The International Maritime Organization is about to vote on a new “net-zero framework,” which would take the form of a tax paid by shippers into a gigantic UN climate fund.
For UN bureaucrats, this would mean a long-held dream come true.
The UN depends on grants from member nations for funding. Asserting a new UN power to levy taxes on the world would mean a tremendous expansion of UN authority, not to mention many billions for the UN to spend and redistribute as our would-be global masters see fit.
The Trump administration said in a press release that America “unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists. The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”
The Wall Street Journal pulled no punches writing that “this is another income redistribution scheme for whatever ideas the U.N. bureaucracy deems worthy. If you think handouts to non-democratic countries for vaguely defined ‘climate’ purposes will be administered scrupulously in the public interest, we’ve got a carbon-neutral barge to sell you.”
The U.S. has threatened economic retaliation against nations that go along with this UN money grab in an attempt to block it.
It’s a pleasure to have the U.S. government finally on our side.
What do you think the UN would do with a multi-billion-dollar climate slush fund?
The UN depends on grants from member nations for funding. Asserting a new UN power to levy taxes on the world would mean a tremendous expansion of UN authority, not to mention many billions for the UN to spend and redistribute as our would-be global masters see fit.
The Trump administration said in a press release that America “unequivocally rejects this proposal before the IMO and will not tolerate any action that increases costs for our citizens, energy providers, shipping companies and their customers, or tourists. The economic impacts from this measure could be disastrous, with some estimates forecasting global shipping costs increasing as much as 10% or more.”
The Wall Street Journal pulled no punches writing that “this is another income redistribution scheme for whatever ideas the U.N. bureaucracy deems worthy. If you think handouts to non-democratic countries for vaguely defined ‘climate’ purposes will be administered scrupulously in the public interest, we’ve got a carbon-neutral barge to sell you.”
The U.S. has threatened economic retaliation against nations that go along with this UN money grab in an attempt to block it.
It’s a pleasure to have the U.S. government finally on our side.
What do you think the UN would do with a multi-billion-dollar climate slush fund?
Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president. Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C. This article was sourced HERE
2 comments:
Close it down. The UN has outlived its usefulness and would save NZ about $53 million a year.
The UN - as per its Charter - does not encroach on the sovereignty of each nation. Example : UNDRIP Article 46 - which has been challenged by radical Maori.
Article 46 1. Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States.
But, as with nations, the UN now has powerful and radical internal forces who seek to alter its mandate so as to gain global control over nation states. These forces have subversive agents in each member state's government . Ardern could be part of this movement - as could other heads of state (usually Left leaning but sometimes centre Right).
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.