U.S. Torpedoes Global Shipping Carbon Tax After Sanctions Threat
Globalist climate cultists and green-grifters hardest hit as Trump Team forces 1-year delay on maritime carbon tax vote.
Back in August, I reported that the International Maritime Organization (IMO), a United Nations agency, had drafted the Net‑Zero Framework to align the global shipping industry with a 2050 net‑zero emissions target.
The IMO finalized the draft in April 2025. Its proposed system resembles a cap‑and‑trade model, with carbon charges between $100 and $380 per metric ton on emissions of the life-essential gas carbon dioxide (CO₂). This had the potential to generate $10–12 billion annually for a UN‑administered “green transition grift” fund.
This summer, the U.S. robustly rejected these plans.
The United States will not accept any environmental agreement that harms the interests of the American people. The International Maritime Organization’s proposal for a “Net-Zero Framework” is a tax on Americans levied by an unaccountable UN organization. @SecDuffy,…
— Secretary Marco Rubio (@SecRubio) August 12, 2025
Still, the globalist grifters persisted and had planned to take a vote this week to formalize the rules and begin confiscating the dirty carbon dollars for global bureaucrats.
However, President Donald Trump’s band of economic and trade warriors have prevailed for the time being and the IMO has voted to delay for one year a decision on implementing a global maritime climate tax.
A majority of countries at the U.N. shipping agency voted on Friday to postpone by a year a decision on a global carbon price on international shipping, after failing to reach consensus on the emissions reduction measure amid U.S. pressure.
The delay is a blow to the European Union and other countries including Brazil which have been pushing for the shipping industry to go greener and set out a price mechanism for decarbonisation.
Washington and Riyadh, the world’s two largest oil producers, have strongly opposed a carbon price on shipping during talks in London at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).
After days of disagreements, Saudi Arabia tabled a motion on Friday to defer discussions for one year, which was passed by a simple majority of 57 countries with 49 opposed who sought to continue with a deal.
The decision came after President Donald Trump calling this proposal a “scam tax” and and threatened reprisals on countries supporting it.
Trump didn’t get a No vote on the IMO’s Net Zero Framework BUT did get the IMO to postpone for one-year.
“IMO net-zero shipping talks to resume in 2026. IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee votes to adjourn discussions on the Net-Zero Framework for one year.”… https://t.co/j6Thvf1OpB
— Dan Tsubouchi (@Energy_Tidbits) October 17, 2025
This is a huge win for the Trump Team, the U.S., and nations who appreciate functional trade networks and affordable prices for their citizens.
U.S. Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz tweeted: “This is another HUGE win for @POTUS. Thanks to his leadership, the United States prevented a massive UN tax hike on American consumers that would have funded progressive climate pet projects. Our country will continue to lead the way and put America FIRST.”
Secretary of State Marc Rubio echoed the same message, calling it “another HUGE win” and thanking the president’s leadership for preventing what he characterized as “a massive UN tax hike on American consumers.”
This pause will push the adoption vote to the next session in October 2026, and it could risk the deal not coming into force until 2030, even if adopted in a year’s time.
Come on guys… tell the truth. Your NGO backers tried to replace that USAID money @MikeBenzCyber killed with a massive “climate” slush fund and Trump body slammed you.
It’s ok to be honest. https://t.co/qPEgbCLr7k
— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) October 17, 2025
Globalist climate cultists and green-grifters are hardest hit.
The World Shipping Council called it a “carefully balanced regulatory package.” Another industry lobby, the International Chamber of Shipping, backed the measure too. “We are disappointed that member states have not been able to agree a way forward at this meeting,” Thomas A. Kazakos, the International Chamber’s Secretary General said in a statement Friday after the vote. “Industry needs clarity to be able to make the investments needed to decarbonise the maritime sector.”
Ralph Regenvanu, the climate minister of Vanuatu, a small Pacific island nation among the world’s most vulnerable to sea level rise, called it “unacceptable given the urgency we face in light of accelerating climate change.”
The importance of this halt can’t be over-stated. The bureaucrats didn’t expect it, and I assert that after another year of more reliable science that is actually published, more social media of sharing more rational new reports confirming that there is no climate crisis, and continued efforts by the Trump Team to protect our national interests. this deal will die completely at the next vote.
🚨BREAKING: TRUMP DOES IT AGAIN. WE WON 🇺🇸
White House negotiators and Ambassador @michaelgwaltz just forced IMO to delay the global UN CARBON TAX vote by a full year. https://t.co/godlg8DUIf
— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) October 17, 2025
Absolutely none of the maritime experts I interviewed early this week thought the US could pull this off. Zero. Massive amounts of money, NGO influence, diplomatic threat and media manipulation were behind this… and the American media (except
@gCaptain and Fox News) was dead silent.And yet Trump did it.
“That Trump Truth Social post sent shockwaves through the building,” one UN delegate in London told me. “NOBODY expected it. The Secretary General @IMOSecGen looked like a deer in the headlights this morning.”
I can’t share the details on how @michaelgwaltz & @SecRubio have, in just a few days, organized the greatest opposition to UN policy since the Cold War and blocked this UN Carbon Tax.
I can say it was a knife fight to the end.
“I’ve been in this industry for 30 years and I’ve… https://t.co/nOpG203K7Y
— John Ʌ Konrad V (@johnkonrad) October 17, 2025
It’s beginning to dawn on many people that this framework was a move for the United Nations to collect taxes on a global scale.
Even the climate hoax-loving @TheTimes slams the UK PM for signing up for the UN climate tax:
"The question is: when exactly did the populations of UN member states authorise this widely-derided international body to become a tax collector? The answer, of course, is never. This… pic.twitter.com/b9pQYkU17b
— Steve Milloy (@JunkScience) October 17, 2025
This halt is one small win for the U.S., and one large win for humanity.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
The carbon tax is unnecessary. If it becomes necessary to end carbon emissions and pollution from shipping without ridiculous financial manipulation, modernize boats to use nuclear power.
I wonder if the Savannah is still around? A nuclear powered non-military demonstration-of-concept built way back in the late 50s or very early 60s.
And, the ship at the head of the article looks interesting; what is it?
Looks like the HMS ChatGPT.
Looks like a large Ferry to me.
It does, kinda.
The best time to withdraw from U.N. was 50 years ago.
The second best time is right now.
The issue is not that the US is in the UN. The issue is that the US *has no ships* so if other nations decide to tax anything that goes on their boats, we will get hammered by it.
Are we still a member? Why?
Because if the US wasn’t a member then shit like this would get passed!!
Someone need to follow the money and publish the spider web of bribes and bought influence if that hasn’t already been done.
After twelve utterly wretched years of sundry “climate change” and “green”/environmental hustlers, grifters and extortionists stealing from American citizens and businesses, with the overt approval and encouragement of vile, narcissist-incompetent-dunce, Obama, and, crime boss/dotard, Biden, it feels like a welcome change to have a president in the White House and an Administration that is staunchly committed to defending U.S. economic sovereignty and interests.
It is also time to eject the UN HQ and all their minions from US soil. Although they will be heartbroken as I am sure that they were looking forward to living in an area ruled by Mamdani.
Subotai Bahadur
The rest of the world seems to be slowly coming to acknowledge that, for the moment at least, the USA isn’t allowing the coalition of US hating watermelon (green on the outside, red to the core) NGO or lilliputian nations to dictate US Policy.
2-3 years ago Washington state implemented a payroll tax for long term care insurance. Its just a money grab and if you work your entire life in Wa and then move when you retire- you forfeit any ability to claim it.
Well guess what… the legislature now wants to “invest” the money as they see fit. Like the state legislature should really be stock picking right? Well we all know it will be MUCH worse. The money will be invested into the “friends of the Democrats” businesses. I mean in no way, shape or form does this pass the smell test of anything other than a fund enrich Dem donors. Yet the voters had the chance to repeal the tax and didn’t.
I am in disbelief a populace can be this stupid.
Carbon tax has been another grand scam to line pockets and to transfer unearned wealth to the dredges of humanity. Stopping this attempt is not enough, we should also defund every country involved in the effort.
We need to refuse to pay this if it ever comes to pass. The biggest offender (China) will not pay it and that makes it punitive just to those that would follow these rules. It’s a grift anyways.
Who is this “we” who need to refuse to pay it? As far as I know neither of us, nor anyone here, is a shipping company, so we wouldn’t be expected to pay it.
The UN does not have any right whatsoever to tax members nations on any issue period! Member nations can agree to things via treaty but that’s it. Trump was right to shoot this down, it wasn’t just a grift it was a power grab as well.
It wasn’t planning to tax member nations. As far as I can make out, these carbon regulations were to be added to the MARPOL treaty, to which just about every shipping nation is a member. There was no “tax” as such; there were carbon emission targets, and ships that failed to reach those targets would buy credits, either from a ship with excess credits, or directly from a IMO-run fund.
What I haven’t been able to find any information on is, who was going to be enforcing and collecting these payments. If it was to be the country of registration then the USA could simply refuse to charge it. So that must not be it.
If this is simply modifying a treaty to which we are a signatory then that needs to be made more clear by those raising concerns. I would still be opposed to it regardless because those monetary fines per metric ton are absurd and would dramatically raise the price of goods across the board as there is practically nothing not affected by the price of international shipping, even if it’s only an indirect influence. That it’s a treaty though would make things more difficult to prevent if it were to pass because Trump would need Congress to support pulling out of that IIRC.
No, he wouldn’t need Congress’s support to abrogate the treaty.
But he wouldn’t have to abrogate or withdraw. He could simply refuse to enforce these fees, and dare the IMO to do anything about it.
Two questions need to be asked before even thinking about this tax:
1. Will the US taxpayer have a proportional influence on where this tax is spent?
2. Will this spending affect the supposed problem it is supposed to fix?
When either or both questions are answered “No” there is no reason for us to support the scam. Because it’s a scam.