For all the caterwauling about Trump’s tariffs being a tax (they’d go away if other nations would play fair), a tax on shipping will definitely hit the middle and working classes hard, just like all the climate taxes
U.S. threatens global shipping over new carbon tax
Calling it a “European-led neocolonial export of global climate regulations,” the Trump administration has threatened new measures against nations that vote for mandatory greenhouse gas (GHG) limits on international shipping and establishes a pricing system for emissions.
Shipping nations are gathering this week in London to vote on the Net-Zero Framework developed by the International Maritime Organization.
“President Trump has made it clear that the United States will not accept any international environmental agreement that unduly or unfairly burdens the United States or harms the interests of the American people,” the State Department said in a release. “This will be the first time that a United Nations organization levies a global carbon tax on the world.”
Under the plan, vessel operators will be required to report GHG levels annually; those vessels exceeding emissions limits will pay fees based on their excess emissions, while those using cleaner fuels will receive incentives.
Ocean carriers for years have been pro-active in reducing harmful emissions; the largest ships account for 85% of the sector’s GHG total. About 41% of container ships on order are designed to operate with alternative fuels such as liquefied natural gas or ammonia – more than half the tonnage of container ships on order.
The cult is always looking for new ways to raise scam money
“??The Administration unequivocally rejects this proposal before the International Maritime Organization 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. We ask you to join us in rejecting adoption of the NZF at the October meeting and to work together on our collective economic and energy security.”
The US has stated that there are many ways they will retaliate, including Blocking vessels from U.S. ports, Visa restrictions for vessel crews, and more, available at the article.
You know who this tax will benefit? China. They’ll continue dumping products at low prices, while Europe and other nations will get swatted down.
OMG another tax ! Has Mr Teach bothered to even TRY to estimate the increase in cost to consumers ?
Rule of thumb is 1 container of 40000 pounds costs about $4000 to ocean ship
That is 10 cents per pound. And half of that at least is port charges at both ends loading unloading. The cost for the ship is 5 cents with half of it going to fuel. How much more will your 1000 dollar sound bar weighing #@100: cost ? An additional $5 or less if the fuel tax was doubled
Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine ???? OMG NUCLEAR WAR WARNING
Mr smith² seems to not be afraid of the specter of nuclear war. No sane person wants to increase the threat of nuclear war.
Mr Dana proposes that nuclear powers, e.g., Pakistan, Russia, U.S., China, France, U.K., etc be permitted to do as they please.
Big Donnie should be able to blow up boats in the Caribbean or even annex Greenland and Canada!
Might makes Right!
How to push President Trump’s attempts to increase American industrial production by putting tariffs on foreign imports! We won’t need the tariffs if the cultists manage to impose carbon taxes on shipping.
Dana the carbon tax on sea cargo would be very insignificant. The cost of sea cargo is about 10cents per pound but at least half are the port loading unloading charges the actual fuel tax carbon charge would be taxing the 1 cent per pound that goes to fuel.suck it up!
Also Dana you have fired hunting rifles. Does the Wound that killed Charlie Kirk look like it came from a 40.06 to you? A 40.06 has twice the energy that a 223 round has
Sorry typo
30.06
The Tragedy of the Commons!!
We humans have never been good at managing the negative externalitives associated with economic transactions.
Two approaches are used: 1) direct regulation – we make dumping wastes illegal, or require emission standards and catalytic converters or 2) market approaches – tariffs or taxes to discourage the negative activities.
Businesses hate both approaches: it’s easier and cheaper to dump effluvium into the Mississippi. But that’s a tragedy for the commoners.
So, tariffs to reduce pollution are bad, but tariffs to reduce foreign imports are good?
And all because MAGAts don’t understand the dangers of pollution. That’s the scam.
Since no one seems to understand, please explain how tariffs reduce pollution, Rimjob DDT-TDS.
Go on, we’ll wait.