Unelected regulators and bureaucrats from the United Nations have pushed for crushing the global economy in the name of saving the planet. [emphasis, links added]
In October, the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a specialized agency within the U.N., proposed a carbon tax to slash the emissions of shipping vessels. This comes after the IMO’s April 2025 decision to adopt net-zero standards for global shipping.
Had the IMO agreed to the regulation, it would have been the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.
Thankfully, the United States … effectively shut down those proposals; however, while these regulations have been temporarily halted, the erroneous ideas behind them continue to grow in support.
Proponents of carbon taxes generally argue that since climate change is an existential threat to human existence, drastic measures must be taken in all aspects of our lives to address the projected costs.
People should eat less meat and use public transportation more often. In the political arena, they should vote out so-called “climate deniers.” In the economic sphere, carbon taxes are offered as a technocratic quick fix to carbon emissions.
Is any of this worth it? Or are the benefits greater than the costs? In the case of climate change, the answer is no.
Carbon taxes are not a matter of scientific fact. As with all models, the assumptions drive the analysis. In the case of carbon taxes, the time horizon selected plays a major role in the outcome. So, too, does the discount rate and the specific integrated assessment models.
In other words, “Two economists can give vastly different estimates of the social cost of carbon, even if they agree on the objective facts underlying the analysis.” If the assumptions are subjective, as they are in carbon taxes, then they are not scientific facts.
As I’ve pointed out, “carbon pricing models are as much political constructs as they are economic tools.” One must also ask whether carbon taxes will remain unchanged or gradually increase over time to advance other political agendas. In this proposal, the answer is that it increases over time.
Additionally, since these models are driven by assumptions, one would be right in asking who gets to impose these taxes? Of course, those would be the unelected bureaucrats at the IMO.
No American who would be subject to these taxes ever voted for the people attempting to create the “world’s first global carbon tax.” It brings to mind the phrase “no taxation without representation.”
In an ironic twist, imposing carbon taxes on global shipping might actually be one of the worst ways to slash emissions, given the enormous gains from trade.
Simply put, trade makes the world grow rich. Not just wealthy nations like those in the West, but every nation, even the most poor, grows richer.
In wealthy countries, trade can help address climate change by enabling adaptation and innovation. For poorer countries, material gains from trade can help prevent their populations from starving and also help them advance along the environmental Kuznets curve.
[A]s of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.
In other words, the advantages of trade can, over time, make a country go from being so poor that a high level of air pollution is necessary for its survival to being rich enough to afford reducing or eliminating pollution.
Carbon taxes, if sufficiently high, can prevent or significantly delay these processes, thereby undermining their supposed purpose. Not to mention, as of today, maritime shipping accounts for only about 3% of total global emissions.
The same ingenuity that brought us modern shipping will continue to power the global economy and fund growth and innovation, if we let it.
The world does not need a layer of global bureaucracy for the sake of virtue signaling. What it needs is an understanding of both economics and human progress.
History shows that prosperity, innovation, and free trade are what make societies cleaner, healthier, and richer.
Our choice is not between saving the planet and saving the economy; it is between free societies and free markets or surrendering responsibility to unelected international regulators and busybodies.
The former has lifted billions out of poverty, and the latter threatens to drag us all backwards.
Top photo by Michael on Unsplash
Read more at Daily Caller
A carbon tax at the social cost of carbon is indeed the best solution.
What are the social cost of carbon (or more accurately carbon dioxide)? All I can see is a social benefit to additional CO2 as seen in the greening of the globe and increased yields of crops. Where’s the cost?