of fuel on their own. There is a considerable scope for economising in the global shipping industry.
00
John, with regard to number 5) I say BS.
Add back the energy that charged those capacitors and you’ll be more or less even. No free lunch there, it takes a certain amount of power to turn over that engine upon start and the alternate battery technology can’t make energy out of nothing.
00