The Trump administration has thrown its full weight against a proposed net-zero shipping emissions plan about to be approved by the member countries of the UN’s International Maritime Organization (IMO). [emphasis, links added]
Three Cabinet secretaries have issued a warning to other countries not to approve the so-called Net Zero Framework (NZF), which is generally considered to be a carbon tax on global shipping.
See here for the text of the warning.
The IMO was supposed to pass the NZF at its October meeting, but the Trump warning had a clear effect, so that vote never happened. All they did was vote to postpone voting on the emission reduction compliance program until the next meeting. Now the fight really begins.
NZF is not actually a tax, just penalties for failing to meet agreed-on emission limits, but it is still potentially costly, so call it a tax. The IMO fact sheet is here.
Basically, each ship gets an assigned cap on CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions per unit of energy expended. The caps get progressively lower over time, heading for zero in 2050.
If a ship gets below its cap, it gets “surplus unit” (SU) credits for the difference that it can sell. If it exceeds the cap a little, it must buy “Tier 1 remedial units (RU)” from IMO. If it exceeds the cap a lot, it can either buy SUs or Tier 2 RU, which cost about four times as much as Tier 1 RUs.
It is buying the remedial units that amounts to a carbon tax on emissions, which, by some estimates, will be enormous.
The Trump administration said in a press release that America:
“[U]nequivocally 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.”
Decarbonization of shipping is pretty much impossible because it cannot be electrified. The sea lanes cannot be lined with charging stations.
Refitting every ship in the world with nuclear propulsion would be even more expensive. Burning wood or corn might be even worse.
The net-zero thinkers are not known for reality, but, in this case, the greater the failure, the more money they make. No wonder they like it!
Nor can the U.S. just walk away because shipping is truly global. Here is how the IMO fact sheet explains enforcement of things like NZF:
“Enforcement of all IMO regulations lies with the Member States, in their capacity as flag, port, or coastal States. When a government accedes to an IMO Convention, it agrees to make it part of its own national law and to enforce it just like any other law. A Flag State must ensure that ships under its registry comply with IMO’s international rules and standards, including safety, environmental protection, and labour conditions. A Port State has the right to inspect foreign ships in national ports to verify compliance with IMO rules.”
How do foreign ports enforce NZF compliance on American ships? Or any ships for that matter. There is real potential for violence here, with a lot of money at stake.
Clearly, the potential for disruption from the ill-conceived UN IMO NZF is enormous, and the fight is just beginning. Stay tuned to CFACT as this drama unfolds.
Top image by Hessel Visser from Pixabay
Read more at CFACT
This is one of many, many example where the advocates of the climate change movement are seeking impossible solutions. As the article pointed out, nuclear powered cargo ships are not affordable. Beyond that, on that such a scale, they couldn’t prevent terrorists from obtaining uranium 235 or plutonium that could be used to make nuclear bombs. Thorium can not be used to make a bomb, but it requires uranium 235 to get a reaction going so there is still the terrorist risk. All electric fishing boats exist, but they are small and “If you consistently travel more than 60 miles offshore, a pure electric system is not yet a practical option.” Perhaps the fact that failure means they make more money is their motivation.
It has been pointed out that the International Maritime Organization does not have the authority to tax. They also do not have the authority to assign fines on emissions.