Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
On Episode #178 of The Climate Realism Show, we’ll dig into this disturbing and likely illegal UN power grab and cover the week’s Crazy Climate News. Is climate change giving dolphins Alzheimer’s? What the heck is “carbon butter,” and how does it taste? Is Bill Gates the most dangerous man on the planet? And the mother of all “children’s climate lawsuits” has just crashed and burned.
The United Nations could approve a new tax on carbon-dioxide emissions from shipping as early as today. Their goal is to raise at least $10 billion a year and put it in a new “Net Zero Fund” to “mitigate negative impacts” on nations supposedly suffering because of climate change. This may be only the beginning: an unelected United Nations ruling over the entire globe with the power to levy direct taxes as it sees fit. The United States—and every country that values representative democracy and individual liberty—must oppose this with every tool at their disposal.
On Episode #178 of The Climate Realism Show, we’ll dig into this disturbing and likely illegal UN power grab and cover the week’s Crazy Climate News. Is climate change giving dolphins Alzheimer’s? What the heck is “carbon butter,” and how does it taste? Is Bill Gates the most dangerous man on the planet? And the mother of all “children’s climate lawsuits” has just crashed and burned.
Join The Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Sterling Burnett, Linnea Lueken, Jim Lakely, and special guest Steve Milloy of the E&E Legal Institute LIVE at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, and X.
Long overlooked as a major contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, the shipping industry is now at the forefront of a unique display of international cooperation. The shift signals that even the world’s largest transport sector can be steered toward climate accountability.
Every day, tens of thousands of massive ships criss-cross the world’s oceans, transporting grain, clothing, electronics, cars, and countless other products. Nearly 90 per cent of global cargo is moved this way. But this vital industry comes with an added cost: international shipping is responsible for three per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which are heating the planet.
For years, ship emissions were a complex and often postponed topic in international climate discussions. But that changed in April 2025 when the International Maritime Organization (IMO), the UN body overseeing global shipping regulations, approved a historic plan to make the industry net-zero by around mid-century.
“This demonstrates that multilateralism and the United Nations are still relevant and important in these particular times,” Arsenio Dominguez, IMO’s Secretary-General, told UN News. He reflected on the tense and often emotional negotiations at the Marine Environment Protection Committee’s 83rd session, calling the approval a commitment by IMO and the shipping sector to combat climate change.
The deal, dubbed the IMO Net-Zero Framework, marked the culmination of years of painstaking talks between member States, including small island nations at risk from rising seas and the world’s largest shipping nations.
“I could spend hours just telling you in detail all those great moments working very closely with the delegates of all the member states at IMO in order to get this agreement,” Mr. Dominguez recalled. “That collaborative approach, to see all the member states gathering and rallying each other to get this deal in place, is something that I will always remember.”
…
Polluters will need to purchase ‘remedial units’ or offset their excess emissions by investing in the IMO Net-Zero Fund. Ships adopting zero or near-zero emissions technologies can earn surplus credits, creating an incentive to clean up. A shipowner exceeding their emissions limit might buy credits from another ship that has outperformed its targets or contribute to the fund.
…
Innovation will play a major role, and some promising technologies include ammonia and hydrogen fuels, wind propulsion, solar-assisted shipping, and onboard carbon capture. “Our rules are there to foster innovation and not to limit it,” Mr. Dominguez said, explaining that the Organization is carrying out an initial analysis. “We are rediscovering the existence of wind in the shipping industry, if I may say it like that…We have to be open to everything that’s happening out there. There’s a lot of work going on alternative fuels.”
This transition will also require investment in training and safety measures for seafarers as these alternative fuels are adopted, he warned. “We have to pay paramount importance when it comes to the people.”
Will the USA be compelled to pay this new UN carbon tax?
Not so fast.
US against plan for levy on carbon emissions from ships, leak suggests
Document says levy would be ‘blatantly unfair’ and inconsistent with international law of the sea
Plans for a levy on the carbon produced by ships are being opposed by the US government, on the apparent basis they would “impose substantial economic burdens” and “drive inflation”.
There will be fierce debate in London this week on the future of global shipping over the proposals to charge up to $150 (£117) a tonne for the greenhouse gas emissions from ships. Those in support say the measure will be crucial to generating billions of dollars of climate finance a year to help poor countries cope with the impact of the climate crisis.
But now the US appears to have joined China, Brazil, Saudi Arabia and at least a dozen other states in opposing the levy at the International Maritime Organization negotiations. A leaked document seen by the Guardian, which has not yet been verified by the US government, purports to threaten countries with “reciprocal measures” if they agree to any levy.
…
The US did not deny authorship of the leaked document. A Department of State spokesperson said: “The US will not be engaging in negotiations at the IMO’s 83rd Marine Environment Protection Committee. Consistent with President Trump’s executive orders on international environmental agreements and on energy dominance, it is the administration’s policy to put the interests of the United States and the American people first in the development and negotiation of any international agreements.”
Unfortunately, it is not all good news. The situation is complicated by the fact most US cargo is carried on non-US flagged ships. Although President Trump has tried to sweeten the deal, for example by negotiating a better deal on the Panama Canal, the US merchant fleet is tiny – there are only 80 US flagged ships carrying cargo on today’s seas. If the cost of paying this global tax is hidden inside an opaque shipping fee presented to US exporters and importers by foreign ship owners, it may be difficult to shield US companies from this new global UN carbon tax.
It gets worse. Three of the UN proposed solutions, ammonia, hydrogen or carbon capture, read more like potential terrorist attacks than genuine maritime propulsion options.
Out of those three proposed nightmares, a catastrophic carbon capture CO2 release might actually be the most dangerous. Hydrogen can explode, and Ammonia is hideously toxic, but both Hydrogen and Ammonia are lighter than air – the range of the kill zone would be limited to a few square miles.
CO2 is heavier than air, so a major release of ship stored captured CO2 on a still wind day could roll a blanket of suffocating, unbreathable gas over a large area, resulting in substantial mass casualties miles from the site of the release. If the catastrophic accidental or intentional release occurred in the port of a major low laying city with geography which prevented the gas from dissipating, 10s of thousands of people could die.
Obviously insurance companies would move to squash this idiocy after a few mass casualty events, but it would be nice to get ahead of the curve for once in the race to embrace lethal green “solutions”, and stop this nonsense before 10s of thousands of people are sacrificed on the altar of engineering ignorance.
The UN spokesman Mr. Dominguez admitted “This transition will also require investment in training and safety measures for seafarers as these alternative fuels are adopted” – so there must be some awareness in UN circles of the enhanced danger of the proposed green alternatives, even if those voices are currently being mostly ignored by the people in charge.
You must be logged in to post a comment.