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
Net zero shipping and in fact any net zero activity is simply fraudulent. Climate change has never been about climate, it was always designed to be a controlling wealth transfer system-this admission has been confirmed by UN fearmongering elites. When hydrocarbon compounds are oxidized the result is the liberation of energy and the production of CO2. That is why CO2 was chosen as the uber villain of the modern energy consuming world. Subsequently, the claim CO2 is the sole cause of increasing earth’s temperature is less than plausible and lacks demonstrable empirical proof over a significant period of time. Repeatedly, CO2 has been endowed with super powers and characteristics to impact climate that in reality are so minor relegating them to insignificance.
I have been reading fairy tales. This is how the climate change movement expects international shipping to reach net zero by 2050. The plan is to use zero emission fuels. These are fuels that are not derived from fossil fuels. The airline industry already attempted to use such fuels and there wasn’t close to being enough. One part of the plan is to use “green ammonia.” This is produced using electricity from renewable generation. Again, there is not nearly enough of this power.
Though the requirement didn’t pass this year because of avid opposition from Trump, the backers fully expect it to pass next year. Do they expect President Trump to have a change of heart? Reaching the 5% target of zero emission fuels by 2030 is considered a critical milestone. Even if a Biden clone wins the US election in 2028, that would leave only 2029 for the IMO to reach its lofty goal of 5%.
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.
There was one nuclear cargo ship, the NS Savannah. It was commissioned in 1959 and operated from 1962 to 1972. There were several other attempts from different countries but other than Russian ice breakers none made it to production. Although China is apparently working on a very large container ship that would be powered by a thorium-based molten salt reactor. It is planned to be as large as the largest container ships. Still to be seen.
As to a Thorium reactor, Thorium-232 itself is not fissile but when bombarded with neutrons it will quickly decay to U-233 (~27 days), which is fissile. It was proven successful at a commercial nuclear power plant outside Platteville, CO, but was subsequently retired due to issues with the electrical systems, not the reactor.
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.