The discussion about Air Passenger Duty (APD) paid by airline customers to the UK Exchequer does not mention an additional tax paid by airlines.
The UN’s Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation (CORSIA) measures current aircraft emissions yet it is intended to mitigate the harms purportedly caused by historical carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted during industrialization.
The suggested harms include chronic economic under-development and global warming, despite rising CO2 levels lagging behind temperature increases by 800 years.
CORSIA is a ‘global-market-based measure’ (GMBM) under which airlines are mandated to purchase units of offsets in the ‘carbon marketplace’.
The offset monies, minus transaction costs, are applied to UN environmental projects in mainly developing countries. By definition, these include China, India, and the Russian Federation.
Unless exempt, participation is required by airlines whose states have committed them to CORSIA.
In 2001 and 2008, the UN rejected global tax proposals because it acknowledged it lacked tax-raising powers.
Disingenuously, CORSIA is not considered to be a tax since funds do not pass directly to a government and furthermore, as a GMBM, it circumvents the UN’s tax-raising restrictions.
However, irrespective of the governing body or the route the offsets take, compulsory removal of revenues is taxation.
CORSIA is therefore the UN’s first global market-based tax (GMBT) applied to offset unspecified harms which apparently occurred before aviation was a viable industry.
It appears that sovereign nations have surrendered tax-raising powers to the supranational UN, enabling it to direct funds without a referendum.
Claims that historical CO2 emissions are the cause of economic underdevelopment are unevidenced. Even the UN is unsure whether atmospheric CO2 stays for one, 100, or even 1,000 years.
Aviation is barely 100 years old and yet it is being asked to make reparations for generalized, historical harms often demonstrably caused by corruption and misgovernment in the developing nations and the UN itself.
Furthermore, there are no guarantees that the offset monies will match any harms because many projects (such as forests) lack measurable offsetting metrics (eg no one knows how long a tree takes to absorb offset CO2 and it could die before the purported harms are offset).
The UN plans to stretch GMBMs to include emissions from shipping and information technology and communications.
They too will provide reparations for unspecified historical harms. GMBMs could eventually affect current international competitiveness and possibly enable the UN to obtain a level of independent funding.
In summary: the UN is taxing current aviation emissions to offset unidentified harms which might not have resulted from disputed historical causes.
Read rest at Conservative Woman
Maybe its time to make the UN start paying their rent for that whole place make the various World Leaders pay from their own Bank Accounts and Pockets
Next for the United Nations – their own military force – some form of “Foreign Legion”, owing loyalty only to the UN.
This organization was formed to prevent wars …..
The goal of using climate change to justify transferring money to undeveloped nations has been around for a long time. (Can someone explain why China and the Russian Federation are undeveloped nations?) The theory is that the industrial nations have caused harm by our emission and should pay reparations. This harm is said to be from the increased number and severity of extreme weather events. Yet, the UN and others are saying that these are not increasing. So the UN is collecting taxes to compensate for an increase in severe events that it says isn’t happening. The goal has always been to redistribute wealth and claiming that this is to make up for past harm is just a lame excuse.
Considering Biden’s nature I wouldn’t be surprised if he agreed to expand the UN tax to US domestic flights and Internet service.
When Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Treaty many in Europe explained the action by Canada not having a colonial past. This was a mystery to me. What in the world did having a colonial past have to do with global warming? With additional reading I learned that many of the liberals in Europe felt guilty about their past colonization and want to compensate the nations that were former colonies. However, even in Europe that couldn’t make it through the various legislature bodies. When global warming came along, that provided a means to transfer wealth to other nations. The liberals in Europe could understand Canada not going along because they had no colonial past. This is an example of an agenda hitchhiking on the climate change movement that can not make it on its own merit. Remember, Christiana Figueres, former head of the IPCC said, the purpose of climate change is to transfer wealth from the industrial nations to the developing nations.
Time to evict the UN from America and revoke all those World Herratage Sites and Bio-Sphere reserves here in America